Fire and Hemlock (DW Jones)

[cahn]

3+/5 - This is about the only DWJ I have a memory of not liking. (There's The Homeward Bounders, which I find excruciating to read, but mostly because it's really good, in a painful sort of way.) And then, you know, I was reading bookelfe's reviews, and of the things we've both read, it seems like we totally agree on 95% of it. To the extent where she would say something and I would think to myself, "I thought that exact thing when I read it!"

Except for this book, which she loves and I remembered disliking. So I thought I'd give it another try.

...Okay, I see the problem. There's a highly problematic age-and-power-differential romance between a pair that, at the beginning of the book, are ages 10 and at-least-19 [hm, although there is a case to be made that he's only 17] respectively. And I have a strong kneejerk response to that. And usually I can keep my romance kneejerk response (of which I have a good deal, this isn't the only one, although it's perhaps the one I most often complain about) apart from my response to the book as a whole, but the problematic-romance is woven into this book and plot and relationships to such an extent that here it's impossible.

And the thing is, it is problematic, and DWJ admits that, and even uses it as a plot point (which I was too blinded by kneejerk flail to see the first time around). And there is a huge amount going on here... the book, especially the ending, is beautifully subtle and weird and strange, and I'm still thinking about it. So I do think it's very good. But man, would I have loved it more if they weren't written in a way that strongly implies they will end up together (although, to do her credit, she did not have them end up together quite, and one is free, even encouraged, to imagine that these issues will drive them apart) or if any of Tom's otherwise awesome friends had called him out for what he was doing (at least Polly's grandmother does). Because, still creepy.

(And yes, okay, D is eight years older than I am. But I didn't meet him when I was ten, nor did I spend the next eight years having a mad crush on him while he taught me stuff and functioned as a basic (though mostly absent) parental figure. Ugh.)

Comments

[skygiants]

I definitely think how much one likes Fire and Hemlock (or at least how well one copes with the romance angle) corresponds significantly to the age at which one is when one reads it first - there's a point right around twelve or thirteen where you genuinely don't notice the romance is creepy, and another point I think later on when you appreciate what DWJ is doing with the creepy and with the complexity of the book as a whole, and the age in between is liable to cause rebounds.

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Yeah, exactly -- I think I got to it at precisely that wrong age (late teens?), and it's been coloring my view of the book ever since. Which is quite unfortunate, because it's a really awesome book that's doing so many cool things -- so I'm glad you convinced me to read it again :)

I definitely wish this had been the first-time read, though, as the hard bouncing off of it I did when I first read it is coloring my reaction now as well. (Hm. Although I can think of many books that I like better than I should because i read them when I was younger and less critical, I can't think of another one offhand that I like less than I should because I got to it at the wrong time, but I'm sure a great deal of that is that I don't generally tend to reread books I don't like.)