As fifteen-year-old Sydney Riley prepares to spend the
summer with her starlet mother, Lila, in San Francisco, she has an uneasy
feeling about what the months ahead will hold. Chalking it up to nerves due to
the strained mother/daughter relationship as well as the anticipation of
meeting Lila’s new boyfriend, Sydney makes the trip anyway. What lies before
her in the coming months will be life-changing, making Sydney realize just how
important listening to one’s instincts can be.
This novel was a bit rough for me and I had to take several
breaks while reading it due to how triggering it was in some areas. It is basically the
novelized version of this meme:
I was thirteen; sixteen the first time it got really scary. See the Everyday Sexism Project for real life examples.
From the outset Sydney is
objectified by several men including Jake (Lila’s boyfriend), a young actor in
his twenties named Jay, and Shane, a man of about thirty working construction
on the house next door. There are also several instances where she has
uncomfortable interactions with strange men in public, such as a flasher, a douche
bag at a gas station and a creep in the park. The book, while documenting the
events of Sydney’s summer overall, is a commentary on the sexual
objectification of young girls and women. It is not comfortable, but it is very
necessary and done considerably well.
Sydney navigates through these experiences as she goes about
her summer, the events she encounters causing a dramatic coming-of-age by the
final chapter. She juggles the toxic relationship with her mother, turning
sixteen, first love, coming to terms with society’s bullshit standards of
purity versus sexuality, and witnessing a violent death all in the span of a
couple months. The fact that she is handling life as well as she is in the last
couple chapters is incredible, to be honest. This is an eye-opening trip for
her that leaves her much wiser at the expense of her girlhood and innocence.
“Give me back my girlhood
It was mine first”
- “Would’ve, Could’ve, Should’ve” by Taylor Swift
I really liked the characterization in this novel even if
some of the characters are complete garbage. I loved Sydney and found her very
relatable. I remember being the age she is during this narrative and learning
the same hard lessons she does – older men can be really gross, the magazines
geared toward young women do more to tear us down than build us up, and other
media we consume has not-so-great messages regarding those assigned female at
birth. The reader follows her as she matures, not just in age, but in wisdom as
she learns these lessons and finds the strength to deal with the events that
unfold over the course of the summer. Sydney is a smart girl and handles things
surprisingly well considering everything that happens throughout the story.
One lesson I’m thankful she doesn’t have to learn is how
awful first love can turn out to be. She meets Nicco, a cute, intelligent and
sweet seventeen-year-old boy, and they hit it off fairly quickly. Nicco is
probably the healthiest young adult love interest I’ve read about in recent
memory – hell, maybe the healthiest love interest in general that I’ve read
recently. He is responsible and treats Sydney with respect, never pushing her
for more than she is ready for and even cautioning her that they should take it
slow because ‘sex changes everything.’ He truly adores her and they have a cute
game they use to communicate unique to only them. At seventeen he is the only
male figure in her life that treats her well, which is sad, but also maybe a
commentary on how the younger generations of teenage boys and men are trying to
be better than those before them. I love them as a couple and was rooting for
them to last throughout the novel.
Sydney’s mother, Lila Shore, is a Hollywood actress and
fairly narcissistic. She puts everything before her daughter, especially her
career, status and any man she is presently involved with, while simultaneously
accusing Syd of being selfish and difficult. The fact that Lila has shipped Syd
off to a boarding school in Seattle where her only guardian is her grandmother,
Edwina (consequently, the only family member who seems to actually care about
Syd’s well-being), and only sees her on the holidays shows how little she cares
for her daughter. If that isn’t enough, their frequently strained interactions
throughout the summer and her actions in the final weeks of Sydney’s visit
prove it. Caletti does a great job of portraying the complicated nature of this
kind of toxic relationship between a parent and child – depicting Syd’s
conflicting feelings toward her mother, the love, the anger, the pity, the urge
to protect and the yearning for a normal relationship between them. Sydney’s
navigation through this relationship and ultimate decision regarding it at the
end of the story is relatable, understandable and heart breaking. Sydney is the
daughter of a narcissistic diva and a womanizing absentee piece of crap. She deserved
better than either of her parents could/would ever give her.
The last major character to examine is Jake, Lila’s current
beaux and an abusive, lecherous dumpster of a person.
Jake poses as a real
estate mogul and art collector, but it is pretty clear early on that he is into
shady dealings. From the minute he meets Sydney he’s touching her and making
her uncomfortable. He pressures her for a hug when she’s never met him before,
grabs her knee while they’re driving in his car, and makes comments like, “you
look a lot older,” while appraising her in a way that makes her feel he’s
staring at her breasts. (As someone who has had a large bust since age twelve
and has heard this comment and experienced this look many times, he was
DEFINITELY looking at her chest.)
Jake’s behavior toward Sydney only gets progressively
creepier as the story moves forward. He alternates between trying to be the “cool
adult” to gain her affections (taking her out driving at high speed in his Lamborghini,
pretending to respect her opinion on art, siding with her in arguments with her
mother) verging on grooming behavior, to trying to control her sexuality
(getting upset about her dating Nicco, getting furious over her getting a
hickey, calling her a slut and roughly manhandling her after catching her being
intimate with Nicco). He claims he is looking out for her but he’s obviously got
ulterior motives and it’s disgusting.
“Jake and me and sex – he didn’t care about me taking a big
step, or getting STDs, or using contraception. He was guarding my virtue, like
my body and spirit would spoil if I were touched. Like my body was his. To leer at and to control.” (pg.
309)
This man rants about how Sydney needs to respect herself and
acts like Nicco is a danger to her yet disregards her actual safety around
those far more dangerous. He tells her “you can’t let that stuff get to you”
regarding Sydney being flashed by some pervert on the street, to which she
rightfully thinks, “He didn’t have to
let that stuff get to him, because it would never happen to him.” (pg. 208) Jake
also takes Sydney along on one of his shady deals and leaves her alone in a
vehicle with one of his creepy associates that has been clearly leering at her.
This is immediately after he went off about the hickey Nicco gave her.
“’Jesus,’ His voice was full of disgust. ‘Is that a fucking
monkey bite? Have you and that kid been fooling around?’” (No… a ‘monkey bite’
is whatever that weird knee grab was you did to her in the car when you first
met. That mark on her neck is a hickey, also known as a love bite, and is a
perfectly normal thing. Stop being weird about it, you sound jealous of a
teenage boy.)
Heaven forbid a teenage girl makes out with her teenage boyfriend! The horror!
I hate this character, but he’s well written and exemplifies
the insidious attitudes patriarchal society has toward young women. The
interactions between Jake and Sydney depict how confusing, twisted and
dangerous these attitudes truly are. They make men feel like they are entitled
to women and make women feel either like a silenced object to be looked at and
preyed upon or like they have to conform in order to protect themselves and be
accepted. The effect they have on women is heavily felt by Sydney:
“… I felt pissed. The world hadn’t changed and this made me so
angry. It was the same as it had been for hundreds and hundreds of years, and
this filled me with fury. I was angry at the paintings of women who were only
bodies, who had faces with blank eyes and no mouths. I was angry at R. W. Wright,
and his sexy, punished girls, and men who leered, and boys who grabbed, and the
gaze, the gaze, the gaze. I was furious at the dick flashers and violent men,
the frauds, the thieves. I was pissed at how beauty was some highly prized
commodity – sold and sought and viciously envied, made to feel shameful. Pissed
at the guardians of your virginity who were as much creepers and controllers as
creepers and controllers.
“And I was furious at the mothers who encouraged you to be
sexy but not have sex, and ladies’ man fathers, who flirted with waitresses and
treated you like another unseen girl, because who were you supposed to be,
then? The you in the middle of all of this. The hopeful you, the wanting you,
the you with dreams, the unsteady you, the you that wants to feel everything
but isn’t allowed to, who doesn’t know what to make of this mess, and how could
you?
“… I made a decision, because our eyes do see, our mouths do
speak, and we are not objects. I am not.
“The women of my family, going back generations – we’d been
told lies about ourselves that we believed, and we’d even gone on to tell each
other those same lies. I could maybe put an end to that particular plotline.”
(pg. 353)
“This would be an ending where I listened to myself and used
my voice, no matter what the world said back.” (pg. 349)
I found this book powerful and enthralling, if a bit
triggering at times. The heroine is relatable and sympathetic. She becomes
stronger despite all she has to deal with and learns how to stand up for
herself despite her fears. Her romantic relationship is healthy and adorable.
The plot even takes a few turns I wasn’t quite expecting. The social commentary
regarding lecherous attitudes towards girls and young women is heavily woven
throughout and will make many uncomfortable, but it is a discussion we need to
be having.
8/10
For my commentary/reactions as I progressed through this novel, as well as to keep up with what I'm currently reading, feel free to visit and/or follow me on Goodreads.
During the summer of 1965, two young women were brutally
murdered while camping in the woods. The police know who did it but cannot
prove it. They believe the killer is Ray Pye, the assistant manager at the
Starlight Motel, and regular deviant youth of their small New Jersey town. It
is also believed that Ray’s friends know more than they’re saying. Four years
later, the police are still watching Ray as he slowly comes undone, but no one
could have foreseen his final act or predicted the tragic loss left in his
wake.
The novel starts off right before the initial murders, with
Ray and his friends Tim and Jennifer hanging out at a campground. When Ray sees
two naked girls camping together, he decides he wants to kill them. What
follows is a scene of carnage as the girls are brutally shot numerous times
with Ray laughing through it all and Tim and Jennifer unable to stop him. They reluctantly
help him clean up the crime scene rather than running when they have the chance
and wind up wrapped up in the crime as accessories, fearing going to the police
due to their own involvement. Come 1969, they are both experiencing varying
degrees of guilt, but are somehow still loyal to Ray, despite the way he treats
them.
The three central characters are fairly awful people and
make their parts of the first 60% of the book hard to get through. The story is
told from the alternating perspectives of Ray, Tim, Jennifer, Detective Charlie
Schilling, retired Detective Ed Anderson, Sally, Katherine, and a stray cat
(yes you read that correctly).
The most disturbing chapters are those from Ray’s
perspective – the misogyny, the racism, the homophobia, and the narcissism. He’s
both incredibly conceited and ridiculously insecure – taking great pride in his
pretty face but wearing cowboy boots with crushed up cans inside to make up for
his height of 5’3”. (With the amount of times the boots are mentioned alongside
his difficulty walking in them, I was really hoping for a scene where they
cause him to fall. No such luck.)
I kept picturing this scene and hoping for it. *sigh*
He seems to think the world, and especially
women, owe him something, and he should be able to have whatever and whoever he
wants. When someone refuses to give him his way, disaster will strike.
Tim is Ray’s lapdog … I mean “best friend.” He is a weak,
cowardly boy who occasionally has quiet moments of rebellion against Ray’s
power over him, but, for the most part, has very little character development. Tim
would possibly be happy being Ray’s doormat for the rest of his life if he wasn’t
in love with Jennifer. Tim’s love for her is the only reason he does the one
good thing he’s ever done in his life. So in the end, he does the right thing
but for somewhat selfish reasons and I don’t feel any sympathy for him.
Jennifer is Ray’s girlfriend in the loosest sense of the
word. He has her over to have sex and expects her to be faithful to only him
while he hits on and/or has sex with every other attractive girl in town. She
puts up with it because she both loves and fears him, but it becomes apparent
her patience is wearing thin. She has a bit more development than Tim, and
there are moments when I am proud of her for standing up for herself against
Ray’s abuse, but overall she is still a crappy person by the end of the book.
At first I really did not like Katherine – she’s snotty and
rude, judgmental, and always seems to be looking for trouble. She’s also the
character with the most development, going from the spoiled rich girl with an
attitude to a young woman realizing the causes of her misdirected anger. She grows
from being nasty to other women to comforting and consoling them in frightening
situations. Katherine is also one hell of a fighter. Not only is she feisty on
her dates with Ray, giving him a run for his money, she defiantly stands up to
him during his final rampage as well, both with her sass and violence. (Shoulder
ramming him into the floor, beating him with the chair you’re tied to … Girl,
are you Black Widow?)
Sally seems like such a sweet person with a big heart. She’s
responsible, smart and kind, but also not willing to take crap from anyone,
especially Ray Pye. She’s the only woman in town he can’t seduce and it irks
him. She just wants to work and earn a little pocket money before leaving for
college in the fall, but Ray can’t accept that. Nor does he like how much of a
fighter she is. When she has the opportunity to run and possibly escape Ray’s
frenzy, she chooses to risk her life and help her fellow captives instead.
For the most part, I really liked Detective Charlie
Schilling. He really cares about the victims in the cases he investigates,
having become attached to the girls murdered in 1965 and their families. So
attached, in fact, that his marriage to his job caused his actual marriage to
crumble and his wife to leave with their two children. They part on good terms
and are still able to co-parent, even with her all the way across the country.
Their ability to remain close and their obvious continued love for each other
is touching and left me hoping for them to reunite at the resolution of the Ray
Pye issue. Schilling will not rest until he proves Ray is responsible for the
1965 murders, but ends up blaming himself for pushing so hard when Ray finally
snaps.
Given how much I typically loathe age-gap relationships, I
really thought I would dislike Ed. However, the man really does seem to love
Sally and treats her like an equal. He’s a lonely widower who spends his days
cooking and gardening and she makes him feel alive again. There are no attempts
to control her and he even tries to step back from their relationship to let
her live her life without him weighing her down. He is very protective of
Sally, especially when he realizes Ray has his sights set on her, and will stop
at nothing to keep her safe.
I’m not entirely sure why there were sections from the
perspective of a stray cat, but they were cute and eased the tension a bit.
However, these chapters also had me anxiously grumbling, “You better not kill
that sweet baby!” The cat becomes attached to Ed and he decides that it’s time
for a pet.
The majority of the novel takes place between the events in
1965 and Ray’s breaking point in 1969, following him as he slowly loses
control. As his little empire of sex, drugs and rock and roll begins to fall
apart, the mask of charismatic normalcy he’s worn all these years begins to
slip as well. When he snaps, he goes on the worst spree of assault, kidnapping
and murder the small town of Sparta has ever seen. This rampage and the final
build up to it made the final 40% of the novel intensely gripping. I couldn’t
put it down until I finished the book. I needed to know what happened – and it
was horrific.
The ending for me was a bit disappointing. I was not happy
with who died and who survived, although there were some incredibly
well-written heartbreaking scenes. Ray’s comeuppance is problematic and
unsatisfying. I was really hoping for an ending like that of the films Death
Proof (2007) or Fresh (2022), but alas, no.
This would have been a much better ending.
I wanted happier endings
for many of the characters, many of which remain just as lost as they were
throughout the rest of the novel. Then again, maybe that was the point.
This is a fast-paced but disturbing read. Being in Ray’s
head every few chapters is very uncomfortable and honestly feels a little
violating. Just reading his thoughts made me want to cover myself, causing me to empathize with the female characters even more. Some of the other characters
are just annoying and reading things from their perspectives irritated me.
The midsection of the story is a bit slower than the beginning and end, and
some find it hard to get through, but once things start falling apart on Ray,
it picks up again and doesn’t let up until the “afterward” section at the end.
The true ending is unsatisfying and problematic. An average novel that could
have been better and is not on par with the other Ketchum novels I’ve read.
Content Warning: Animal Abuse / Death, Child Abuse, Domestic
Violence and mentions of Sexual Assault / Rape.
Helena Pelletier finally has the normal life she’s always wanted – a loving
husband, two healthy daughters, and her own successful business. However, what
her family doesn’t know is that Helena harbors a secret about her past – a
secret that she never believed would come to light and endanger her newfound
peace. Helena thought she could keep her identity as the daughter of the
convicted rapist and murderer, “The Marsh King,” from her family, but once her
father escapes from prison, she knows she must track him down in order to
protect herself and her loved ones.
I really wanted to like this book but I am very torn. I thought the premise of
this novel was exciting. Helena’s character is a product of the abduction and
rape of her mother – a case similar to that of Jaycee Dugard. Helena’s mother
was abducted at age fourteen by a man of Native American heritage known to her
only as Jacob. He held her captive for fourteen years, keeping her as a “wife”
and forcing her to bare his child. I found this idea fascinating – a story told
from the point of view of a child coming from such a situation.
The story itself was interesting. It alternates from present day Helena’s
perspective to flashbacks of her life growing up in the cabin with her parents.
It detailed her survivalist training and their “living off the land” lifestyle.
Interwoven between these two time periods are excerpts from Hans Christian
Andersen’s tale, “The Marsh King’s Daughter,” which provides a parallel to the
story unfolding – especially between the daughter in the folk tale and Helena
herself.
Ms. Dionne does know how to write a suspenseful thriller. The tale was a
gripping read that slowly delved into darker depths the further we went into
Helena’s back-story. This is a child who was raised in the wilderness and knew
nothing of the outside world except for what she read in outdated National
Geographic magazines. Helena was raised in an abusive home. She watched her
father verbally abuse, beat and torture her mother while being taught to hate
her mother as well. Helena adored her father, despite his sadistic cruelty to
herself and her mother, and it wasn't until he took one “punishment” too far
that she began to detach from him and eventually escaped with her mother.
The thing that really drags this book down for me is not the plot or the story
itself – that was gripping and I couldn’t wait to find out what would happen
during the final showdown between Helena and her father. What keeps me from
giving this story a higher rating is the characters – most of the people in
this book are scum.
Obviously Jacob is absolute garbage – there are no redeeming qualities for him.
He gets off on killing animals and people alike, and wants to destroy Helena’s
carefully crafted new life. However, Helena is an incredibly irritating
protagonist and some of the things she says and does are so anger-inducing!
I really wanted to like Helena. As aforementioned, she had a unique, but
horrific upbringing, and I was hoping she’d grown from that to be able to
utilize her past skills to protect her family. While she does do the latter,
she has hardly grown from the wild child who escaped the swamp. She was raised
to hate her mother and she still does throughout the majority of the book,
constantly taking jabs at the poor woman. Helena mentions that she never really
bonded with her mother (though it appears her mother made several attempts to
do so that Jacob thwarted). Helena criticizes nearly everything her mother ever
did, to the point of being hypocritical – for example she drags her mother for
never returning to school and improving her life after they escaped from Jacob,
but Helena herself never finishes high school. Helena is a rape apologist
making constant excuses for the horrible things her father did to her mother
(including blaming his Native American heritage!) and stating her mother
wouldn’t have been any better off if she hadn’t been abducted. Never mind the
fact that her mother was in extensive therapy following her escape due to all
the trauma she experienced. Helena states she had therapy too, and it taught
her that her father was a narcissist who had slowly turned her against her
mother, but she doesn’t manage to stop criticizing her mother until the last
few pages of the novel when she seems to have a dramatic change of heart.
Helena desperately needs to return to therapy – her healing is far from
complete. She also needs to check the internalized misogyny that floods through
her veins and makes her judge her daughters harshly (ex: criticizing her oldest
for being “soft” and “afraid of bugs.”).
I do understand that Helena was limited from the start due to her first twelve
years being shaped by an abusive, sadistic narcissist and not having any
positive role models following her escape. With her mother too traumatized to
assist in raising Helena, she really needed someone to step in and fill that
void, but no one did. Helena and her mother moved in with her mother’s parents
after their escape, only to be treated as cash cows rather than provided with
love and assistance. Helena had little chance of developing normally, which is
sad, but, unfortunately, I still have very little empathy for her character.
I also understand that the child in the fairy tale of the same name is there as
a parallel to Helena. Helga, the girl in the tale, is beautiful yet evil by day
and ugly yet good by night. I felt that we were supposed to wonder if Helena’s
dark nature – her upbringing, her mixed emotions toward her father, and her
anger towards her mother - would cause her to turn evil and side with him or if
her less-often seen good side would prevail. The plot is fairly predictable in
answering that question, but the resolution is satisfying all the same.
Overall, this was an interesting read. Although many have enjoyed this book immensely,
I found the protagonist ruined it for me and the suspenseful plot was not
enough to distract from her annoying narration. If you are not into internally
misogynistic female protagonists, graphic depictions of child abuse, domestic
violence and animal deaths, you should probably skip this one.
Genre: Nonfiction, Women
& Gender Studies, Social Commentary
I was excited to read this book when I borrowed it from a
friend a few months ago. As someone who majored in Media Studies in college and
minored in Women & Gender Studies, I'm well aware of the insidious ways the
media can affect our children, particularly our daughters. As someone who wants
to have children one day, I'm always on the lookout for materials that will aid
me in raising well-balanced, intelligent people who are aware of the media's
attempts to spoon feed them toxic materialism and stereotypes. That is the goal
of this book. However, while it provides many good examples of ways to talk to
our daughters (which can also be used for our sons and non-binary children)
about what they are seeing in the media as well as great book and movie
suggestions, the attacks on certain kinds of films, music artists and books are
flawed and poorly researched, making this a hard book to recommend when there
are far better books like this available.
Lamb and Brown organize the book into six chapters, five of
which are related specifically to our daughters - what they wear, what they
watch, what they listen to, what they read, and what they do - and the sixth
devoted to Sample Conversations With Our Daughters. I will go over each chapter
individually.
I had little to no problems with the section on clothing for
girls, as for the most part, I agree with the authors. Lamb and Brown lament
the limited clothing choices available to young girls and women. The clothes
are either too revealing or have cringe-worthy sayings on them like "Don't
hate me because I'm beautiful, hate me because your boyfriend thinks I am"
and "If It Weren't for Boys, I Would Never Go To School." This book
was written in 2006, but that trend is still big today with such shirts as
"Boys Are Better Than Books."
Lamb and Brown also point out that clothing
for little girls state they are "Princesses," "Angels,"
"Pretty," or "Have Attitude," while boys get positive
clothing stating they're "Champs." I witnessed this in the kids' department
while shopping for my nephew not too long ago - there were pajamas in the boys'
department that stated the child was "Smart and Brave" but I could
not find anything equivalent to that in the girls' department.
I fully agree with Lamb and Brown that it is a
problem in marketing that we stereotype girls into brainless bimbos that
worship at the altar of makeup, the color pink and boys. From an early age this
is being sold to our girls, telling them this is the type of girl to be, and it
wriggles its way into the minds of even the most avid resisters.
Next came the chapter on movies and television, which did
raise an issue with me. The examples they use in this section are television
shows and movies I grew up watching, and while I don't want to tell the authors
that their interpretations of the messages in these shows is wrong, I will say
I do not agree with them on many examples and feel they didn't do adequate
enough research.
The authors state that girls have
very little strong female figures to relate to on television and that can be
true, especially in the early years where it seems that the boys get all the
adventures. They acknowledge Dora the
Explorer as an adventurous, strong female character, but claim she is in
the minority. As I have seen many children's shows give the exciting storylines
to male characters and the majority of children's shows have male leads, this
seems accurate to me. I do think we're doing a little better these days with
shows like Doc McStuffins and Word Girl, but I don't have much
experience with children's television circa 2006.
However, when it comes to the shows watched by
teens and preteens, I feel the authors
either blew off popular shows with great characters that were on during the
time they were researching this book or gloss over them. The authors went out of
their way to rip apart shows like Lizzie
McGuire, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and Kim
Possible for pushing the girly girl stereotype and love of
shopping/clothes/makeup/boys and seemingly forget the fact that some girls do
actually like that stuff and it is okay as long as the characters are
well-rounded - which Lizzie, Sabrina and Kim all were. There is no mention of
shows like So Weirdor The Jersey that involved girls with more
varied interests such as the paranormal (So
Weird) and sports (The Jersey) or
of Ren, the brainy older sister in Even Stevens.Gilmore Girls is barely mentioned and
there is no praise for the amazing mother/daughter relationship, the fact that
Rory's best friend is a girl of color, or that Rory makes intelligence, dry wit
and being a bookworm cool. Veronica Mars
is also glossed over when she's a badass who is full center between girly-girl
and tomboy, her best friends are a guy of color and a female computer whiz and
bookworm, she solves mysteries, makes intelligence sexy, rocks the sarcastic
humor, and doesn't take crap from anyone. Buffy
the Vampire Slayer and Angel are
completely ignored in favor of Charmed
despite their badass lady characters. Buffy, Willow, Cordelia, Fred, Tara and
Anya all have something to teach our girls and the boys on these shows are just
as well rounded and worthy of discussion. I felt like Brown and Lamb wasted
more page space ranting about shows that weren't very problematic and ignored
some great shows that were available at the time.
Then Lamb and Brown decided to take on the horror genre and
I began to lose respect for them. As a longtime fan of this genre, beginning at
the age of twelve, I have heard a lot of arguments against it, especially from
fellow feminists, and some do have good points while others are obviously
ill-informed and poorly researched, based on a small sampling of what the
horror genre has to offer. The argument in this book falls into the latter
category.
First, the movies they chose to
exemplify the horror genre were horrible. They claimed to be talking about Jeepers Creepers but ended up analyzing
the plot of Jeepers Creepers II which
has an entirely different style than its predecessor. The first film was more
of a suspense/thriller/creature feature while the sequel follows more of a
slasher formula. They compare Jeepers
Creepers II to a little known slasher with a limited theatrical release
from 2003 called Shredder which is
apparently supposed to exemplify all things slasher.
I REALLY HATE when critics of
horror films take the worst of the worst and use them to justify their
critiques of the stereotypes in that genre. There is no mention of the classics
such as Black Christmas (1974), Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Halloween (1978), Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Friday the 13th (1980), nor of more recent quality slashers such as
Scream (which actually does their
nitpicking for them). No they choose a slasher that no one has heard of except
for its brief run on Netflix Instant Watch. The authors complain that there are
never girls helping each other , which may be the case in Shredder, but not in Jeepers
Creepers II when the cheerleaders try to help one another, nor in the
previous slashers I mentioned above - if the girls end up in a bad situation
together they look after one another. The authors complain about the nudity and
sex - which are usually aspects of a lower grade horror film, but often make an
appearance in slasher films none-the-less. While I am not a big fan of the sex
and nudity myself, it doesn't ruin a movie for me - and in the classics it is
usually tastefully done. Usually, the more in-your-face the nudity and sex
scenes are, the worse the film is.
The only other horror films mentioned are The Exorcist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake which are also frowned upon for stupid reasons. They make Reagan's gender a major aspect of why her possession was so horrifying when it's really the perversion of innocence overall. Erin in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is chastised for wearing a white tank top and for the motherly focus when she rescues a baby. (What was she supposed to do, leave it there?) She also goes head to head with Leatherface and wins!
Why no mention of that or any of the
other badass final girls? There is nothing regarding the empowering feeling a
girl gets when a female bests the murderer / monster and comes out a hero -
which is what I felt as a teenager and still feel now when I watch these films.
Lamb and Brown act like a female
being the villain in a horror film is terrible and stating that all women are
either good or evil. Why is it so wrong for a female to be the killer? We can
be just as evil as males and there are female serial killers in existence.
Lamb and Brown bring up the virgin
vs. slut dichotomy and claim that the slut always has to die. While this is
sometimes the case, it isn't always as true horror fans can tell you. Also, the
Final Girls are NOT all virgins. It is hinted in both Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday
the 13th that Nancy and Alice have had sex prior to the beginning of the
film. Jess in Black Christmas is
struggling with the decision to abort her pregnancy. It's unknown whether Sally
in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a
virgin. Sydney loses her virginity onscreen in Scream breaking the "only virgins survive" rule. Only
Laurie Strode of Halloween is a shy
virgin. It's as if Lamb and Brown are paying lip service to a rule they've
heard about but never done their own research on.
Next, Lamb and Brown take on the
music of the time, and, as the artists and songs they used for examples were a
big part of my teenage years, I found myself in disagreement with a lot of what
they had to say. Especially since, once
again, I found their research flawed at best.
For instance, Lamb and Brown
mention that Vanessa Carlton mastered the piano and ballet, but talked about Jessica
Simpson as if she was only famous for her reality show, Newlyweds. I'm not a huge Jessica Simpson fan, but that show wouldn't
have had the audience it did if Jessica Simpson wasn't already a star (2 hit
albums were released prior to the reality series).
Lamb and Brown come across a
little hypocritical in this chapter. They practically ignore the problematic
songs by the Black Eyed Peas because that band also wrote that one decent song,
Where is the Love? (which is a great
song, but every other song they release is sexual and/or about
drinking/partying), but judge a pop artist like Britney Spears or Christina
Aguilera based on two songs out of their many albums. Britney is criticized
from going from innocent in ...Baby OneMore Time to sexually compromised in Toxic,
the entirety of the two albums between her debut ...Baby One More Time and In
the Zone which contains Toxic is
ignored - both of which contain songs like Stronger,
What U See Is What U Get, Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman, Overprotected, and Cinderella which I loved as a teen. Later in the book they also rip
on Britney for having a porn director direct her video for From the Bottom of My Broken Heart - probably her most chaste video
ever produced.
The authors do the same with Christina, comparing Genie in a Bottle to Dirrty
(which they mistakenly call "Drrty
Girl") claiming both are about sex (Genie definitely is - about the conflict between hormones and
knowing when it's right to give it up to someone, but Dirrty is more of a dance club anthem with sexual inuendo.) Songs disregarded: I Turn to You (which was supposed to be
a love song and Christina turned it into a song about her mother), Reflection (For Mulan), Can't Hold Us Down,
Fighter, Beautiful, Soar, Make Over, The Voice Within, I'm Ok
and Keep Singing My Song. All of
which are empowering and amazing.
Songs that I loved in my youth
were attacked for not being girl-friendly such as Perfect by Simple Plan - Lamb and Brown claim it's not "girl
friendly" because it doesn't include girls. Well no, it was written by a
guy about his relationship with his father - it's HIS story and HIS feelings. However, girls are included in the music video making it relatable for girls as well.
Sk8er Boi by Avril Lavigne is accused of being divisive among girls
and upholding stereotypes - again this was a song based on Avril's life - the
snooty girl who turns down the skater boy was the kind of girl who bullied
Avril for being different. She was describing the kind of girl who, in her
experience, was stuck up and superficial, turning her back on people who had
real potential in favor of the superficial, preppy, popular crowd. It's about the what happens when you let your friends choose your partner and are afraid to go after who and what you want.
Avril is also criticized later in
the book for getting "girly" for her second album and writing songs
about boys. (Her first album had a lot of songs about boys on it too, FYI.)
They said the "girl power" of her second album, Under My Skin was limited to "the power to wait for the right
time to have sex" and used Don't
Tell Me as an example. That is not quite what the song is about - it is
about standing up for yourself when your significant other or someone you're
dating casually or even just a friend is trying to pressure or coerce you into
having sex when you don't want to do so. Avril stands up for all the young
women telling them it is okay to say "no" and to kick the ass of
anyone who doesn't respect that decision.
The authors
also act like it is a bad thing that Avril teaches young girls through her
lyrics that they have the choice about who they date and criticize her lyrics
where she states that the guy she's no longer with never made her feel special
- like it is a bad thing to want your boyfriend to treat you like you're
special to him. I always interpreted that line to mean that he didn't treat her
well or like his girlfriend - for example - take her out on dates, do nice
things for her, call her, etc. not that he should have been worshipping at her
feet or something. I also don't see anything wrong with young women being told
that they don't have to put up with a guy not treating them right which has
always been the message that I took out of Avril's early music. The authors
seem mad that Avril uses "We all have choices ... we all have
voices..." in the terms of romantic love but not in any other terms for
young women. I'm sorry, but why does one young pop star have to be the perfect
idol for all young girls? Then the authors praise Fefe Dobson who writes the
same kind of songs. What?
I swear Lamb and Brown didn't even
listen to some of the songs they commented on. They ragged on Good Charlotte
for Riot Girl and said that Hold On was written specifically for a
girl. No it wasn't - it is an anti-suicide song for their fans. Blink 182 is criticized
on for "needing comfort" in IMiss You, (why is that a bad thing? I thought we, as feminists, were
fighting for males to be able to break free from toxic masculinity and express
their emotions!) Also they say "vocalist" when discussing Blink 182 when
both Tom and Mark sing in I Miss You.
In fact, they only ever say "The vocalist" when talking about the pop
punk bands such as Simple Plan, Blink 182, Good Charlotte and Green Day - they never
use their names, nor, it seems, bothered to find out anything about them. So we
shouldn't discuss the fact that the Madden twins of Good Charlotte grew up on
Welfare, were raised by a single mother when their dad walked out, were bullied
relentlessly at school, worked part time jobs to help provide for their family,
and taught themselves to play an instrument? Just because they're dudes that
doesn't mean they cannot be relatable to young women. I felt they ripped harder
into bands who wrote relatable, non-misogynistic , emotional / confession songs
than into artists who wrote nothing but party songs about drinking and sex.
The authors also whine about how
few bands are fronted by women and then say Amy Lee of Evanescence wrote Tourniquet about a lost love and asking
God to save her. Seriously, did they even listen to the song? It's about a
LITERAL suicide - she's committed the act, and, as a Christian, is committing a
moral sin, so she is asking to be forgiven. It is true that there aren't many
female lead bands, but the ones we do have are pretty amazing - Evanescence,
Flyleaf, Paramore, Garbage, The Cranberries, Kittie, My Ruin, and many others
have some great things to say and will empower your daughters.
Besides their poorly researched issues with the American
Girl stories, the only other issue I had with their take on the books girls
read is their description of the Nancy Drew Mystery series as "mov[ing]
from intrepid detective to hot-teen-in-trouble books with covers that resembled
Baywatch ads" and stating "we knew desire for sales would win out
over content." Did you actually read these stories though? The authors are
not clear as to which version of the Nancy Drew mysteries of recent years they
are referring to, so I'm going to assume it is the continuation of the series
numerically in paperback format. On these covers Nancy is blonde rather than a
red head, but that change occurred in the sixties or seventies when the
original series ended. Nancy is also usually dressed as an average teen in
jeans and sweaters or blouses much more practical for sleuthing in than the
dresses and heels she frequently wore in the original stories. I found I
enjoyed the mysteries in the paperback Nancy Drew stories just as much as the original
64 books in the series (and not all of those were gold either). Still it would
be helpful to know just which series the authors are referring to as we have The Nancy Drew Files, Nancy Drew and the Clue Crew, The Nancy Drew Diaries, Nancy Drew: Girl Detective and The Nancy Drew Notebooks in addition to
the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories and
just plain Nancy Drew.
The authors make one thing clear and that is their dislike
for the graphic novel version which is drawn with the "manga look"
and gives Nancy an unrealistic body with large breasts (I do believe she always
had those, she just didn't wear tight fitting clothing). They also describe
George as "pumped up" and
"OC-like" - whatever that means. I took the liberty of looking up the
graphic novel on Amazon and viewed the "Look Inside" option. Nancy is
conservatively dressed though her breasts are a little perky and her tops are a
little tight, George is still the tomboy she always was, wearing her jeans and
t-shirts, only she may be rocking a little eyeliner and lipstick, and Bess has
gone from plump and cute to pin-up girl body, wearing sexy clothes (miniskirts,
halter tops) and has become a flirt. They've also added a mean-girl nemesis for
Nancy that I've never heard of before (long time Nancy fan, here) which is
something I would have thought these authors would have latched onto as they
had an entire section on "Mean Girls v. Nice Girls" and how that
dichotomy is problematic. Maybe they didn't read the book?
Other than their less-than-well-researched-or-thought-out
comments on two of my favorite childhood book series, I did agree with much of
what they had to say regarding other teen novels and I loved their
recommendations for future reading.
I also agreed with much of what they had to say against teen
magazines and how they push material items at girls while claiming they just
want girls to be able to find themselves and be true to their own unique
personalities. I liked how the authors explained that this is problematic when
they are really teaching girls to embrace aspects of the consumer market. My
one issue with their take on magazines is how they rip on certain activities or
jobs that girls may like just because they are traditionally feminine. They
discuss how one teen magazine suggested a list of summer jobs for girls and
labeled them as "traditional Mom" jobs such as gardening, baking,
organizing and taking care of children, pets and elderly people. Yes, I get the
argument that traditionally male jobs such as mowing people's lawns or helping
out at a summer camp should be suggested for girls as well, but let's not
forget that some girls actually enjoy the "traditionally feminine"
jobs suggested and we shouldn't shame them for it. What if a girl likes to bake
or make lemonade or cook? I get the implication is that girls belong doing
cooking, cleaning and nurturing, but we shouldn't disregard suggestions like
this just because they are traditional as there are many girls who enjoy
kitchen oriented activities or organizing or being with kids, animals and
elderly folks. I think we just need to add more diverse activity and job
suggestions so no one feels unrepresented. I do agree with their assessments
that the activities suggested for girls by these magazines are pretty lame -
such as, watch TV, go to the movies, read a suggested novel (usually garbage),
write down lyrics to your favorite songs, watch the clouds, practice karaoke,
show off your fave swimsuit at the pool and have a summer fling. (I left out
giving your room a mini make over, because I found that fun and soothing in my
youth - I still do.) I really liked the ideas for activities pitched by the
authors and think they should be incorporated into more parenting and more teen
magazines.
Chapter five examined what girls like to play or do in their
free time. This chapter focused a lot on sports and the fact that many girls
seem to feel alienated from them, which is sometimes true. The authors argue
that girls don't have a lot of female sports role models to follow, especially
those with the bodies of true athletes, and that is also true as the media
spends a lot more time following men's athletics, but the authors also seemed
to forget that the Williams sisters exist
and that many young women look up to them. The authors also argue that
many women abandon sports for drama, singing and art as we "have been
taught to be deeper, more emotionally rich and complicated people, and that
drama, self-involvement, and angst-ridden self-reflection are the essence of
teenage girlhood." (p. 236) The authors go on to say, "But when girls
give up sports for these more emotionally charged and dramatic hobbies, they
miss the rewards of a deeper connection to their bodies. One could argue that
dancers have that bodily connection, but the high incidence of anorexia and
bulimia amongst dancers goes against that argument." (p. 236) Or the girl could just not be
athletically inclined and instead prefer the arts? I was one of those girls -
I'm a terrible athlete, but I love the theater. Also, the swipe at dancers is
not okay - I was into dance and knew several dancers growing up and, as an
adult, have two acquaintances (one male, one female) who teach dance on a
regular basis. Anorexia and Bulimia have nothing to do with being in touch with
one's body - they are a mental illness based on control of food and weight.
There are also plenty of ways of getting in touch with one's body that do not
involve sports - such as singing a full range of notes, hiking, taking a walk,
meditation, yoga, perfecting a difficult dance number or blocking sequence,
etc. I feel like, a lot of times, despite saying that parents need to be open
minded to their daughter's take on things and what activities their daughters
want to pursue, it is really like they are saying that girls should be into
certain activities over others - which is just as bad as what we learn from the
media.
Lamb and Brown go on to attack the suggestion that girls
decorate their bedrooms. They dedicate a two page section of the book to
ranting about how all the decor marketed for girls rooms being stereotypically
girly - pink, purple, floral, paisley - filled with princesses and fairies or
pop stars and furniture designed by their favorite teen idol. I understand the
comparison to the decor directed at boys is the cause of some of this anger -
the boys get decor related to science, nature and sports with color schemes of
green, red, yellow and blue - which again indicates that boys are smart and
active while girls are passive and silly. This kind of thing does deserve a rant.
However, it should not be frowned upon if a girl wants to take initiative to
make her room her own to match her growing personality. In my adolescence my
room went through two makeovers of my own design. I didn't use a marketing
device such as a catalog to guide my choices - I watched a lot of Trading Spaces and HGTV and picked my
own color schemes, arranged the furniture how I wanted, etc. It got my creative
juices flowing and I don't think that should be discouraged in any child. If
your son wants to decorate, there should be no shame in that either.
Chapter six is the best chapter as it provides a strategy
for talking to our children about toxic media influence as well as sample
conversations. For the most part these are well thought out, although in some
cases it appears that the authors are once again out-of-touch, such as when
they equate being "goth" to smoking pot and equated piercings and
dying one's hair a wild color with self-harming behaviors such as cutting and
eating disorders. Otherwise, it is a great tool for discussing problematic
media messages and imagery with your child, and it's one of the few things
about this book that I would recommend looking into.
Overall: While I like
what these authors have to say as far as talking to our daughters (although I
think it can be used to educate children of all genders) and the suggestions
they have on how to do so, I don't like the examples of media they chose and
feel this book was poorly researched. I recommend that anyone interested, go to
your local library and make copies of the following: the list of Movies That
Feature Strong Girls and Fewer Stereotypes (p. 116), the list of Books and
Series that Have Strong Girls and Few Stereotypes (p. 208 - 209), and Rebel,
Resist, Refuse: Sample Conversations With Our Daughters (p. 263 - 294). Forget
all the rest.
Four years after the sudden death of his beloved wife, Jo,
suspense novelist Michael Noonan returns to their summer home on Dark Score
Lake. Upon arriving in the small Maine town, Mike finds he may not be alone in
the lakeside retreat known as Sara Laughs. He hears phantom crying in the
night, receives messages on his refrigerator, and has ghostly encounters in his
dreams. After a chance encounter with young, twenty-one-year-old Mattie Devore
and her three-year-old daughter, Kyra, Mike finds himself dragged into the
middle of a custody battle, both by Mattie's ill-intentioned father-in-law and
the spirits of Sara Laughs. What secrets does Dark Score Lake hold and why do
the spirits want him to help Mattie?
I enjoyed this novel. While it has horror aspects in
relation to the hauntings and the evil within some human beings, the story
focuses more on the character development and relationships. For the first two
thirds of the novel, the main focus is Mike's battle with writer's block, his
grief over the loss of his wife, and the custody battle between Mattie and Max
Devore. The more involved Mike becomes, the more he begins to fall for Mattie
and seems to step easily into the father figure role when spending time with
Kyra. The ghostly happenings serve as a connection between them, and it isn't
until tragedy strikes that the horror really begins.
The characters are well-rounded and fleshed out, they have
histories and unique characteristics. The good guys are relatable and likeable,
while the villains are truly twisted and evil. Mike serves as a great narrator,
he's relatable, intelligent and witty, with a softer side he's not afraid to
show. He decides to help Mattie when the rest of the town has turned against
her. He's so good with Kyra, and despite the age gap, the reader ends up
wanting him and Mattie to end up together. Mattie Devore seems like a fun and loving
mother, who is doing everything she can to raise a toddler on her own. She
doesn't trust easily and does not like to accept charity from anyone. She is
clearly being persecuted by Max for no good reason and it's hard not to love
her or her adorable daughter Kyra. These three are the center focus of the
story, and while the rest of the characters were well-written, these three are
the ones that stand out.
A key theme in this novel is the enduring bonds of love;
bonds that last long after death. This theme keeps Jo alive, despite her death
in chapter 1, and enables her to protect Mike as he comes closer to revealing
the dark secrets of TR-90. However, hate and rage can also create bonds that
endure through death and generations, and this powerfully negative energy is
exactly what Jo is determined to protect Mike from.
At first the only negative energy Mike has to deal with is
in human form as Max Devore harasses and even assaults him when he gets in the
way of Max getting custody of Kyra. The scene where Max and Rogette, two
seemingly unlikely assailants have Mike trapped out in the lake, attempting to
drown him, is one that had me clinging to my book, unable to put it down until
I knew he was safe. This scene is the turning point for the novel, and the
suspense continues until the final act. As the human behavior becomes more
violent, the paranormal activity inside Sara Laughs intensifies, and as the
novel reaches its climax, the reader follows
Mike as he puts together the connection between the haunting of Sara
Laughs and the happenings in the lives of Mattie and Kyra Devore.
I really did enjoy this novel and loved the combination of
ghost story and the fairly accurate portrayal of a custody battle. I felt for
the characters and fell in love with them, especially Mattie, Mike, Jo and
Kyra. However, it did lag a little in the middle of the novel before picking up speed
again, so that may deter a few readers. Curious to see how it ended, however, I
plugged through and ended up with a fairly satisfying ending. My only other
complaint is that we don't find out what happened to Romeo Bissonette and
George Kennedy after they both incur wounds in a shoot out. As their wounds
didn't appear fatal, the reader can assume they made it out okay, but it still
would be nice to know for sure.
Overall, despite a couple minor draw backs, this is a
decent, entertaining read, delving more into human relationships than the
horror aspects of the haunting of Sara Laughs. If you're looking for a lot of
scares, this novel may not be for you. However, if you enjoy lots of suspense
and character development, and don't mind that the ghostly activity takes a
backseat to human interaction, you may enjoy this book as much as I did. This
book is as much about the evil that lies in the hearts of humanity as it is
about the dangers of the paranormal world.
After a death in her family, Lilliana Norris inherits
property worth millions. It is a home that was an anchor for her as a child, a
home to many cherished memories shared with her mother and aunt. She moves into
the house, knowing she’ll never be able to afford the taxes. Enter Tucker
McGrath, a handsome, shady real estate mogul, who will stop at nothing to get
his hands on her property. The two eventually become a couple, but does Tucker
really love her, or is he just in it to get her land?
This book caused me so much rage! I nearly threw my kindle
across the room several times while reading this garbage. It was just so
frustrating! Now, I normally try to keep my reviews fairly professional, but I
just can’t with this one. WARNING! You are now heading on a long venture
through SNARK-infested waters! If that’s not your bag, you might want to turn
back while you still can.
The first thing that angers me about this story is the
characters. I liked Lilliana quite a bit at first, despite her initial
condescending words to Tucker (before I realized just what HE was like). She’s
independent, intelligent, and feisty. At first she’s really able to stand her
ground against Tucker; telling him off when he oversteps her boundaries, giving
him deserved verbal beat downs when he talks down to her, and refusing to take
his crap. She has some great lines:
“It so happens that I admire all of your teeth, but it’s
your ass I want off my property.” (p. 17)
“How dare you presume to know my needs. You have no idea
what makes me tick. I’m no little girl, Mr. McGrath. I’m a lady and a grown
woman with desires you’ll never comprehend. It’s very obvious to me that from
your attitude, I doubt you know what any woman needs.” (p. 19)
“You can’t begin to fathom the amount of fucks I do not give
about what you want. You know the way out.” (p. 20)
“If by fuck you mean slap you upside your fat, egotistical
head, then yes, I do want to ‘fuck you.’” (p. 35)
“This isn’t a drive-through service, chucklenuts.” (p. 56)
[Also, stealing the insult, “chucklenuts.” Best thing in the book. That, and
“dick nugget.”]
“Unbelievable. Seriously, I don’t think you know the first
thing about being gentlemanly. I’m not sure what kind of women you’re used to
dealing with, but you don’t get to take what you want with me. You’re
haughtiness goes beyond anything I’ve ever experienced…Just turn this stupid,
over-priced car around and drive me home!” (p.78) [Grammatical errors from the
text.]
“You don’t own me,
Tucker McGrath, and I haven’t signed anything yet stating that you can do
whatever the hell you want to me. You wanted me on my knees and that’s where I
am at. If you want something else, then you can ask nicely…Do you know how to
do that or would you like me to demonstrate?” (p. 157)
“Fine, I guess we won’t remain amicable then. What the hell is
your problem anyway, Tucker? Why did you come back here? Just to chew my ass?
And just to clarify: it’s you and not me.” (p. 161)
“You said you could find someone else to provide your needs.
So what are you waiting for?” (p. 162)
Yet despite these moments of awesome, she wants to, and
often does, give in to him at the slightest touch. Why? Because he’s hot.
Also,
his dominating personality and objectifying behavior make her “feel like a
woman.” That is literally her response when he orders her to cook for him and
when collars her and forces her to suck him off.
The more Tucker mistreats her,
the more she gives him what he wants and rarely asks for anything in return.
She has the rare moments of clarity listed above, but as the book progresses,
she falls more and more underneath his twisted spell. I guess being hot makes up for being an asshole.
Now, let’s discuss Tucker. From the beginning he comes off
as a sexist, egotistical piece of shit, and that doesn’t change at all as the
book progresses. Good things about Tucker: he’s a hard worker, he’s against
cheating, he provides for his parents, and he’s not a homophobe. Also, he’s
good-looking, rich, and into BDSM (well, using it to abuse his power, anyway)
which seems to rev Lilliana’s engine. The bad things about Tucker? Oh, how I
loathe him, let me count the ways!
1.He immediately objectifies Lilliana, taking
mental notes about her beautiful ass.
2.After receiving some of Lilliana’s trademark
sass, he decides she’s in need of “a good bit of discipline.” He doesn’t even
knowing her name at this point.
3.He acts as though Lilliana has no right to the
property that she rightfully inherited.
Ex: “…Fuck. I hope she’s not planning on taking up permanent residency in that
house. I need to talk to her right away. Get me her number. No. Fuck that. I’ll
get changed and pay her a visit myself. I prefer to do business face-to-face
anyway.” (p. 12)
Because how dare she own something he wants?! The nerve of her!
4.If you don’t give Tucker his way, you’re
automatically an insolent child that needs a spanking.
Ex: “Tucker…was quickly becoming irritated with Lilliana’s insolence. Twice in
one day he’d had a vision of a woman bent over his knee with red ass cheeks.”
(p. 16)
5.He gets aroused by a woman’s uneasy or fearful
expressions.
Ex: “Tucker hadn’t felt the uneasiness of a beautiful woman in a very long time
and he found it enthralling that she could at least recognize his animalistic
intentions and power, despite her willfulness and disobedience.” (p. 16); “…her
eyes as wide as the moon. Tucker didn’t know whether to laugh out loud or jizz
in his pants from Lilliana’s reaction.” (p. 110)
Because great sex and healthy relationships are all based on the woman being
slightly frightened of the man. A guy who could jizz in his pants over the fear
in your eyes is NOT someone you want to be with.
6.Whenever Lilliana stands up to him, the reader
gets a lovely description of how he wants to “fuck her mouth” to shut her up.
Ex: “Tucker suddenly wondered what it would feel like to have those full lips
wrapped around his shaft and that sharp tongue licking his big balls, He bet
her smart-ass mouth would look absolutely divine glistening with his warm cum.”
(p. 18); “He wanted nothing else but to fill her mouth with his cock and to
fuck the mockery right out of it and make her surrender completely to him.” (p.
90)
She’s basically a cum-receptacle – an object to satisfy his sexual needs. He
needs those “big balls” of his kicked in.
7.She refuses to discuss selling her land with him
and tells him to get his ass off of her property. His response? “…A good hard
fuck is exactly what you need, little girl.” (p. 19) Yes, because a woman who
doesn’t want to give you something she owns obviously just needs to be fucked
until she comes to her senses and hands it over.
8.He grabs her keys from her hand and blocks her
from getting into her car to get away from him. Red Flag Alert! Preventing
someone from leaving is considered an abusive behavior. Get the hell away from
him, Lilliana!
Lilliana: -Accompanies him to his office-
Me:
9.He offers this lovely gem, “Don’t test me,
Lilliana, and don’t mistake my tolerance for weakness. That mouth of yours is
going to get you in trouble every time. I won’t ever disrespect you and I
expect the same courtesy in return.” (p. 38) He then proceeds to disrespect the
hell out of her for the rest of the book. Also, I don’t believe telling someone
they need a “good hard fuck” is very respectful there, Tucker.
10.He insists she accompany him to dinner, she
tells him maybe and then doesn’t show. He becomes angry that she “stood him up”
(she never agreed to meet you, that’s not standing you up, dickhead!) and
barges into her house demanding that she make it up to him by cooking him
something sweet for dessert.
Me: What the hell?! GET THE FUCK OUT, you entitled piece of shit! She owes you
nothing! Tell him, Lilliana!
Lilliana: “Look, I’m not sure what you think is going to happen here, but you
really need to leave.”
Me: Yes!!
Tucker: “And I will, after you’ve prepared something sweet for me. I hope you
can cook, Ms. Norris. I’m in the mood for something sweet.”
Me: How about a nice Cyanide-laced Kool-Aid? Maybe some arsenic? Would that
work for you?
Lilliana: -Wavers and gives in-
Me: BLOODY HELL!! NO!! DON’T GIVE INTO HIM!!!!
Lilliana: I’m sorry, what can I do? He’s not going anywhere!
Me: Call the cops and have him arrested for trespassing?
Lilliana: Nah! I’m gonna make him some apple crisp!
Me:
11.When she begins to cut the apples for the apple
crisp, he tells her she’s doing it wrong, and rubs his erection into her ass
while he demonstrates the “proper way” to cut up an apple.
Me: Let me show you how a knife feels in your family jewels! Back the fuck up
off me, creep!
Lilliana: Ooh, that’s a big dick rubbing against my ass! Oh, how I’ve missed
the feel of a man’s touch!
Me: A man’s touch IS nice, but you can wait for a deserving man. Until
then….
Tucker: -kisses down her spine, pulls down her shorts, gropes her ass and bites
her ass cheeks-
Lilliana: -squeals-
Me: I would have purposely farted in his face.
12.When Lilliana questions his sincerity in wanting
to be with her, he gets upset and says, “Please don’t question my intentions
and motivations, Ms. Norris.” Yet on the very next page there’s an entire
paragraph about how he was going to get her “on her knees” and get “that
fucking land.” Don’t get pissed at her for being suspicious, asswhipe. She has
every right to be.
13.Tucker: “…Why won’t you let me plant my lips on
you? I’ve been denied twice now, Lilly. Twice. I want that mouth and I’m not a
man that takes no for an answer without a fight.” (p. 56)
Me: Well doesn’t that sound rapey! She owes you nothing!
Lilliana: “Alright, you can have a kiss, but only a kiss. Deal?”
Me:
14.These words: “I will get you on your knees,
Lilliana Norris. I promise you, that.” (p. 57) This is said after the kiss.
Me: Get the fuck out, pervert!
Lilliana: Ooh! –continues making out with him-
Me:
15.When Lilliana is approached at a restaurant and
warned about Tucker, causing her to rage at him and storm off, instead of
realizing his own actions caused this, he freaks out and goes off to find the
person responsible. After all, her being angry is the fault of the person who
approached her, not Tucker’s for being a shifty, conniving bastard.
16.When they get into an argument while driving,
Tucker starts driving dangerously fast before pulling the car over to the side
of the road, getting out and throwing a temper tantrum.
Me: I’m getting the fuck out of here. I’ll walk back, I don’t care. I’m not
spending another minute in this car with that entitled baby.
Lilliana: -scrambles outside and babbles an apology- “Tucker…I’m sorry. I know
I can be… difficult. I get my temper from my father, or so my mother said. I
wouldn’t really know. Anyway…” (p. 79)
Me: NO!!
Tucker: -forces a kiss on her, refusing to let her go despite her struggling- Tucker rapidly forced his mouth onto
hers, holding her firmly by her waist with one hand and the back of her neck
with the other. His unyielding grasp on her didn’t allow her to resist, even
though she tried. She placed her palms on his chest and tried to push him away
but he forbade it. He was going to show her that, yes, he could take what he
wanted and right now, what he wanted more than anything was to shut her the
hell up. ….When Lilliana realized her efforts were futile, her body sagged in
his arms. She accepted Tucker’s tongue in her mouth and it felt just as good as
it did the first time they kissed. (p. 80)
The moral of this story? If a woman doesn’t want you to kiss her, force it on
her anyway because she doesn’t realize how much she’ll actually enjoy it.
SERIOUSLY?! This is a sexually aggressive
act, an assault. It is violating and scary, not something you just realize
feels good after you stop struggling. Yeah, rapists believe that’s what will
happen if their victims stop fighting them too.
17.When they are alone in the woods, horseback riding
(two people on one horse), Lilliana again says something that sets Tucker off
(not like that is hard to do!). So, he decides to choke her, because that’s a
healthy way to tell someone you’re upset with them. With his other hand, he reached over her
arm and chest effectively pinning it down and wrapped his long fingers around
her throat, forcing her head back onto his chest so he could see her face.
“Don’t mock me, Lilly,” he snarled into her ear, caressing her neck gently with
his fingertips. “Tucker,” she whimpered, clearly alarmed by his forceful
gesture. Her hands came up and tried to loosen his grip, but the precarious and
vulnerable position Tucker had her in left her helpless. “I’m all for fun and
games when it’s appropriate, but do not mock me. And you sure as hell better
never tease me if you don’t plan on following through with your actions. Am. I.
Clear?” Lilliana hesitated and Tucker grasped her breast tighter, making her
mewl. (p. 89)
Because abuse is always sexy! Mmm mmm! Give me some of that good ol’ country
domestic violence! Seriously, it was at this point in the book I began to hate
myself for pushing forward.
Lilliana: “You don’t ever have to explain your actions to me, Tucker.”
Me: WHAT THE FUCK?! He doesn’t have to explain why he just choked you?! FUCK
YOU, LILLIANA! And fuck you, Ella Dominguez for making this seem okay! It’s NOT
okay! THAT IS ABUSE!!
19.He makes this claim: “I’m all for a strong,
smart, independent woman outside the bedroom, in fact, I encourage it.” (p.
112) No you don’t! You’re always cutting them down and reducing them to what
they can do for you sexually! It’s not encouraging when you tell an independent
woman she needs to be spanked and fucked all because she won’t give you what
you want. Basically they can be independent as long as you don’t want anything
from them.
20.The prospect of giving this man oral seems
terrifying (and not just because he disgusts me). Every time Lilliana does give
him a blow job, he forces himself so far into her throat that it causes her to
gag, refusing to allow her to move away when it becomes too much for her, then
shaming her for her lack of deep-throating skills. What, did you expect this
Kansas girl to have the abilities of a porn star?! And remember ladies, if you
can’t deep-throat your man, you’re not satisfying him. Some winning lines from
Tucker: “No worries, pet. That sort of skill comes with practice and I intend
to give you plenty of it until you get it right.” (p. 121); “You’re quite
talented at the skin-flute, as well, though there are a few things we need to
touch up on,” (p. 189)
Seriously, I can’t be the only person who would tell their partner to get bent
after they criticized my sexual performance!
21.When, in one of her rare moments of clarity,
Lilliana gets sick of being pushed around, he tells her, “I once told you I
will not be topped, and I meant it. I’m not playing games with you. Either you
provide me with what I need and submit to me, or I’ll find someone who will.”
(p. 157) Lilliana: “Then find someone else.” (p. 158)
22.He was not
going to be topped by Lilliana or any other woman – no way in hell. Who the
fuck did she think she was dealing with…? (p. 160) Yeah, the misogyny isn’t
just dripping from this statement at all….
23.Even his compliments are objectifying: “He lost
a good thing with you. Dumb fucker. I can’t help but feel a little sorry for
him because you’re quite a catch, Lilliana Norris, and I’m one lucky SOB to
have gotten you on your knees.” (p. 176)
24.When he won’t introduce her to his brother and
she becomes upset, he tells her to stop being so dramatic.
25.He walked into her house and watched her as she
slept on the couch. His voice was quiet
and soothing, but all too real. Lilliana pried her eyes open to see Tucker
kneeling next to her, only inches away from her face. (p. 210) CREEPY! Me: This is so creepy! Get the fuck out! You don’t just walk into someone’s
house and watch them sleep!
Lilliana: Hey sexy! Let’s have sex!
26.He tells her he’ll never punish her in anger, so
what the hell was that choking thing about then? That sure didn’t seem like a
playful punishment to me.
27.He fights her about using condoms, acting like
it’s only HER duty to prevent pregnancy by being on the pill. She counters
with, “condoms prevent more than pregnancy,” which they do – but you’ve been
ingesting his semen for weeks now – you ARE aware that STIs can be transmitted
orally as well, correct? In fact, swallowing is a “major safe-sex no-no” as
Sasha from Urban Legend put it so eloquently. Despite this issue, it
still pisses me off that Tucker manages to manipulate her into having
condomless sex not too long after this argument. Tucker: Waah! You don’t trust me! Waah! Condoms kill my mojo!! (No kidding, he
says this on page 223) –gets Lilliana so sexually revved up she goes in for the
sex without a condom- Ha! I win! No more condoms!! Me:
28.When he defends Lilliana to her asshat
ex-husband, he never once says anything about what a great person she is, how
strong, independent, intelligent and witty he claims to find her (in his head,
never to her directly). Instead he just defends her oral and sexual skills
(although, of course he’ll tell her they're lacking). When the two men get into a
fight, Lilliana gets between them, and her ex ends up punching her in the face.
What does Tucker do? He gets mad at her for trying to protect him! “So instead
he hurt you. I don’t need that kind of guilt. Fuck, look what he did to your
eye!” (p. 327); “If you weren’t such a mess, I’d paddle your ass for that
little stunt,” (p. 238); Before leaving,
he placed another delicate kiss on her swollen eyelid, and reprimanded her yet
again for her overzealousness in trying to protect him. (p. 241) He seems to worry more about how this incident reflects on him and makes him
feel, rather than the pain Lilliana might actually be in.
29.“I’m sure as hell not shopping for feminine
hygiene products. Buying tampons is a hard limit for me.” (p. 275) Sounds like
someone isn’t as comfortable in his masculinity as he likes to appear. I think
he needs a lesson from Priestly in Ten Inch Hero.
30.His apology gift to Lilliana after one of their
fights is … drum roll please …. A collar and leash so he can parade her around
like a dog! This is not an apology, this is just another way to objectify her.
31.“Lilliana wants whatever I tell her to want.”
(p. 313) Not abusive or controlling in the slightest.
32.He doesn’t allow her to have a girls’ night
without him intruding. Lilliana: It’s cute. He’s so charming and witty with them! Me: He’s controlling you, Lilliana. You can’t even spend time with your friends
without him supervising you. That’s another abuse red flag. But then again,
choking is very abusive and you seem cool with that, so….
RAGE!! This relationship was definitely a bit of a roller
coaster in that I would get my hopes up every time Lilliana stood up to him or
left him, and then they would be crushed by her stupidity. She allows herself
to be controlled by her arousal – which doesn’t seem to dwindle no matter how
badly Tucker treats her. She claims to be in love, and during one of their
break ups, uses up two weeks of vacation time mourning the loss of their
relationship. SERIOUSLY?! I’ve broken up with guys after being in a
relationship with them for a year or more and continued to function normally. I
went back to work a week after losing my grandfather. She breaks up with a man
she’s been dating for a month and needs ALL of her vacation time to mourn the
relationship?! REALLY?!
Also, these authors who write BDSM erotica really need to
actually research the topic and not just plug in their own creepy fantasies.
The only thing Dominguez gets right is this, “Being submissive doesn’t mean
you’re weak. It takes a strong person to allow another to take control.” (p.
306) However, there is no mention of the fact that in real S&M play, the
submissive is actually the one with the power to stop everything with the
utterance of a safe word – something I don’t remember Tucker allowing Lilliana
to have. (Although in her case, a safety action or gesture may work better,
since he was always cramming his penis down her throat.)
Another thing this
book gets wrong is that a relationship like this is heavily based on trust.
Dominguez has Lilliana allowing Tucker to restrain her, spank her, and treat
her like his slave when she has expressed many times that, although she finds
him attractive, she doesn’t trust him. You need to be able to trust your
partner not to hurt you, and I don’t think Lilliana was really able to do that,
causing her to fear Tucker when he is in one of his punishing moods, and
causing his arousal by being afraid. This does not promote a safe relationship,
and safety is always a priority in this kind of play.
Please don’t try to defend Tucker’s actions as part of BDSM.
They are not. They are abusive, chauvinistic and self-serving. Yes, forced
kisses and choking can be part of the play, but only if both parties agree to
it. It should never be done in anger, which both actions were within the
context of the story. Collars and leashes are also a part of the play, but,
again, Lilliana wasn’t asked if she wanted to take part in that kind of play,
it was just introduced as a required act. Boundaries were never discussed at
all, and every time Lilliana tried to set one, Tucker would find a way to
manipulate his way around it. In this kind of relationship, boundaries are
extremely important and absolutely need to be discussed to ensure the
well-being of both parties. Doms need to be sure they don’t cross the line with
their subs, and subs need to know where doms may draw the line. Tucker uses his
being a dom as an excuse to be a jerk to women who don’t know anything about
the lifestyle.
“Erotic novels” like this make me angry because they make
abuse seem like part of BDSM play. It is not, and any Google search of BDSM
guidelines will tell you as much. It would be a rather quick research job, if
the authors of crap like this really bothered to look into it. I found such
informative links as “BDSM Safety and Common Sense”,
an article that really would have benefitted the Tucker character: “So You Want to Be a Dom,” - which basically tells would-be doms to act nothing like he does, and a fabulous
introductory video on BDSM101 by Laci Green for A Naked Notion.
I found all of this in about ten minutes of searching Google, so how
come these “erotica” writers can’t get it right? Promoting unsafe ventures into
something like this is irresponsible at best.
Please, folks, if this book or 50 Shades of Grey has gotten you
curious, read up on how to practice safe play. DO NOT USE THESE BOOKS AS GUIDES!
But how can I expect decent research to have been done on the topic when it appears the text wasn’t even proof-read before going to
publication? This story was in dire need
of editing, from the missing words, dangling modifiers, and gaping grammatical
errors to the most ridiculous descriptions and sentences I’ve ever read. There
were multiple occasions where the wrong form of “your” and “lay” were used.
Pronouns were mixed up within the same sentence (Ex: Tucker attempted to strike up a conversation with him. By her body
language, it was obvious to Tucker that she was interested. [p. 10]). Also, horses in this universe appear to swap
genders. When Tucker and Lilliana are leaving on their trail ride, the horse is
a stallion which Tucker calls “girl,” and when they come back it’s a mare. So,
either Dominguez decided to change the horse’s gender halfway through the scene
and never went back to fix it, or she doesn’t realize that stallions are males
while mares are females.
There were a few descriptions in this book that left me
scratching my head as well. Dominguez tends to throw in odd descriptors outside
of the rest of the story’s vocabulary. For instance, she describes Lilliana’s
lips as being the color of amaranth, which is a shade of purple. That’s not
normal, is she asphyxiating? Does someone need to perform the Heimlich Maneuver?
Tucker’s skin is a shade of praline, which is a kind of dough, so I’m guessing
it’s a tan color. I really have no idea.
There are also some ridiculous comparisons made. One of my
favorites has to be, “…a beautiful woman with an ass like an onion that could
bring tears to his eyes.” (p. 51) Sounds delectable. I know I’ve always wanted my
ass compared to an onion. The other is this winning line, “Damn if Tucker’s
smile was like icing on the cake, the cherry on the pie, the lube on the dildo.”
(p. 112)
I love how we went from
innocent food to BAM! Dildos! I definitely wasn’t expecting that.
Yeah, I got the joke, but it’s not funny,
sorry. Lastly, there’s a scene that almost directly rips off the kitchen scene
in 9 ½ Weeks. You know the
one.
Except,
instead of just having fun and feeding her different foods, she has to guess
what it is or be denied orgasm. This may be out-kinking a classic kinky film,
but it hit so close to the original scene for me that I couldn’t get into it.
Tucker and Lilliana are no John and Elizabeth, and their relationship is far
more unhealthy.
Overall: This is a 50 Shades knock off in need of
proof-reading/editing due to awkward sentence structure, strange similes,
missing words and obvious grammatical errors. The author, like that of 50
Shades, seems to know nothing about healthy BDSM practices and seems to
have dominance/submission confused with abuse. Tucker has very few redeeming
qualities and, though he sometimes admits to himself that Lilliana has other
great qualities aside from being attractive and good in bed, he rarely, if
ever, allows her to know he feels that way. She has moments of being a strong,
intelligent character, but these get fewer and farther between as the story
wears on. There are times when it seems like the worse he treats her, the more
she falls for him, and that is something I hated to read. He acts like her
sexual skills aren’t good enough, demeans her, gets physically violent with her
out of anger, and convinces her it’s all a part of domination/submission. It is
NOT. It’s more like an abuser/victim relationship under the guise of BDSM, and
promotion of that idea is repulsive and irresponsible.
