Scan barcode
A review by chiara_reads_books
The Wolf Den by Elodie Harper
challenging
emotional
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
*CONTENT WARNING: EXPLICIT, SEXUAL ABUSE, VIOLENCE*
On the recent wave of rediscovery of classical times and myths, Elodie Harper brings us in Pompeii at the very beginning of the first century AD, in the town brothel.
We meet a group of women, slaves at the Wolf Den, owned by Felix, a cruel and ruthless exploiter who sells women and runs a side business lending money at disproportionate interest rates.
There are two elements that I particularly appreciated in this novel.
The first one is the character building: from Amara, to Dido, to Victoria, every woman has a well-defined personality, a fair balance of strengths and weaknesses, and the same applies to the men in the story. They are by far the worst characters depicted in the novel but they’re not necessarily flat in their cruelty, they’re still round characters with various degrees of wickedness.
The second thing is that Harper doesn’t fall into the pattern of the glorified toxic relationship. The complicated relationship between Amara and Felix and the other men who abuse her is never a hate-love relationship with a tinge of what is now known as Stockholm syndrome. No, Amara has very well clear in mind her feelings for Felix but sometimes it’s her pride that gets in the way, she wants to outsmart him and everyone around her because she knows her value and she doesn’t want to bend in front of the abuse and mistreatment.
I really appreciated the story overall, but there’s one thing that got to me while reading the book, something I can’t quite explain when I think about not only the writing process but the editing stage as well.
I feel there’s been a bit of an oversight when it comes to linguistic accuracy. There some expressions used in the story such as “catcalling” and the use of “fuck off” to swear against somebody that are not historically appropriate.
People in Pompeii in the first century AD couldn’t possibly know the word catcalling, despite the existing act of paying unrequested compliments to women in the street. The expression as we know it and apply today came into existence in the 17th century.
A similar reasoning applies to the swearing: Latin was capable of crassness but it was a different one compared to the type of vulgarity we can have these days.
I would expect more accuracy in this regard from the writer and the editors, however this doesn’t prevent readers from enjoying the story and appreciating the narrative style.
On the recent wave of rediscovery of classical times and myths, Elodie Harper brings us in Pompeii at the very beginning of the first century AD, in the town brothel.
We meet a group of women, slaves at the Wolf Den, owned by Felix, a cruel and ruthless exploiter who sells women and runs a side business lending money at disproportionate interest rates.
There are two elements that I particularly appreciated in this novel.
The first one is the character building: from Amara, to Dido, to Victoria, every woman has a well-defined personality, a fair balance of strengths and weaknesses, and the same applies to the men in the story. They are by far the worst characters depicted in the novel but they’re not necessarily flat in their cruelty, they’re still round characters with various degrees of wickedness.
The second thing is that Harper doesn’t fall into the pattern of the glorified toxic relationship. The complicated relationship between Amara and Felix and the other men who abuse her is never a hate-love relationship with a tinge of what is now known as Stockholm syndrome. No, Amara has very well clear in mind her feelings for Felix but sometimes it’s her pride that gets in the way, she wants to outsmart him and everyone around her because she knows her value and she doesn’t want to bend in front of the abuse and mistreatment.
I really appreciated the story overall, but there’s one thing that got to me while reading the book, something I can’t quite explain when I think about not only the writing process but the editing stage as well.
I feel there’s been a bit of an oversight when it comes to linguistic accuracy. There some expressions used in the story such as “catcalling” and the use of “fuck off” to swear against somebody that are not historically appropriate.
People in Pompeii in the first century AD couldn’t possibly know the word catcalling, despite the existing act of paying unrequested compliments to women in the street. The expression as we know it and apply today came into existence in the 17th century.
A similar reasoning applies to the swearing: Latin was capable of crassness but it was a different one compared to the type of vulgarity we can have these days.
I would expect more accuracy in this regard from the writer and the editors, however this doesn’t prevent readers from enjoying the story and appreciating the narrative style.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Emotional abuse, Physical abuse, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, and Violence