Scan barcode
A review by powersureater
These Violent Delights by Victoria Namkung
3.0
“He loved to tell me I was an old soul, but I had just gotten my braces off the year prior.”
I think this book was good (Sasha’s victim statement was phenomenal) but there were definitely quite a few things that I think it could have gone harder at. The idea of institutional corruption was meant to be one of the main themes, but I feel we kept coming close to the veil without ever taking it off. It just needed more - and I do feel like the opportunity was there for even a heavy handed attempt but it was not taken.
Some other interesting things that it floated but never addressed was Eva’s husband when he said that he felt betrayed that she never told him. I think this definitely could have been the focus of her perspectives - challenging the ideas of her husband that she kept secrets, might be keeping other secrets, etc. when really she never owed it to him to tell her story and there he should be the one offering her reassurance, not the other way around.
I also feel like Ann Erickson as a whole was such an under-utilised device for discussion when she’s 1. a woman complicit in abuse by men (which they name but never explore further) and 2. a victim of her own having married her professor?
It’s a shame to me that even with four perspectives, the book wasn’t as well rounded as it could be with its exploration of these themes - and it didn’t even become apparent until Jane’s final POV chapter why she even had one.
I think this book was good (Sasha’s victim statement was phenomenal) but there were definitely quite a few things that I think it could have gone harder at. The idea of institutional corruption was meant to be one of the main themes, but I feel we kept coming close to the veil without ever taking it off. It just needed more - and I do feel like the opportunity was there for even a heavy handed attempt but it was not taken.
Some other interesting things that it floated but never addressed was Eva’s husband when he said that he felt betrayed that she never told him. I think this definitely could have been the focus of her perspectives - challenging the ideas of her husband that she kept secrets, might be keeping other secrets, etc. when really she never owed it to him to tell her story and there he should be the one offering her reassurance, not the other way around.
I also feel like Ann Erickson as a whole was such an under-utilised device for discussion when she’s 1. a woman complicit in abuse by men (which they name but never explore further) and 2. a victim of her own having married her professor?
It’s a shame to me that even with four perspectives, the book wasn’t as well rounded as it could be with its exploration of these themes - and it didn’t even become apparent until Jane’s final POV chapter why she even had one.