Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lizshayne 's review for:
For Darkness Shows the Stars
by Diana Peterfreund
So, you know, honesty compels me to admit that I did enjoy this rendition of post-apocalyptic Persuasion because compartmentalizing is a thing.
The premise was interesting, the whole Luddite=Ruling class is a very clever play on Austen’s era, and the book speeds along pretty fast.
I have three major issues
1) Austen’s genius in Persuasion is the way that she takes the petty, the venial, the self-interested, and the shallow and she shows how it’s villainous to those with less power. The Baronet isn’t EVIL. He doesn’t need to be. That’s the point. Evil isn’t cackling and vengeful and pointedly vindictive. It’s just caring more about your social life than your daughter. Peterfreund entirely lacks this sense of nuance and casts her characters much more starkly. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but given that this is a retelling of Persuasion, I sort of expect deviations from the narrative to justify themselves for some reason and this one doesn’t. Which leads me to assume that the justification is that such characters require nuance that Austen has and Peterfreund lacks.
On that note, I really hate when authors rewriting Austen use her language in their text because all it does is emphasize just how incredibly talented she is. And you don’t have to be a gorgeous writer to rewrite Austen, but just don’t remind the reader in the middle of what Austen writes like because you will rarely benefit from the comparison. Aside from the fact that, if your characters don’t usually sound that like, it’s a bit jarring.
2) Err, are we just going to gloss over the slavery? Okay, yes, obviously the book thinks that mistreating your slaves is bad (my GOD, do we set the bar low here), but it’s really hard to forget that our heroine is good because she’s one of the good slave owners. Peterfreund just doesn’t talk at all about the economy of her dystopia. Are the Reduced paid? Are the Posts? Can they freely leave? Do they have any resources? Like, this is the vital distinction between remuneration for services rendered and slavery and the book just doesn’t care? How does that happen?
Peterfreund is a breezy writer and it’s easy to equate Elliott’s position with that of the Posts—no authority, utterly under the thumb of her father, no place to go, etc. But she has extraordinary power over them that she refuses to use and, when she has that power explicitly, all the posts just...flock back to slavery because good masters are better than freedom!?
🤮
Seriously, how do you MISS this?
3) Notice how I mostly focused on the Posts above? Yeah, that’s because the Reduced are an even larger kettle of awful. I get why an author would choose to engage with the treatment of the developmentally disabled and critique it. I DON’T get how an author could engage with it on the level of “mistreatment is bad, but paternalistic protection without recognizing autonomy, agency, or humanity is fine”. And Peterfreund sets the reader up to think it’s going in this direction: Ro’s flowers and Elliott’s wheat, but never actually GOES anywhere with it. Oh, isn’t it cute, they’re alike and she’ll protect her, but the incredible injustice of the treatment of the Reduced is barely even touched on. Of course they were used as cannon fodder, of course they ought to work on estates and contribute as their masters decide, of course that’s just the way things are.
This is a book about one...okay, three individuals’ triumph against a deeply oppressive and abusive system, but their triumph not only ignores, but actively rests on the perpetuation of the system...but at least good people are in charge right now so everything is fine, right?
Ugggh.
At this point, I’m not sure I even want to touch the deeply annoying girl versus girl and “this is the good girl because she doesn’t care about fashion” stuff which, yes, this book inherits from Austen, but also ...Austen is subtle and nuanced, people!
And I gave it three stars because I did enjoy it. But Peterfreund’s failure to interrogate her premises is upsetting and I just...Do. Better.
She could have written nearly this exact story, but with an Elliott that recognized her position and the injustices she was struggling against and who worked not merely to be a good owner of people, but to free them. You don’t need to throw out the premise, just don’t ask me to root for someone who protects the status quo because they themselves won’t misuse it.
Like I said, Uggggh.
The premise was interesting, the whole Luddite=Ruling class is a very clever play on Austen’s era, and the book speeds along pretty fast.
I have three major issues
1) Austen’s genius in Persuasion is the way that she takes the petty, the venial, the self-interested, and the shallow and she shows how it’s villainous to those with less power. The Baronet isn’t EVIL. He doesn’t need to be. That’s the point. Evil isn’t cackling and vengeful and pointedly vindictive. It’s just caring more about your social life than your daughter. Peterfreund entirely lacks this sense of nuance and casts her characters much more starkly. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, but given that this is a retelling of Persuasion, I sort of expect deviations from the narrative to justify themselves for some reason and this one doesn’t. Which leads me to assume that the justification is that such characters require nuance that Austen has and Peterfreund lacks.
On that note, I really hate when authors rewriting Austen use her language in their text because all it does is emphasize just how incredibly talented she is. And you don’t have to be a gorgeous writer to rewrite Austen, but just don’t remind the reader in the middle of what Austen writes like because you will rarely benefit from the comparison. Aside from the fact that, if your characters don’t usually sound that like, it’s a bit jarring.
2) Err, are we just going to gloss over the slavery? Okay, yes, obviously the book thinks that mistreating your slaves is bad (my GOD, do we set the bar low here), but it’s really hard to forget that our heroine is good because she’s one of the good slave owners. Peterfreund just doesn’t talk at all about the economy of her dystopia. Are the Reduced paid? Are the Posts? Can they freely leave? Do they have any resources? Like, this is the vital distinction between remuneration for services rendered and slavery and the book just doesn’t care? How does that happen?
Peterfreund is a breezy writer and it’s easy to equate Elliott’s position with that of the Posts—no authority, utterly under the thumb of her father, no place to go, etc. But she has extraordinary power over them that she refuses to use and, when she has that power explicitly, all the posts just...flock back to slavery because good masters are better than freedom!?
🤮
Seriously, how do you MISS this?
3) Notice how I mostly focused on the Posts above? Yeah, that’s because the Reduced are an even larger kettle of awful. I get why an author would choose to engage with the treatment of the developmentally disabled and critique it. I DON’T get how an author could engage with it on the level of “mistreatment is bad, but paternalistic protection without recognizing autonomy, agency, or humanity is fine”. And Peterfreund sets the reader up to think it’s going in this direction: Ro’s flowers and Elliott’s wheat, but never actually GOES anywhere with it. Oh, isn’t it cute, they’re alike and she’ll protect her, but the incredible injustice of the treatment of the Reduced is barely even touched on. Of course they were used as cannon fodder, of course they ought to work on estates and contribute as their masters decide, of course that’s just the way things are.
This is a book about one...okay, three individuals’ triumph against a deeply oppressive and abusive system, but their triumph not only ignores, but actively rests on the perpetuation of the system...but at least good people are in charge right now so everything is fine, right?
Ugggh.
At this point, I’m not sure I even want to touch the deeply annoying girl versus girl and “this is the good girl because she doesn’t care about fashion” stuff which, yes, this book inherits from Austen, but also ...Austen is subtle and nuanced, people!
And I gave it three stars because I did enjoy it. But Peterfreund’s failure to interrogate her premises is upsetting and I just...Do. Better.
She could have written nearly this exact story, but with an Elliott that recognized her position and the injustices she was struggling against and who worked not merely to be a good owner of people, but to free them. You don’t need to throw out the premise, just don’t ask me to root for someone who protects the status quo because they themselves won’t misuse it.
Like I said, Uggggh.