You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
jassmine 's review for:
A Botanical Daughter
by Noah Medlock
If you know me, you might have noticed that I really like [a:Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|11139|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1699348762p2/11139.jpg] and her [b:Frankenstein|35031085|Frankenstein The 1818 Text|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1631088473l/35031085._SY75_.jpg|4836639]. Honestly, it might be more precise to say that I'm obsessed. And as a properly obsessed person I tend to pick up stories inspired by MWS's life and work and nitpick them to bits. This one is the best I read so far (separated form non-fiction that is too different to compare) and I'm honestly not sure it can be beat. This book is spectacular. At the moment I finished it I didn't think it quite sticked the landing, so I gave it 4,5⭐, but this would probably got 5⭐ on a re-read. This was so good, can't recommend this enough!
So, why would you want to read this?
1. Victorian prudishness / gays (take your pick!)
2. Florence the horse:
3. EVERYONE is neurodivergent AND gay!
4. But my fave was easily Simon, who is clearly autistic.
5. Some taxidermy bits that are funny, profound and gross:
6. Ladies in suits!
Also, moment later:
7. Botany is afoot!
8. Also, this is such a thoughtful book, in a lot of different aspects but especially in a way it responds to Frankenstein, I already wrote a short essay about this in our BR so I'm just going to copy, there are some spoilers involved...
Okay, so one of the biggest themes in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's work in general is that world without mothers is a dreadful place. The absence of a mother is the reason for most of her tragedies - this is probably most visible in Frankestein where the Monster is conceived without a woman entirely and that could almost be equated with the absence of love to the child/creation in the proces.
There are no mothers present in Medlock's account either! Not only because we have gay couple in the centre of the story, but also when you look at Jennifer and Constance, only their fathers are mentioned. I'm not saying that the word "mother" was never mentioned, I'm honestly not sure, but the word "father" is really present throughout the book.
I think that this kind of nicely subverts the whole situation where Medlock is saying "yeah, world without mothers cool, but what about queer families?" and I quite like that.
The second part of this is the love and abandonment. In Frankenstein the MC abandons his creation because he's horrified and that's what happens here too! And on two levels actually.
First is when Simon has a realisation about what they done and he has spiritual/religious objections to desecrating the body. That's part of Frankenstein's argument and Simon's abandonment of his daughter here resembles Victor's abandonment of his Monster.
But then we see Gregor struggle with seeing CHLOE as a person and loving her as a person instead of seeing her as a successful experiment and that is kind of different sort of abandonment? Adding the ethics of science into the mix.
There is also the act of naming? In Frankenstein Monster never gets a name, which could be read as one of the tragedies and failures so I think it's significant that Gregor names CHLOE, although you could see that as exercising power over her in a patriarchal sense. I do believe it's supposed to be read positively though.
So yeah, this book hit so many of my niches! It's very Victorian, very gay, very neurodivergent book set in a Greenhouse! With Frankestenian themes. It's super thoughtful and hilarious and loveable and I think I need to get a physical copy of this one because I will be re-reading it. Would recommend!
BRed at WBtM: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/22801872-a-botanical-daughter-by-noah-medlock-may-2024
So, why would you want to read this?
1. Victorian prudishness / gays (take your pick!)
Simon sat on the horse behind Jennifer and was obliged to hold on to her waist. He was thoroughly mortified.
2. Florence the horse:
Florence the mare was a stubborn horse, who would never let her fatigue show to her rider. Simon admired that. Together they suffered in silent dignity all the way to the little water mill.
3. EVERYONE is neurodivergent AND gay!
She took care to place her steps squarely on the herringbone bricks, twisting her ankles in odd angles to achieve it. It seemed more proper for a first passage onto new territory not to tread upon the daisy-graced cracks.
4. But my fave was easily Simon, who is clearly autistic.
Ah - the broad smile, even as Jennifer fumbled awkwardly with her hands. Her chatter amounted to small talk. He had learned that people perform this when they are nervous. Simon displayed his teeth. He had learned that people like it when you do that.
5. Some taxidermy bits that are funny, profound and gross:
For Simon, an improvisatory approach to taxidermy represented a kind of working-through of his feelings.
6. Ladies in suits!
Jennifer decided to play into it and adopted the airs and graces of a society gentleman, as far as she understood them. She put her hands in her pockets and tipped her head back so she could stare down her nose at them.
Also, moment later:
Jenny took a sip of brandy, which she regretted. She took another sip, though, just to be sure. She regrette that one as well.
7. Botany is afoot!
Now all we can do is hope, pray and water.
8. Also, this is such a thoughtful book, in a lot of different aspects but especially in a way it responds to Frankenstein, I already wrote a short essay about this in our BR so I'm just going to copy, there are some spoilers involved...
Spoiler
Okay, so one of the biggest themes in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's work in general is that world without mothers is a dreadful place. The absence of a mother is the reason for most of her tragedies - this is probably most visible in Frankestein where the Monster is conceived without a woman entirely and that could almost be equated with the absence of love to the child/creation in the proces.
There are no mothers present in Medlock's account either! Not only because we have gay couple in the centre of the story, but also when you look at Jennifer and Constance, only their fathers are mentioned. I'm not saying that the word "mother" was never mentioned, I'm honestly not sure, but the word "father" is really present throughout the book.
I think that this kind of nicely subverts the whole situation where Medlock is saying "yeah, world without mothers cool, but what about queer families?" and I quite like that.
The second part of this is the love and abandonment. In Frankenstein the MC abandons his creation because he's horrified and that's what happens here too! And on two levels actually.
First is when Simon has a realisation about what they done and he has spiritual/religious objections to desecrating the body. That's part of Frankenstein's argument and Simon's abandonment of his daughter here resembles Victor's abandonment of his Monster.
But then we see Gregor struggle with seeing CHLOE as a person and loving her as a person instead of seeing her as a successful experiment and that is kind of different sort of abandonment? Adding the ethics of science into the mix.
There is also the act of naming? In Frankenstein Monster never gets a name, which could be read as one of the tragedies and failures so I think it's significant that Gregor names CHLOE, although you could see that as exercising power over her in a patriarchal sense. I do believe it's supposed to be read positively though.
So yeah, this book hit so many of my niches! It's very Victorian, very gay, very neurodivergent book set in a Greenhouse! With Frankestenian themes. It's super thoughtful and hilarious and loveable and I think I need to get a physical copy of this one because I will be re-reading it. Would recommend!
BRed at WBtM: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/22801872-a-botanical-daughter-by-noah-medlock-may-2024