Reviews with content warning for Child abuse - Into the Drowning Deep

Reviews tagging 'Child abuse'

Into the Drowning Deep by Mira Grant

5 reviews

itsheyfay's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional funny informative mysterious sad tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated

3.75

Content Warnings

tahsintries's review

Go to review page

5.0

Content Warnings

kingcrookback's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

I can't quite put my finger on exactly why, but even though the story felt pretty decidedly medium-paced, this book felt long. Maybe it's the amount of exposition and introspection that's included. It's kind of an odd feeling, especially since I feel like this story could be pretty neatly (and entertainingly) encapsulated within the time constraints of a feature-length film.

First, the positives. With all the exposition, the premise feels sufficiently grounded in modern-day science and technology, even though this is very clearly science fiction. (Warning, though: if you have any climate anxiety, this book might exacerbate that.) Grant's pretty good at building tension, especially via dramatic irony. While the story is generally told in third person limited POV, sometimes the perspective will "zoom out" at the end of a passage and you'll get a glimpse just outside of the characters' perspectives. It feels very cinematic. I also appreciated that Grant wrote ethnic, queer, and disabled diversity directly into the story--and my appreciation for this is twofold. On the one hand, as a woman of color, I liked that some of the diversity had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. People in real life aren't non-white/queer for "a reason," and for too long creators have hidden behind narrative relevance as an excuse for not being diverse in their depictions. And on the other hand, as a disabled person, I also enjoyed that some of that diversity served a narrative function.

...however. There are some things about this book that I didn't enjoy, the pacing being one of them. The semi-epistolary introductions for each of the "acts" of the novel were interesting...for maybe the first half. After that, they didn't have much of an impact. I didn't feel a connection to any of the characters--which is not to say that I didn't like them. I just didn't care enough about them to form any feelings for them either way. (Except for Jacques Abney. His self-aggrandizing internal dialogue grated on my nerves. Points to Grant for that one, I guess.)

There were also some scenes/character actions that strained my credulity to the point of annoyance. I don't mean the suspension of disbelief necessary that allowed me to buy into the story's basic premise: sirens in the Mariana Trench; that part's fine. But some of the characters' internal dialogues and interactions just struck me as kind of weird. For example, sure, conventionally attractive people are generally aware that they're conventionally attractive and that there are both privileges and expectations associated with that, especially if they're women. It signals a sense of both self-awareness and social wariness for a character to be aware of that--but it felt so weird for characters to think and say it so explicitly and in such a blasé way. It doesn't hit the ear as natural-sounding dialogue or natural-feeling social interaction. Some of the minor characters' logic is also completely opaque to me. Specifically,

when Daryl, the younger engineer, somehow came to the conclusion that the sirens had "someone on the inside" helping them with the hunt/slaughter. Try as I might, I can't fathom what path of logic would have led him to that assumption. Even hysterical panic, which he did not seem to be in, doesn't explain it, in my opinion.

This is one of the few books I'm actually giving a star rating, and that's because I didn't really enjoy it all that much. With most of my other reads, while I can detect their flaws, I can usually find some kind of value in them (ex: it speaks to the times, the social climate, etc.). The flaws in this book just got on my nerves.

Content Warnings

talonsontypewriters's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

2.0

Very few things in books have made me as irritated as this exchange (edited slightly for brevity):

"If they have a language -- not just one language, but two languages, one spoken and one not -- and if the complexity of their spoken language is anything like the complexity of their singing, they must be sentient."
"Cats meow and know what they're saying. Birds sing. That doesn't make them smart."
"There's a lot of difference between a song that basically says, 'Hey, come fuck me' over and over again and a distinct, signed language."

Let's unpack some of this!

1) Sentience =/= (human-like) intelligence. Most animals are recognized as sentient beings; this is the entire point of animal welfare.
2) There are some debates around applying labels of intelligence to animals, but since it seems mostly accepted in this setting that animals (like dolphins) are capable of intelligence, it is very widely studied and accepted, even beyond deeply scientific spheres (thus not even really justifying the character without a background in science expressing this view), that birds* possess some level of quantifiable intelligence.
3) If it is specifically on the basis of "distinct language"**, many bird species do in fact use this, and not just for mating calls! Even if you look beyond stereotypically smart corvids and parrots, who are famously capable of mimicking human speech, plenty of birds have complex call/song systems to indicate danger (for instance, chickadees have varying calls depending on the exact predator they've spotted) and other purposes.

* I'm ignoring cats as an example because I don't know enough to counter that, but I'm sure saying they're not smart is not true either.
** This seems weird in and of itself when most animal intelligence surveys focus on memory, reasoning, learning ability, tool use, etc, but communication can be studied as a signifier of intelligence so I won't nitpick it as hard.

The lack of cursory research in this very basic area -- not to mention frequent references to "us," implying modern primates, "leaving/coming from the sea," with continuous implications that such an exit was because of a humanoid competitor, which just shows a poor understanding of evolution all around (especially when the character saying it has multiple biology degrees), and some other nitpicks (like forgetting the existence of lungfish) -- stripped any interest I otherwise would have had in various other scientific tangents, since I was no longer confident enough in the author's knowledge to trust her descriptions. The hard sci-fi angle feels (if you'll excuse the slight pun) shallow, with the author seemingly wanting to skate by on an introductory biology course and artistic license. To be fair, with speculative fiction some suspension of disbelief is always required -- but if your setting is an explicitly realistic, grounded one filled with ostensibly intelligent, educated scientists, of course I'm going to expect super simple scientific facts to be portrayed accurately.

Though that bit and others alone certainly soured my reading experience, I had a multitude of other problems, to the point where I waffled for a while between 1 and 2 stars for my rating. Ultimately, I suppose I can see where others might enjoy the novel, so I left it at the latter, but it's certainly not a higher-leaning 2 as other books might have been for me.

First and foremost: The writing. Listen, I will cop to the fact that I'm a pretentious person whose writing is reasonably pretentious, but there is a natural level of pretentiousness and then a tryhard one. This is the latter. It, in line with its confidently spoken but dubiously accurate scientific tangents, tries so hard to be smart and unique that it wraps back around into being insufferable to read. More than a few lines seem to be written just to be quotable and poetic, since in context they're jarringly out of place -- notably, one description of a bulge in a character's pocket as, instead of just belonging to the gun he has on him, "[speaking] of gunfire and violence." The dialogue in particular is stilted and weird and very far from natural human speech, which is kind of ironic considering how crucial a theme communication is. In general, the purple prose Grant weaves is, while superficially elegant, against the purpose of the novel: A thriller fundamentally does not work when there's enough breathing room to drag out extensive descriptions and work in paragraphs of background information and introspection on the characters and their lines of work.

As for those characters, I found them painfully uninteresting and difficult to connect to. Stories like this, where anyone can, at least in theory, die, require that kind of investment -- a character death is, to me, meaningless if it provokes no particular emotion. Character backstories are fleshed out to an almost unnecessary degree, and yet I couldn't tell you who most of the characters were as people, what their interests (beyond, in many cases, science) were, what their defining personality traits were. Characterization depends more on what the story needs than what actually fits the character's personality or feels like something an actual human would do, resulting in a lot of questionable and outright idiotic decisions. Some secondary characters are only introduced after the 70% mark, and others only shortly before then, when the action requires their existence. Other characters disappear for chapters on end or full stop, their final fate a mystery. Nothing is done to distinguish different characters' narration (which is presented in third-person omniscient already, another strike against attempted suspense) or dialogue; if you struck names and some descriptions from the dolphins' brief perspective, it would blend in seamlessly with every other PoV.

It's also difficult to react to character deaths when none of the in-universe reactions are especially strong. An exploration of different expressions of grief -- and the complications that would lead to when action was necessitated -- could have fit in really neatly and not disrupted too badly from the plot, but emotional beats are given very little time to linger before pushing onto the next sequence, leading to weird moments that don't fit into the current stakes or tone at all. One could argue that few characters are given the time to process matters and react appropriately, and of course there's no one right way to respond to bereavement, but when the reactions are lackluster all across the board -- with one or two notable exceptions -- that doesn't hold up as well. Deceased characters are also rarely acknowledged after the fact, with even Tory's sister, whose pre-novel death drives her motivation, only coming up in critical moments.

The pacing, in general, was pretty poor. At least 40% of the novel could have been trimmed out to its benefit -- it takes a while for the plot to really kick in, and then it drags on for a long time only to rush into its ending. Some character/setting details don't come up until they're absolutely necessary, leading to a couple of deus ex machina moments rather than more reasonable foreshadowing. The final major reveal comes across as contrived at best, and an ass-pull contradictory to former established facts at worst, with some prior sprinklings of hints but nothing strong enough to really justify it as a proper conclusion, and things wrap up without properly resolving either the plot as a whole or any characters' lives.

Some character dynamics were interesting -- Jillian and Theo's, for instance, as well as Tory and Luis's friendship, and as unlikable as both individuals were there was a certain intrigue to Jacques and Michi's relationship -- but the forced romantic subplot was not one of them. The first two interactions between Tory and Olivia have them on hostile terms; after starting to resolve their differences, their very next interaction establishes infatuation with no lead-in or room to develop. Their relationship itself forms awkwardly and under odd circumstances, and how underdeveloped they both are as characters eroded any potential for chemistry.

As for the actual plot, it was fine -- a bit too close to a corny Syfy movie in some places, but I did like the basic ideas and some developments as well as the multimedia format used in between parts (however grating some of the actual content thereof was). Even if it was handled poorly, I liked the basic gist of the ultimate twist, and in general felt like the sirens -- the very central point of the novel -- were relegated to mere plot elements and not truly explored in as great detail as they could have been.

On the representation side of things: The three major characters of color, I felt, were depicted awkwardly at best. Whiteness is, overall, presented as the default in character descriptions, with characters of color quickly established as such but white characters pretty much never specified to be so. Furthermore, any cultural connection is stripped down to centuries-long whaling in Michi's family -- referenced as dubious motivation for her being a big game hunter who kills for the (sometimes explicitly sexual) thrill, things that go completely against traditional Japanese whaling values; historical whaling practices are not equivalent to the modern commercialized form thereof -- and Jillian's connection to the sea and appearance. Luis's Mexican heritage is only mentioned once or twice. Another major character has a Hebrew middle name, as revealed in one scene, but her religion/ethnicity are never really established outside of that. Though the setting isn't necessarily one that allows for extensive exploration of character backgrounds and habits, that doesn't seem to matter anywhere else, so some effort to acknowledge upbringing and language, if nothing else, could have at least been extended.

I found the disabled/neurodivergent representation more palatable, although I have my issues with it as well. While the basic mechanics of Theo's chronic illness and the Wilson twins' deafness are portrayed decently enough, at least the latter two and their older sister's characterizations seem to revolve around being d/Deaf, and around the hardships thereof by extension. Olivia being autistic, while adequately coded throughout (if a bit constrained to social difficulties and overlooking other traits), is also only explicitly mentioned when ableism faced from her parents is mentioned. Portraying ableism experienced, as well as difficulties of navigating an inherently inaccessible society, is obviously an important part of portraying disabled characters, but it can drag a bit to see disabled characters almost exclusively experiencing trauma and adversity. Speaking as an autistic and physically disabled person -- yes, being disabled is hard! Experiencing ableism is hard! But disabled lives are not composed entirely of strife and pain, and seeing some joy to offset the largely negative experiences would have helped a lot.
I was a bit uncomfortable with the descriptions of Holly's voice as well, which came across as varyingly infantilizing and dehumanizing, but I'm not d/Deaf/HoH so YMMV on that.

All in all, there are some strong ideas at play in Into the Drowning Deep, but unfortunately, in my eyes it fails as both science fiction and horror, with its many flaws detracting majorly from what positives it does have going for it.

Content Warnings

sexytinatrainconductress's review

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

5.0

Content Warnings

More...