*ducks and runs from the Neil gaiman fans*

I read The Sandman: The Dolls house yesterday and I really didn't like it, I'm really disappointed about this to be honest because people have been telling me for ages that I would love it. Maybe I just didn't get it because I find visual narrative much harder to interpret than just writing but I think there were things about it that genuinely disturbed me, and not in a good way.

From the off I was really uncomfortable with the initial story. It seemed really culturally appropriative, based as it was on indigenous peoples tribal rituals, as if its okay to take stories that don't belong to us and fuck around with them for our own entertainment. I don't know if the story told here is one that is passed down in any tribal culture or if Gamian made it up, but I do know that there are stories that are private and tribe specific in indigenous cultures and people who do not belong to those cultures do not have a right to tell them or even know them. (And it just seemed to be "look these noble preliterate people! they tell stories, while still being ignorant primitives!) Added to which the context that this particular story is told in doesn't make sense, the narrative tells us it is a story that is told by the men of the tribe to the boys about to go through the ritual that turns them into men (circumcision in this case) and it is stressed that it is a story that is only told once a lifetime (by the older man) and heard once a life time (by the younger man) and this is how it is transmitted, and this version of the story is only told to men by men.

So who is telling the story? Why are they breaking a generations old tradition and telling it outside of their tribe? How do I as a woman have access to it?

I'm well aware that Gamian probably made this story up but that isn't the point he is still taking part in cultural appropriation by his depiction of indigenous peoples and the idea that all stories are the property of everyone, even those who don't belong to the culture they come out of and are very likely part of a culture that has or does oppress the culture the tale comes from.

The whole serial killer convention squicked me out completely and nor did I really get what it bought to the narrative, and the guy who was all about the eyes was too disturbing for me. I get that I actually have a really low squick threshold when it comes to dismemberment and similar issues but the whole "I kill transsexuals because they fascinate me" thing was so not okay, there was no critique of this, there was no acknowledgement of the danger trans people live under, of the fact they are more likely to be killed than cis people, of the fact that they were being killed because they were trans when all the other victims seems to just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Also there seems to be too much rape for no good reason that doesn't really go anywhere. It's not explained who raped Unity, there seems to be no affect on her daughter when she finds out shes the product of that rape. And the almost rape of the main character seems pointless and leads to nothing, the connections made to red riding hood here are also really unsubtle and clunky

There were somethings I liked about it. I like stories about stories, I like stories about dreamscapes, I love the fact that Gilbert told one of the oldest forms of little red riding hood (the one that I unconsciously think of as the "real story") I like that Gilbert was a place and a person. I liked the story about the guy who lived forever. I do have the next book (I borrowed them both from andygrrrl) and I will read it to see if I'm being too harsh but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

Lord Loss by Darren Shan

I thought I was going to hate this book, the first couple of meetings with the protagonist put him in a horrible, horrible light and leave the reader with no empathy for him. He thinks it's hilarious to put rat guts and blood in his sisters towel so she gets covered in it after a shower, and he doesn't understand why no one else in his family finds it funny. I think the author expects the reader to find it funny as well but I personally was just thinking "psychopath". The book is aimed at adolescent boys but to be honest if any of the adolescent boys I work with found that sort of thing funny I would be pointing them in the direction of the nearest mental health unit.

Anyway the book got better while never being brilliant or particularly believable (I mean its about demons and werewolves its not supposed to be believable in the real sense but I don't think the author ever captured adolescent boy psychology sufficiently.

I had thought I knew what was going to happen though, that it was going to be really formulaic but there were quite a few twists and turns I wasn't expecting that took the story to quite interesting places, however I think the fact the protagonist was so horrible in the beginning of the book meant that I really lacked empathy for his grief over his family dying so didn't really connect with his character till really late in the book.

Nothing about this book really jumped out at me, it wasn't terrible and it passed the time, but it wasn't really original either (lycanthropy being passed down through genetics and playing chess with demons for peoples souls, ho hum)

I did like the idea of a demon that fed off peoples grief and despair though, I think a lot more could have been made of that. I think it could have been used as an exploration of the nature of grief which would have been a really useful teaching tool for adolescents. In fact there are all sorts of things in this book that could have been explored better such as the psychiatric hospital he ends up in (which is nothing like any psych unit I've ever been in or heard of.)

The demons seemed too caricatured to be scary and there was nowhere near enough suspense or creepiness in the book. I don't think i'll bother reading anything eles by this authout to be honest.