Scan barcode
stefhyena's review
2.0
I didn't like it at all but I have respect for the author's ability and power to write and I would like to see what else she has written. I am not sure if that makes sense or if I am a masochistic reader.
The book is about toxic, addicted relationships that are cemented by exclusion and mockery of others and are strictly hierarchical. The high school clique becomes close to being a cult (albeit a nihilistc cult) with all the socialised behaviours you read about being found in cults (apart from the cult leader being female and noone having any babies).
I have spent most of my life with misfits and deviants (what does that say about me) one way or another and so I related to much of what the author portrayed but I felt it was a very one-sided view. The tragedy in the book was made inevitable by the two-dimentsional meanness and emptiness of literally EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in the book. For no real reason, none of "the quakers" (a name I didn't really like for them) had strong relationships with their families. The families were portrayed as absent in a sort of self-interested individualistic way that seemed more related to Narinda's narcissm than to any anchor in reality. Narinda is the centre of the plot for Lucy of course and for her dysfunctional harem but she seems to be overly central for the author and implied reader too- her self-obsessive hatred defining all the characters in the story as greater or lesser reflections of her (James might have been an exception but he remains mysterious and our last view of him claims him back into her orbit after all).
I don't object to the tragedy or the toxcity that fuels it per se, or even the darkness of the book (though it is unenjoyable to read) but to the utter nihilism where NOONE has a redeeming feature or a trace of ethical, spiritual or emotional spark. No humanity in other words. The quakers are monsters and co-created as such by the monsters of the school-yard. Yes this is a relatable half-truth but needs to be put back into perspective as the half-truth it is.
Has Lucy really never been loved by anybody? I can accept that she thinks so but she is portrayed as deeply unloved and unlovable to the core. I don't accept that! I also don't accept that misfits with mental illnesses inevitably eat themselves and/or each other as the book seems to suggest. This is tragedy in the inevitable sense, noone in the story seems to have agency to define themselves differently for a moment or make any ethical decisions. In the school yard when tormenting Anna this seems dark but believable but over 14 years and with all the proven in-house disloyalties??
Another way of putting it is sure Lucy has a strangely toxic attraction (co-dependent need) for Nerinda but what does she get out of it on a material, emotional or spiritual level apart from a deviant status she seems well able to make for herself? She pays a very steep price for something that is so obviously nothing but self-denial! Mostly self-denial has some sort of reward built in, this does not. Her parents are somewhat inept but they are not monstrous enough to merit her lack of agency.
Anyway the book made me think, I suppose about my own lost loves and some toxic times in my own life (and I reject the choice between annihilation and normalcy because I have ended up somewhere else entirely). I liked the recognisably Australian settings but would have preferred a more specific grounding (which state are we in?) though I realise that was not the author's concern (I like place in my quasi-realist books). I needed a touch of light somewhere (even outside of the quakers possibly) for contrast. I felt there were some anachronisms as to the time-setting of the story technology, centrelink, the twin towers attack but maybe my memory is partly at fault.
If you want to read it brace yourself for an unrelenting dark, bleak version of humanity.
The book is about toxic, addicted relationships that are cemented by exclusion and mockery of others and are strictly hierarchical. The high school clique becomes close to being a cult (albeit a nihilistc cult) with all the socialised behaviours you read about being found in cults (apart from the cult leader being female and noone having any babies).
I have spent most of my life with misfits and deviants (what does that say about me) one way or another and so I related to much of what the author portrayed but I felt it was a very one-sided view. The tragedy in the book was made inevitable by the two-dimentsional meanness and emptiness of literally EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in the book. For no real reason, none of "the quakers" (a name I didn't really like for them) had strong relationships with their families. The families were portrayed as absent in a sort of self-interested individualistic way that seemed more related to Narinda's narcissm than to any anchor in reality. Narinda is the centre of the plot for Lucy of course and for her dysfunctional harem but she seems to be overly central for the author and implied reader too- her self-obsessive hatred defining all the characters in the story as greater or lesser reflections of her (James might have been an exception but he remains mysterious and our last view of him claims him back into her orbit after all).
I don't object to the tragedy or the toxcity that fuels it per se, or even the darkness of the book (though it is unenjoyable to read) but to the utter nihilism where NOONE has a redeeming feature or a trace of ethical, spiritual or emotional spark. No humanity in other words. The quakers are monsters and co-created as such by the monsters of the school-yard. Yes this is a relatable half-truth but needs to be put back into perspective as the half-truth it is.
Has Lucy really never been loved by anybody? I can accept that she thinks so but she is portrayed as deeply unloved and unlovable to the core. I don't accept that! I also don't accept that misfits with mental illnesses inevitably eat themselves and/or each other as the book seems to suggest. This is tragedy in the inevitable sense, noone in the story seems to have agency to define themselves differently for a moment or make any ethical decisions. In the school yard when tormenting Anna this seems dark but believable but over 14 years and with all the proven in-house disloyalties??
Another way of putting it is sure Lucy has a strangely toxic attraction (co-dependent need) for Nerinda but what does she get out of it on a material, emotional or spiritual level apart from a deviant status she seems well able to make for herself? She pays a very steep price for something that is so obviously nothing but self-denial! Mostly self-denial has some sort of reward built in, this does not. Her parents are somewhat inept but they are not monstrous enough to merit her lack of agency.
Anyway the book made me think, I suppose about my own lost loves and some toxic times in my own life (and I reject the choice between annihilation and normalcy because I have ended up somewhere else entirely). I liked the recognisably Australian settings but would have preferred a more specific grounding (which state are we in?) though I realise that was not the author's concern (I like place in my quasi-realist books). I needed a touch of light somewhere (even outside of the quakers possibly) for contrast. I felt there were some anachronisms as to the time-setting of the story technology, centrelink, the twin towers attack but maybe my memory is partly at fault.
If you want to read it brace yourself for an unrelenting dark, bleak version of humanity.
More...