Scan barcode
18soft_green's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
It should first be stated that Sutherland is a great writer. She is good at pacing, characterization, plotting, and wording. She's pretty good at dialogue and writing emotions. She is one of the few authors who I think can write interesting, lovable feminine characters. Very rarely am I actively interested in feminine characters just for their personalities and not the overall plot.
The mystery in this story was good. Who was out killing witches and stealing their demon tattoos? I was curious. The characters of this story were also good. Emer is my favorite character, with how very Eldredge she is. Zara is interesting to me with how her practicality clashes with her separation. Jude is not interesting to me. And neither was the sexual/romantic side plot between her and Erer.
What bothers me about this book is how shallow it is and exclusive its message is. I love a rage story. I love when characters get ugly and break shit and go mad, almost nothing makes me as excited as a deranged character going apeshit. I love revenge stories! Sutherland has an obvious weakness that seems to have only grown from her last book into this one.
Sutherland writes for white girls and women and them exclusively. It's not just that they are her audience, they are the only important characters in her books. Everyone else in her books either don't exist or are bad. In the House of Hollow, there was only one person of color and she killed them. In this book the only important characters that aren't white women are men and they are the bad guys. Sutherland tethers herself to the queer community by making her characters queer but then doesn't acknowledge queer men or nonbinary people. Her message is very gender essentialist but she doesn't even include those that challenge the gender norms the most in her story. The farthest she went was lesbians and clearly stated that trans women should be included but then didn't include them. Because, unfortunately, if she had included the rest of the queer community then her whole story would fall apart in several different ways.
This story relies on the idea that men are evil and weak and bad for women. Men are harmful to women one way or another, they are predatory and selfish, and all men want to devour women. The story stresses more that men = bad than women = good. If Sutherland were to include queer men and nonbinary people she would have been forced to ask if the evil of men lay in their gender and acknowledge that men do not = bad. For some reason finding the actual root of the problem of violence against women was too complex for her. The story demands that the reader care about that women are abused in this culture several times and at one point passively admits that men are under patriarchy and that makes them the way they are, but the rest of the story shows men harming but blames these men individually. The story doesn't explain why women aren't bad, it just states over and over again that women are victims of male violence and apparently that makes them not capable of true evil. Meanwhile, it can be assumed that boys and men will inevitably do some injustice because they are boys and men. This steals all men and boys of agency and brinks on the argument that it is not what you do but who you are that is evil. This argument is used against all queer people. Our crime isn't that we are trans or differ in sexuality but that we exist. If we cannot change what defines us then we shouldn't live because we are abominations.
Sutherland can't include people of color in stories like this one because European gender stereotypes have defined people of color's gender differently than they did their own. And people of color have always suffered more under Western rule than white women have. To include them would require Sutherland to be more nuanced in her gender-essentialist story and acknowledge that other people suffer. She could have included women of color but that would require her to challenge colonization and capitalism as well as patriarchy and that would threaten white women's privilege and how highly valued they are among the demographics.
To be clear, white women do suffer under patriarchy. But so do white men. And nonbinary people suffer more than both. Queer men suffer more than cis het white women. Even more than most white lesbians. White women have always been the most protected demographic, this protection was what disabled women in modern societies. White women do have reason to be angry for their own suffering but white women's biggest struggle isn't physical or sexual violence, it's the belief that they are in constant danger of being assaulted that makes them so powerless. Queer people are women of color and especially queer women of color are physically and sexually assaulted much more than white women are and it isn't talked about nearly as much as white women's stats are. As long as white women believe as they do that they are each in constant danger they will uphold the current social hierarchy and thus continue to be just as powerless as they are now.
As for witches: The European witch hunts were horrific. Those who were burned alive, drowned, and stoned to death were just people who acted a little differently than the rest of their communities. They weren't at all medically trained, they were not scientist seeking knowledge, they were widows, disabled people, and older women with no prospects. The "witches" that were killed during the American and European witch killings were those with less power than those around them. The witches of the past were not independent women, they were women that relied on their community to survive. The symbolism that witchery has taken recently can be inspiring but the history of it is tragic. Women have always suffered because of systemic patriarchy, not because men are evil. The system requires women to fear and hate men. It isn't until you see that men are victims just as you are and see them as potential allies against the system that you will truly disrupt it. Patriarchy wants you to separate yourself from the other genders because you are weaker without them.
The mystery in this story was good. Who was out killing witches and stealing their demon tattoos? I was curious. The characters of this story were also good. Emer is my favorite character, with how very Eldredge she is. Zara is interesting to me with how her practicality clashes with her separation. Jude is not interesting to me. And neither was the sexual/romantic side plot between her and Erer.
What bothers me about this book is how shallow it is and exclusive its message is. I love a rage story. I love when characters get ugly and break shit and go mad, almost nothing makes me as excited as a deranged character going apeshit. I love revenge stories! Sutherland has an obvious weakness that seems to have only grown from her last book into this one.
Sutherland writes for white girls and women and them exclusively. It's not just that they are her audience, they are the only important characters in her books. Everyone else in her books either don't exist or are bad. In the House of Hollow, there was only one person of color and she killed them. In this book the only important characters that aren't white women are men and they are the bad guys. Sutherland tethers herself to the queer community by making her characters queer but then doesn't acknowledge queer men or nonbinary people. Her message is very gender essentialist but she doesn't even include those that challenge the gender norms the most in her story. The farthest she went was lesbians and clearly stated that trans women should be included but then didn't include them. Because, unfortunately, if she had included the rest of the queer community then her whole story would fall apart in several different ways.
This story relies on the idea that men are evil and weak and bad for women. Men are harmful to women one way or another, they are predatory and selfish, and all men want to devour women. The story stresses more that men = bad than women = good. If Sutherland were to include queer men and nonbinary people she would have been forced to ask if the evil of men lay in their gender and acknowledge that men do not = bad. For some reason finding the actual root of the problem of violence against women was too complex for her. The story demands that the reader care about that women are abused in this culture several times and at one point passively admits that men are under patriarchy and that makes them the way they are, but the rest of the story shows men harming but blames these men individually. The story doesn't explain why women aren't bad, it just states over and over again that women are victims of male violence and apparently that makes them not capable of true evil. Meanwhile, it can be assumed that boys and men will inevitably do some injustice because they are boys and men. This steals all men and boys of agency and brinks on the argument that it is not what you do but who you are that is evil. This argument is used against all queer people. Our crime isn't that we are trans or differ in sexuality but that we exist. If we cannot change what defines us then we shouldn't live because we are abominations.
Sutherland can't include people of color in stories like this one because European gender stereotypes have defined people of color's gender differently than they did their own. And people of color have always suffered more under Western rule than white women have. To include them would require Sutherland to be more nuanced in her gender-essentialist story and acknowledge that other people suffer. She could have included women of color but that would require her to challenge colonization and capitalism as well as patriarchy and that would threaten white women's privilege and how highly valued they are among the demographics.
To be clear, white women do suffer under patriarchy. But so do white men. And nonbinary people suffer more than both. Queer men suffer more than cis het white women. Even more than most white lesbians. White women have always been the most protected demographic, this protection was what disabled women in modern societies. White women do have reason to be angry for their own suffering but white women's biggest struggle isn't physical or sexual violence, it's the belief that they are in constant danger of being assaulted that makes them so powerless. Queer people are women of color and especially queer women of color are physically and sexually assaulted much more than white women are and it isn't talked about nearly as much as white women's stats are. As long as white women believe as they do that they are each in constant danger they will uphold the current social hierarchy and thus continue to be just as powerless as they are now.
As for witches: The European witch hunts were horrific. Those who were burned alive, drowned, and stoned to death were just people who acted a little differently than the rest of their communities. They weren't at all medically trained, they were not scientist seeking knowledge, they were widows, disabled people, and older women with no prospects. The "witches" that were killed during the American and European witch killings were those with less power than those around them. The witches of the past were not independent women, they were women that relied on their community to survive. The symbolism that witchery has taken recently can be inspiring but the history of it is tragic. Women have always suffered because of systemic patriarchy, not because men are evil. The system requires women to fear and hate men. It isn't until you see that men are victims just as you are and see them as potential allies against the system that you will truly disrupt it. Patriarchy wants you to separate yourself from the other genders because you are weaker without them.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Gore, Domestic abuse, Injury/Injury detail, Misogyny, Hate crime, Death, Grief, Body horror, and Sexual harassment
Moderate: Classism, Antisemitism, Vomit, Domestic abuse, Rape, Self harm, Toxic relationship, Medical content, Drug use, and Child abuse
Minor: Bullying, Child death, Pandemic/Epidemic, Mental illness, Stalking, Lesbophobia, and Religious bigotry
More...