
I got through 38 pages of Graceling before calling it quits. This isn’t because it’s an offensive book in any way. It’s because the writing, in two words, is intolerably shit.
Now you may tell me that it’s an excellent, pro-feminist book; you may tell me Katsa is a fantastic character with believable whatever. And you know, I believe you, really I do. I believe it’s a pro-feminist book, reviews of it have suggested it is so. I’m sure you enjoyed it and have perfectly valid reasons to love it. I recognize that a girl-positive novel is important, especially a YA one.
But to me personally and individually it isn’t enough; Feminism 101 is all well and good, but I’m not obliged to love it when it’s done up in mediocrity and generic setting by an author who as far as I can tell has no grasp on narrative structure or characterization whatsoever, and who harbors not a single original thought in her pages. If I’d felt such an obligation, I would have finished Malinda Lo’s Huntress, and if nothing else “East Asian lesbians who do stuff” is a far more interesting premise than “straight white girl who can kill with bare hands zzzz.” I’m just not that desperate. I’ve read Carter and Valente and Sedia, and just freshly I’ve come away from Helen Oyeyemi. Not only do these authors handle feminism at a more nuanced, more mature level, they can actually write–and whatever you may think of Cashore’s prose, you’ll probably agree that she doesn’t stand a chance next to Helen Oyeyemi or Nalo Hopkinson. It’s not that because Oyeyemi and Hopkinson exist Cashore doesn’t need to, it’s just that I’ve read better than Graceling. I’ve just read better, and on a personal level I find no reason to settle for something so direly third-rate when I’ve far from exhausted the first-rate stuff.
So this isn’t going to be a review. I’m just going to share my annotations on the book.
But if she left him, he would find the others she’d felled and raise the alarm. She struck him once, hard, on the back of the head, and he slumped and let out a puff of air. She caught him and lowered him to the ground, as gently as she could, and then dropped a pill into his mouth. She took a moment to run her fingers along the lump forming on his skull. She hoped his head was strong.
She had killed once by accident, a memory she held close to her consciousness. It was how her Grace had announced its nature, a decade ago.
My note: “Terrible break into flashback.” So begins my conviction that Kristin Cashore knows fuck-all about pacing. This is the first scene in the book, where Katsa is knocking guards out; having dropped an elderly guard–for whom her heart bleeds; more on that later–she pauses to reminisce about being eight and discovering her “Grace.” When the flashback is done, she’s confronted by another Graceling and they fight.
This leads into a break between action that lasts 930 words. I would guess about four pages in paperback. It’s like a run-on sentence that pauses midway through and changes its subject; by the time you are done with it you no longer remember what it was about, and have to go back to reread and parse the sentence. Not that there’s a hard-and-fast rule about breaking up an action sequence with a flashback, it’s just that Cashore’s take on it is so tragically incompetent; the flashback is an expository vomit. It’s not fun. It doesn’t establish Katsa’s voice (she has none–none of the characters, as far as I read, possesses anything remotely resembling a distinct voice). It simply sets down a bunch of factoids that read like they were ripped out of a prologue Cashore was told to drop by an editor who informed her YA audiences have no attention span and can only be interested if a book starts with an action scene, Hollywood-style.
Her uncle Randa, King of the Middluns
Katsa’s uncle, Randa, King of the Middluns
My note: “Fuck, we got that the first time.” This is why I hate YA writing. The watered-down lowest-common-denominator pandering to readers with no reading comprehension. The need to explain everything. The 24/7 anvil-dropping.
THEY REACHED Randa City before the sun did, but only just.
My note: “Do they change capital names every king or is he immortal??” The first, but far from the last, clue that Kristin Cashore doesn’t really think her settings through.
“The Lady Katsa, is it?”
“Yes, Lord Prince.”
“I’ve heard you have one eye green as the Middluns grasses, and the other eye blue as the sky.”
“Yes, Lord Prince.”
My note: “Blah blah blah Aryan eyes so pretty who gives a shit.”
KATSA RAN past houses and work shacks, shops and inns. The city was waking, and the streets smelled of baking bread. She ran past the milkman, half asleep on his cart, his horse sighing before him.
My note: “Her other grace is superhuman running?”
When the trees began, Katsa slowed.
My note: “This actually makes no sense.” It really doesn’t. I know what the author is trying to say, but the problem is that trees don’t move unless they’re actually meant to be ents, so by juxtaposing Katsa’s drop in speed with stationary trees you… get nonsense. And the idea that the author can’t really write.
Randa wanted a bloody, anguished spectacle, and he expected her to furnish it. Katsa set out with Oll and a convoy of soldiers. When the soldiers caught the underlord, they dragged him to the square of the nearest village, where a scattering of startled people watched, slack jawed. Katsa instructed the soldiers to make the man kneel. In one motion she snapped his neck. There was no blood; there was no more than an instant’s pain.
My note: “But where does she get her sense of morality??” I begin to suspect that Katsa rolled Chaotic Good but when the DM told her she has to be a king’s assassin she threw a shitfit. There doesn’t seem to exist a viable explanation as to where she obtained her bleeding-heart squeaky-clean sense of ethics, since she’s taken in by eight and trained from then. The dribblingly dull exposition vomit of 930 words doesn’t suggest that she had a mentor who tutored her in the ways of right and wrong. The idea that a sense of morality can form in a vacuum didn’t fly when I read those shitty Drizzt Do’Urden books. It sure isn’t going to fly now.
Katsa couldn’t say where the notion had come from, but once it pushed its way into her mind, it would not leave. What might she be capable of – if she acted of her own volition and outside Randa’s domain? It was something she thought about, something to distract herself as she broke fingers for Randa and twisted men’s arms from their sockets. And the more she considered the question, the more urgent it became, until she thought she would blaze up and burn from the frustration of not doing it.
My note: “Where does it come from indeed. Fucking lazy writer.” To this end, building an organization that would subvert her uncle’s tyranny or whatever, she enlists his spymaster. You know. His trusted spymaster.
He was used to bringing his information to Randa so Randa could decide what action to take. But he saw her side of it eventually, slowly, once he understood that Katsa was determined to do this thing with or without him, and once he convinced himself that it would do the king no harm not to know every move his spymaster made.
…who we are given no reason to believe would want to contradict his king. Has Randa wronged him? No clue. Is he fed up with Randa’s ruthlessness? Dunno. As far as I can tell, this Oll dude just decides to kinda-sorta tag along because he has nothing better to do. A fine motivation to join a high-treason underground resistance if ever there was one.
There was an atmosphere of adventure at the meetings, of dangerous freedom. It felt like play, too wonderful, Katsa thought sometimes, to be real. Except that it was real. They didn’t just talk about subversion; they planned it and carried it out.
You know this might be believable if it occurred as part of Katsa’s character development midway through the book, like how she tires of all this killing or if there’s some sort of catalyst that changes the way she thinks. But there isn’t. It’s just convenient. It’s just kind of shittily, lazily written. It’s almost as if she and Oll both rolled Chaotic Good and decided they would stick to this alignment come hell or high water. There doesn’t seem to be any other humanly comprehensible reason as to why they’re acting the way they are.
Inevitably over time they attracted allies outside the court. The virtuous among Randa’s borderlords, who were tired of sitting around while neighboring villages were plundered. Lords from the other kingdoms, and their spies. And bit by bit, the people – innkeepers, blacksmiths, farmers. Everyone was tired of the fool kings. Everyone was willing to take some small risk to lessen the damage of their ambition and disorder and lawlessness.
…and acting according to their D&D alignment, I would guess, is just the way everyone in this book rolls. The borderlords aren’t acting out of avarice or selfishness or even from having been wronged by Randa in some way, no. They’re throwing their lot in with Katsa’s treasonous underground resistance because, well golly, they’re decent people okay? In fact they are virtuous. Everyone else, why, they are virtuous too. Nobody tries to sell out anybody for a chance at earning a king’s favor or getting more lands. No internal conflict. Perfect harmony. Join hands and sing kumbaya! It’s a weird playground morality that would come across badly even in Baby’s First D&D Campaign. It’s so unreal and rather juvenile.
And, after 38 pages, I have no idea who any of these people are or why I should give even one fuck. Katsa despite being the protagonist doesn’t have a personality that I can discern, and seems to be nice only because the author lacks the guts to write a heroine with less than perfect morals. Giddon is… actually I have no idea who he is, what he does, or what his motivations are. Much the same goes for Oll. Nobody has a personality, their dialogue tells me nothing, their interactions are dead and I can’t exert myself to give one single solitary shit. Of note, chapter two begins with this massive info-dump that goes on for 821 words in an attempt to explain the plot. What plot there is.
It was a land of seven kingdoms. Seven kingdoms, and seven thoroughly unpredictable kings. [...] The Lienid people didn’t have enemies. They shipped their gold to whoever had the goods to trade for it; they grew their own fruit and bred their own game; they kept to themselves on their island, an ocean removed from the other six kingdoms. They were different. They had a distinctive dark-haired look and distinctive customs, and they liked their isolation. King Ror of Lienid was the least troublesome of the seven kings. He made no treaties with the others, but he made no war, and he ruled his own people fairly.
[...]
In truth, Randa usually took care not to involve himself with the other kingdoms. His kingdom sat between Estill and Wester on one axis and between Nander and Sunder on the other. It was a position too tenuous for alliances.
The kings of Wester, Nander, and Estill – they were the source of most of the trouble.
And on and on it goes in this vein, all dull, all bland, all turgid, all absolutely stunningly uninteresting and without a SINGLE SOLITARY DROP OF ORIGINALITY. All written in this flat, banal style that suggests a reading level of ten-year-olds, if that. The author seems to go out of her way to avoid compound sentences and words longer than, like, three fucking syllables. It’s awful. It’s intolerably awful. There’s nothing redeeming in the prose, the dialogue, the characterization, the setting. Nothing.
Sorry, Kristin Cashore; I tried. It’s not me. You just aren’t good enough.
Emil Söderman
/ March 21, 2012To a certain degree, yeah, it’s you. Namely, you’re an adult, with a great deal of reading experience. You can parse text in ways that a new reader can’t. Yes, it’s aiming at the lowest common denominator: YA by it’s very nature is aiming for a group whose reading comprehension is vastly diverse. Some people can enjoy stuff despite this (depending on other relevant things) I, and it seems you, can’t. If it’s written in a style suitable for 10-year olds it’s probably because well… That’s the age-group it’s aiming for. (Or at least a slightly wider group including ten-year olds)
But children need to start somewhere, and even if they’re capable of reading harder texts, they don’t neccessarily enjoy it, YA (when done well) keeps children reading.
There are other issues, it seems (simplistic prose is no excuse for simplistic plotting and characterization, although even there it can be problematic) And it’s furthermore no reason for any adult to like it… But I think it’s at least somewhat problematic to disparage a children’s book for being accessible to children.
Occasionally you can find something interesting in YA, but I’d not even try to sift through it for those gems. (Rather rely on word-of-mouth from people I trust on that count) simply because the vast majority of it isn’t written in a way I find enjoyable.
So yeah, deciding to not bother with YA probably is the right decision, at least unless you’re working in/going to work in one of those careers where keeping yourself a jour about the books children read is useful.
acrackedmoon
/ March 21, 2012YA doesn’t aim for ten-year-olds though, I think it aims at somewhere around the teen years–ten-year-olds would be the domain of children’s fiction, and let’s be honest, most older children’s fiction is written much better than this (Roald Dahl, for ex).
I don’t get that, actually. The “at least kids are reading” argument, I mean. Where I am, kids and teens read–the equivalent of Japanese light novels mostly. Reading isn’t a problem; Thai people read (though if you talk to certain condescending expat fuckwads you’ll hear different, but that’s neither here nor there and you and I both know such tools may be discounted out of hand). Anyway, is there some kind of problem where western children who don’t read grow into adults who don’t read, and who then have no reading comprehension, or…?
the twisted spinster
/ March 22, 2012When I was a teen I was reading things like The Count of Monte Cristo and The Gormenghast trilogy (and yes, Lord of the Rings), and my idea of a “young adult” science fiction and fantasy writer is Andre Norton. The idea that children can only comprehend something written as simply and as dully as possible is amazingly condescending… only a lot of this stuff is popular so I don’t know.
linesdrawninred
/ March 22, 2012Not really. As a teenager I read this stuff for cheap fun, but I had already moved past this by the time I was ten. Simplistic prose is good for something where you don’t want to think, I guess.
shardbaenre
/ March 21, 2012“There are other issues, it seems (simplistic prose is no excuse for simplistic plotting and characterization, although even there it can be problematic) And it’s furthermore no reason for any adult to like it… But I think it’s at least somewhat problematic to disparage a children’s book for being accessible to children.”
I disagree with this statement. I think the mistake is assuming that readibility for developing minds has to necessarily omit basic elements of story-telling is dangerous. I don’t think you have to sacrifice complexity for the sake of getting ten-year-olds on board. Simple just means that complex ideas are broken down into manageable mind bites, not that you omit them completely if the lesson involves those elements. They still need to understand that action, response, comes from motivation. There has to be a cause and if that isn’t conveyed, then it is meaningless.
And I think it’s bizarre that in our current age of literacy, we are going back in time. Books written for children have not always held that they were dumb because that does not equal simple. It means you write it to their level while also conveying meaningful story. If you are encouraging them to read these kinds of books, you are doing them a disservice. Old Yeller is YA. Sounder is YA. Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry is YA. To Kill A Mockingbird is also YA. Whatever problems those books have on a content level, they are not easy books to read, but they are accessible. Also, I want to apologize if non USians haven’t read those books or even heard of them.
But it seems that the notion that this book is simply read is belied when there is a four page info dump. Reading comprehension should be encouraged. Minds should be stretched, even at that age and you don’t do that by writing boring books that fail to even have a story structure. This isn’t an adult mind passing judgement on a simply written book. This seems like an adult mind that is passing on a book that fails to engage and meaningfully encourage a young reader to develop the skills necessary to graduate to more challenging prose.
acrackedmoon
/ March 21, 2012This is the other reason why I don’t understand the “well at least it gets kids reading” thing–readers accustomed to something so dead simple (conceptually, linguistically) will probably not graduate to Lolita or grow an appreciation for Shakespeare. The abundance of similarly unchallenging lowest-common-denominator stuff will keep them, in all likelihood, reading the same stuff. Many adults read YA almost to the exclusion of all else, after all, and a certain type of SF/F reader will read nothing but mass-produced tie-in fiction or clonetastic grimdark fantasy of male wish-fulfillment. Genre-locking really shouldn’t be encouraged.
(I’m aware you can appreciate literary fiction and YA fiction simultaneously and may take breaks from the former to read the latter, but that’s not what is being discussed when we go “at least the kids are reading.”)
Next Friday
/ March 23, 2012For me reading for wish fulfillment (formulaic, kink, trope driven) is very separate beast. And while I spend some time in that department, my usual reading queue exists for the entirely different reasons. I would read books that I might not like, but generally I won’t compromise on quality. It is possible for a single book to belong to both categories, but I don’t see an easy leap from one category to another. I need two different reading habits to manage both. Of course, most people perhaps don’t compartmentalize it quite like this, yet…
Yet, I can easily see someone ‘hooked on reading by Twilight’ spending a lifetime reading Twilight fanfiction, or its clones, looping through the same tired tropes. The abundance makes it easy. People want more, and yes, more substandard books get created and pushed down to the readers as ‘good’. (I can only imagine a publishing pitch, “Read our next BAD book!”) I guess even reading a bad book can contribute to reading comprehension improvements. (It didn’t work out all that well for grimdark readers for some reason, as we witnessed repeatedly, but I digress…) OK, maybe. So it’s all good, right? Is this where we’re supposed to set the bar? At the basic literacy?
I don’t think so.
meishuu
/ March 22, 2012I recently finished this book (no, it doesn’t get better) and I don’t remember the prose being this awful; Simplistic? Yes, but not as awful as this; granted, the version I read was in spanish so maybe they did some edits?
Frankly, the only reediming quality I found on Katsa (and the book) was that, unlike most YA “heroines” out there, she is actually capable of empathizing with other girls/women.
Inverarity Pynchon
/ March 22, 2012Part of the problem is that I genuinely believe that the sophistication of YA lit has gone down since I was in that age range (which of course was before “YA” was a commonly used marketing term), as has the sophistication of YA readers. I have enjoyed a few YA books, but it makes me very sad to think there are now twenty-somethings and older who read little else.
Cyna (@endless_run)
/ March 23, 2012Anyway, is there some kind of problem where western children who don’t read grow into adults who don’t read, and who then have no reading comprehension, or…?
From my experience, kind of, yeah. I think many of our issues, nationally, come from have an abundance of people who haven’t mastered reading comprehension and/or critical thinking, or just aren’t interested in reading or learning in general. We’ve ended up with the so many people who learn from and are exclusively entertained by TV, movies, and video games, and well, it’s a bit of a Thing. Clearly.
In my family, my cousin and I are pretty much the sole readers, and other family members’ general responses to books and our interest are “nerds” and “I’ll wait for the movie”. I get the impression, at least in this town, and perhaps others like it (poorer, with a physical-labor based workforce), that “getting the kids reading” is a genuine concern.
Then again, as you said in one of the other comments, just because they’re reading simplistic YA drek doesn’t mean they’ll go on to graduate to anything more intellectually challenging, and god knows it doesn’t excuse a shittily-written book, *but* I do think that popular YA books open a door to a more advanced literacy that might otherwise remain closed without it.
“It got my daughter reading” is probably the only reasonable argument I’ve heard for Twilight :/
saajanpatel
/ March 23, 2012This reminds me that Lynn Abbey’s Rise and Fall of a Sorcerer King might be some of the best tie-in fiction ever written.
Curious if people have read it, what she did in D&D novel was pretty incredible and blew my young mind away.
neon suntan (@neonsuntan)
/ March 23, 2012Loved Andre Norton as a kid and her YA books really did lead me on to more serious none Space Opera science fiction, though th only one I can recall clearly is Catseye it was so weird and different to everything else out there. Of course at the age of 12 I was naïve and stupid enough to think it was written by Frenchman (rolls eyes).
The trend of adults deliberately reading YA still doesn’t sit right with me though, but I feel too much like my parents when I feel they should read something “proper”.
Aeea (@lolinggirl)
/ March 23, 2012Yeah most of YA is absolute crap.
Even though this book is simple and crappy more YA readers have a negative re-action to the 101 feminism within than the writing. They will have one sentence about the writing but will go on and on like Cashore is a “feminazi” because Katsa doesn’t wanna get married/have kids. Cashore can’t write worth a damn but the teenage readers are more peeved by the feminist elements.
What I mean is that when YA readers/authors decide what is crap or not writing style is dead last on the list. So your giving up on YA will definitely save you some headaches.
acrackedmoon
/ March 24, 2012I’d say I’m surprised, but I am not especially–I recall being a little shit at that age and thinking feminism was, like, totally man-hating and completely unnecessary and I was one of the boooooys and boys should like me (even though I didn’t like them, what with the lesbian thing). Oddly enough, at that age I also loved Mists of Avalon which is heavy on the MEN STUPID WOMEN VERY GOOD side, but it never pinged me as raging feminazi this way comes. Joan D. Vinge The Snow Queen, a far better book but also feminist, didn’t annoy me either. Possibly because my ideas of feminism were not informed in the way way as those of a western teenager (and I didn’t know of any such thing as “feminazi”) .
naishee
/ March 24, 2012Tanith Lee’s Silver Metal Lover is usually classified as YA. “It’s science fiction for 16 year old girls. But it’s GOOD science fiction for 16 year old girls”, as somebdoy once said. (It’s also my favorite novel of hers. Me being born male and long past my teen years makes no difference).
Yeah, I just brought up Tanith Lee. Refuse to read due to being YA at your own risk. :)
acrackedmoon
/ March 24, 2012I’ve read that one! It’s quite good, despite the terrible title, if not exactly complex or anything.
When Tanith Lee’s good she’s pretty great, and when she’s not she is absolutely terrible.
Kyra
/ April 2, 2012I read Graceling ages ago, but I, err, liked it a lot. I agree that the prose is workmanlike to put it gently and it’s obviously a first novel but although it’s quite streamlined and simplified I enjoyed it as a fairly undemanding feminist-ish romp. But I think bad writing is actually fairly subjective – not in the sense that some things aren’t objectively bad writing – but if other aspects of the story pull you in and satisfy you, like the characters or the premise or the author’s aspirations, then it bothers you way less than it might bother someone else.
I’m also quite depressed by fantasy and young adult in general at the moment so I’m probably massively over-valuing safety. And Cashore makes me feel safe. I mean, yes, it’s not wildly complex stuff but I’m not going to be horrified/enraged without warning by de-centralised female characters or lol!rape or just a world in which all the cool shit is performed by, and about, dudes. In a weird way it reminds me of … oh … y’know … alternative!faeries woman. Marr? I mean those are so banal and occasionally openly hilarious (TATTOOS OMG!!!) but at least they tend to be absolutely right on (in a slightly trying-too-hard way).
I liked Fire even more than Graceling, not that I’m recommending you read it. I would say – tentatively – its a bit more sophisticated.
acrackedmoon
/ April 2, 2012Well, gosh. I hoped you wouldn’t see this post on account of how much you enjoyed Graceling (I’m not making it an agenda to stomp on everything you love, honest). It’s the thing, I guess, with me knowing enough about what to read that I’m fairly certain going in what to expect of most of my TBR: I know if I read Hopkinson etc I’ll be good, and be in for pretty fine writing to boot, so my tolerance for bags of meh however feminist is very low. I’ve also given up epic fantasy entirely, and any grimdark is to be read only with the intent of filleting and tearing of new orifices for the author. You could say I’ve created a bubble for myself, in which Cashore’s going to automatically be devalued because in this bubble there are writers I like a lot more and who work with techniques/craft rather more adult than Cashore’s, and I haven’t run out of such writers to read yet. Of course, my standards may also be unreasonably high, but I didn’t take one look at Cashore, yell “what childish tat!” and give up. It’s not that I don’t like light entertainment, I just couldn’t slog through her prose. Reading Oyeyemi was fun.
For me the danger in much of my reading is less the feminist problem and more with cultural/racefail, see also Maureen McHugh’s Nekropolis, which seems to be warned about far less (see also The Wind-Up Girl: many brought up the icky sexbot thing, but few warned me about the raging racism, cultural fail and appropriaton). That and the bewilderment that so much feminist fiction is very heteronormative, which is unfortunate.
That’s the case for me with The Dark Wife. :)
Kyra
/ April 19, 2012Hahaha, don’t worry – I’m genuinely interested in your perspective on stuff and I don’t have any problem with people like disliking things I like, as long as they don’t dislike it for stupid reasons ;) Part of the reason I defend Cashore so staunchly, as well as the fact I honestly enjoy her books, is that lots of the criticisms I’ve encountered have been menz whinging about how she doesn’t quite meet their feminist standards or whatever, and that just makes me grrrrr.
sisterjune
/ April 7, 2012I am late to this but I’ll leave my two cents. Basically THANK YOU. I got this book recced to me SO MANY TIMES by other feminists who read and I thought well this book must be really good! I tried to read it and omg I was SO BORED. I just, when I was asked what I thought of it I legit did not know what to say without basically being as nasty as possible and wanting to question these people’s sense of taste for considering this shitty boring unoriginal book as some kind of feminist classic. I mean its as you say its feminist 101. Is a woman being “strong” and killing people really that subversive? I mean I read Deathless for example on your recommendation (I’m not done yet I read very slowly unfortunately) and Dear god it is a night and day difference. Gorgeous beautiful evocative prose, very original and distinct world, and a fascinating heroine. I love what first starts out like the typical alpha magical lover that is so popular in paranormal romances evolves into something completely different. and Then you compare that to something like Graceling…..its like why aren’t people singing the praises of that book? Like I saw a book recs list “for people who are dissatisfied with Hunger Games” and i was like oh good maybe they will rec books that are actually not shit. BUT NO. GRACELING WAS ON THE LIST. *sobs* And so was some book thats not the wind up girl by Bacigalupi (idk how you spell his name) It was just like why, why do you all have such miserable taste. I’m mad because these books were advertised to the progressive readers who want POC characters and women with agency but I guess they left out the part about wanting books that are actually good. Anyway you dont know how much I wanted to reblog that list just to curse about how crap graceling is and how i lose respect for anyone over the age of 15 who recs it as a good book. Just, NO. Anyway this review was so cathartic for me and you stuck with it way longer than I managed to. I skipped around alot in the hopes it got less boring and uninspired later but no its pretty shit the whole way through.