Take a photo of a barcode or cover
isobelvm 's review for:
The Nightingale
by Kristin Hannah
"Men tell stories. [...] Women get on with it. For us it was a shadow war. There were no parades for us when it was over, no medals or mentions in history books. We did what we had to during the war, and when it was over, we picked up the pieces and started our lives over."
I've seen a lot of scathing reviews for this book (and some shining ones, don't get me wrong) but as someone with rather a lot of knowledge on WW2, the Maquis and the French Resistance, and feminist literature, I'd like to start mine by debunking some of the issues previous reviewers have taken with this novel.
1. Inconsistencies
How many times have I seen reviewers complain about the sisters' age inconsistencies? Inconsistencies, might I add, which don't exist. I was looking out for them. If you read the text properly, said inconsistencies are actually the passing of time. Other things such as which rooms they're in, the weather, etc. are also non-arguments. They don't exist either. I'd implore some previous reviewers to read the text a tad closer.
2. Fashion
The fashion in this novel is not described in a gratuitous way. Fashion was important in the 40s, even more so than it is now, and the author (generally) gets it right. What they wore at the start of the war vs. the end was accurate, and I believe it was perfectly reasonable to describe the clothing. As critical readers, which a reviewer must be, I'd wonder why some people aren't looking for the symbolism in such descriptions? This is one of many ways Hannah shows as opposed to tells how the war has changed life in France. Something that was once so important has become negligible, something no one really thinks twice about other than for the purpose of keeping warm in freezing winters. I take no issue with it. It was a big part of life at the time.
3. Food
Rationing in occupied Europe was worse than anywhere else. The descriptions of food were accurate and necessary to emphasise why everyone was so desperate, why the atmosphere had become the way it had, and the cruelty of the Nazis. This militaristic and autocratic order cares not for the French people. That's why the descriptions of food.
4. Beauty
Isabelle is allowed to be beautiful and also be brave, strong, intelligent, resilient, so on and so forth. It doesn't take away from any of those latter-mentioned traits, and, where some reviewers argue her beauty is added in order to give her worth, I would argue it's the opposite. How often are beautiful women reduced just to their physical appearance? How often is it the less conventionally beautiful who are more likely to be recognised as all of these commonly-associated-with-masculinity-during-war traits? Isabelle is everything you'd expect of a Resistance fighter and she's beautiful. This empowers her. Women can be brave, strong, resilient, and clever and still be feminine. I believe my point about her beauty working against her worth as opposed to providing it is proven in how reviewers have taken issue with it. Also, a lot of Allied spies and Resistance fighters were beautiful women - they really did, just like Hannah wrote, use their beauty against the Nazis. Because it worked. This is factual and cannot be argued.
5. Love Story
I was cautious about reading this novel because I read a review that said it used WW2 as a backdrop to a love story. I didn't see any of that in here. There is a love story, yes, but it isn't in the foreground at all. These women are everything they need to be all on their own, and they are allowed to find love as well. Again, women can be feminine and still be strong. They can fight for the Resistance and be war heroes and still find love. These things aren't dichotomies.
(I could go on but I'll begin my own review here, I think).
So, I've talked a lot about what other people thought of this novel. As all of those things I said I was in the first paragraph ('someone who knows rather a lot about WW2, the Maquis and the French Resistance, and feminist literature'), what did I think?
I think it's an important book. It doesn't shy away from the horrors of the Nazi regime and it doesn't sugar-coat anything. It was intense, brutal at times, and honest. I wouldn't call it a favourite novel but I'm glad I read it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is riddled with historical inaccuracy. One of the faults I took with it was how it didn’t hold the French government accountable for much of what it was guilty of during the occupation - and the French people, too, at that. France was anti-semitic; the general French populace wouldn’t have been appalled at the German anti-jewish propaganda at all. The French policemen at the Vel’ D’Hiv Roundup were volunteers, they wouldn’t have been forced into it. A lot of antisemitism was introduced by the French Vichy government, too. I think an acknowledgement of all of these points would have contributed towards a much more complex novel about life during the occupation - and, unfortunately, the novel does lack quite a bit of complexity. Also, in 1940, communists wouldn’t have been in the resistance. The Nazi-Soviet Pact would have had them allied with the Germans up until Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
However, Hannah set out to write a novel about the women's war, and that she did. It paints the women in occupied France in all their many shades and colours, listens to their voices closely, and tells their stories with pride. The characters are complex, interesting, and realistic, and the plot is harsh but true. Many incredibly brave women did live through all of the things that happen in this novel, and it's important to remember that. I would argue that fiction is perhaps the best way to do so because a reader can experience it as closely as possible, through the eyes of characters who come to feel like friends. Thus, an important novel.
So, do I recommend it? Yes. Would I read it again? Only if I was actively seeking to have my heart ripped out and stomped upon in a fit of impassioned rage. Is it perfect? No. But it's honest. And in some respects, I'd say that's more important.
I've seen a lot of scathing reviews for this book (and some shining ones, don't get me wrong) but as someone with rather a lot of knowledge on WW2, the Maquis and the French Resistance, and feminist literature, I'd like to start mine by debunking some of the issues previous reviewers have taken with this novel.
1. Inconsistencies
How many times have I seen reviewers complain about the sisters' age inconsistencies? Inconsistencies, might I add, which don't exist. I was looking out for them. If you read the text properly, said inconsistencies are actually the passing of time. Other things such as which rooms they're in, the weather, etc. are also non-arguments. They don't exist either. I'd implore some previous reviewers to read the text a tad closer.
2. Fashion
The fashion in this novel is not described in a gratuitous way. Fashion was important in the 40s, even more so than it is now, and the author (generally) gets it right. What they wore at the start of the war vs. the end was accurate, and I believe it was perfectly reasonable to describe the clothing. As critical readers, which a reviewer must be, I'd wonder why some people aren't looking for the symbolism in such descriptions? This is one of many ways Hannah shows as opposed to tells how the war has changed life in France. Something that was once so important has become negligible, something no one really thinks twice about other than for the purpose of keeping warm in freezing winters. I take no issue with it. It was a big part of life at the time.
3. Food
Rationing in occupied Europe was worse than anywhere else. The descriptions of food were accurate and necessary to emphasise why everyone was so desperate, why the atmosphere had become the way it had, and the cruelty of the Nazis. This militaristic and autocratic order cares not for the French people. That's why the descriptions of food.
4. Beauty
Isabelle is allowed to be beautiful and also be brave, strong, intelligent, resilient, so on and so forth. It doesn't take away from any of those latter-mentioned traits, and, where some reviewers argue her beauty is added in order to give her worth, I would argue it's the opposite. How often are beautiful women reduced just to their physical appearance? How often is it the less conventionally beautiful who are more likely to be recognised as all of these commonly-associated-with-masculinity-during-war traits? Isabelle is everything you'd expect of a Resistance fighter and she's beautiful. This empowers her. Women can be brave, strong, resilient, and clever and still be feminine. I believe my point about her beauty working against her worth as opposed to providing it is proven in how reviewers have taken issue with it. Also, a lot of Allied spies and Resistance fighters were beautiful women - they really did, just like Hannah wrote, use their beauty against the Nazis. Because it worked. This is factual and cannot be argued.
5. Love Story
I was cautious about reading this novel because I read a review that said it used WW2 as a backdrop to a love story. I didn't see any of that in here. There is a love story, yes, but it isn't in the foreground at all. These women are everything they need to be all on their own, and they are allowed to find love as well. Again, women can be feminine and still be strong. They can fight for the Resistance and be war heroes and still find love. These things aren't dichotomies.
(I could go on but I'll begin my own review here, I think).
So, I've talked a lot about what other people thought of this novel. As all of those things I said I was in the first paragraph ('someone who knows rather a lot about WW2, the Maquis and the French Resistance, and feminist literature'), what did I think?
I think it's an important book. It doesn't shy away from the horrors of the Nazi regime and it doesn't sugar-coat anything. It was intense, brutal at times, and honest. I wouldn't call it a favourite novel but I'm glad I read it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is riddled with historical inaccuracy. One of the faults I took with it was how it didn’t hold the French government accountable for much of what it was guilty of during the occupation - and the French people, too, at that. France was anti-semitic; the general French populace wouldn’t have been appalled at the German anti-jewish propaganda at all. The French policemen at the Vel’ D’Hiv Roundup were volunteers, they wouldn’t have been forced into it. A lot of antisemitism was introduced by the French Vichy government, too. I think an acknowledgement of all of these points would have contributed towards a much more complex novel about life during the occupation - and, unfortunately, the novel does lack quite a bit of complexity. Also, in 1940, communists wouldn’t have been in the resistance. The Nazi-Soviet Pact would have had them allied with the Germans up until Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
However, Hannah set out to write a novel about the women's war, and that she did. It paints the women in occupied France in all their many shades and colours, listens to their voices closely, and tells their stories with pride. The characters are complex, interesting, and realistic, and the plot is harsh but true. Many incredibly brave women did live through all of the things that happen in this novel, and it's important to remember that. I would argue that fiction is perhaps the best way to do so because a reader can experience it as closely as possible, through the eyes of characters who come to feel like friends. Thus, an important novel.
So, do I recommend it? Yes. Would I read it again? Only if I was actively seeking to have my heart ripped out and stomped upon in a fit of impassioned rage. Is it perfect? No. But it's honest. And in some respects, I'd say that's more important.