Title: Sisters Red
Author: Jackson Pearce
Genre: YA/UF
Publisher: Hodder Children’s Book/ Little, Brown
Publication Date: June 2010
Hardcover: 352 pages
The story of Scarlett and Rosie March, two highly-skilled sisters who have been hunting Fenris (werewolves) – who prey on teen girls – since Scarlett lost her eye years ago while defending Rosie in an attack. Scarlett lives to destroy the Fenris, and she and Rosie lure them in with red cloaks (a colour the wolves can’t resist), though Rosie hunts more out of debt to her sister than drive.
But things seem to be changing. The wolves are getting stronger and harder to fight, and there has been a rash of news reports about countless teenage girls being brutally murdered in the city. Scarlett and Rosie soon discover the truth: wolves are banding together in search of a Potential Fenris – a man tainted by the pack but not yet fully changed. Desperate to find the Potential to use him as bait for a massive werewolf extermination, the sisters move to the city with Silas, a young woodsman and long time family friend who is deadly with an axe. Meanwhile, Rosie finds herself drawn to Silas and the bond they share not only drives the sisters apart, but could destroy all they’ve worked for.
Stand alone or series: Book 1 in the Sisters Red series.
How did we get this book: We got ARCs from Little, Brown.
Why did we read this book: We have been waiting to read this book for ages – the cover is striking and the we are always up for a fairytale retelling.
Ana’s take:
Listen.
I could tell you that for the first pages of this book I was completely engrossed in the story. How could I not? I mean, a dark, violent even, retelling of Red Riding Hood in which two sisters are the hunters who kill the wolves? I am in. It helps that the first pages were very gripping: back in the past when the kids lived with their grandmother and were attacked by a passing werewolf and Scarlett, the oldest sister, protects the younger Rosie almost to her own death losing an eye in the fight and becoming scarred for life. Then, as teenagers they fall in the roles that they have taken for themselves that day: Scarlett, the protector, Rosie the protégée – both equally fierce Hunters but with a striking difference. Scarlett sees nothing but the hunt, Rosie wants something else for her life.
I could tell you that I like the prose. But also that the tale and the alternating chapters between the two sisters get repetitive very soon. I could tell you that when the next door neighbour, a woodsman-hunter named Silas comes back to town that I knew Rosie would fall for him and that their story was actually quite sweet.
I could definitely tell you that part of what makes me like the book to begin with is the fact that making the two girls the ones who go after the werewolves to kill them is rather an empowering take on the original tale.
I could tell you all that.
But what I really want to tell you is: when I hit page 108 (of the ARC) I went nuts. You see, it is part of this retelling that the werewolves are predators who are after young, pretty girls. As part of their hunting routine, Rosie will dress up, put on make-up and perfume (because she usually doesn’t do that as she is a “natural beauty”). Obviously, Scarlett, being the ugly, scarred sister, just sits back to attack when Rosie has played the role of prey. So, page 108. Scarlett is outside a nightclub observing the girls in the queue to get in:
They’re adorned in glittery green rhinestones, shimmery turquoise and aquamarine powders streaked across their eyelids. Dragonfly girls. Their hair is all the same, long and streaked, spiralling down their backs to where the tiny strings holding their tops on are knotted tightly. Their skin glows under the neon lights – amber, ebony, cream – like shined metal, flawless and smooth. I press harder against the crumbly brick wall behind me, tugging my crimson cloak closer to my body. The scars on my shoulders show through fabric when I pull the cloak tight. Bumpy red hills in perfectly spaced lines.
The Dragonflies laugh, sweet, and bubbly, and I groan in exasperation. They toss their hair, stretch their legs, sway their hips, bat their eyes at the club’s bouncer, everything about them luring the Fenris. Inviting danger like some baby animal bleating its fool head off. Look at me, see how I dance, did you notice my hair, look again, desire me, I am perfect. Stupid, stupid Dragonflies. Here I am, saving your lives, bitten and scarred and wounded for you, and you don’t even know it. I should let the Fenris have one of you.
No, I didn’t mean that. I sigh and walk to the other side of the brick wall, letting my fingers tangle in the thick ivy. It’s dark on this side, shadowed from the neon lights of the street. I breathe slowly, watching the tree limbs sway, backlit by the lights of skyscrapers. Of course I didn’t mean it. Ignorance is no reason to die. They can’t help what they are, still happily unaware inside a cave of fake shadows. They exist in a world that’s beautiful normal, where people have jobs and dreams that don’t involve a hatcher. My world is parallel universe to their – the same sights, same people, same city, yet the Fenris lurk, the evil creeps, the knowledge undeniably exists. If I hadn’t been thrown into this world, I could just as easily have been a Dragonfly.
I felt extremely uncomfortable with this passage, but as much as this is some serious twisted thinking, I can understand Scarlett feeling this way. She is an angry character, full of regret, jealousy – and being scarred and ugly does get to her (seeing as how she keeps going on and on about it). So, the text above is in keeping with this character.
BUT
Two lines down and Silas joins her as she observes him:
His eyes narrow in something between disgust and intrigue, as though he’s not certain if he likes looking at them or not. I want to comment, but I stay quiet. Somehow it feels important to wait for his reaction. Silas finally turns to look at me in the shadows.
“It’s like they’re trying to be eaten, isn’t it? he asks pointedly.
“Can I tell you how glad I am that and Rosie aren’t like them?”
“No kidding.” I grin, relieved. “Rosie could be if she wanted, though. She’s beautiful like they are.”
“Beauty has nothing to do with it. Rosie could never be one of them. Do you really think they’d dress and act like that if they knew it was drawing wolves toward them?”
No. NO. NO. NO. NO. JUST NO.
By then, I was beyond uncomfortable, I was downright angry. The meta is thus: the girls should know better. If they knew better, they would change their behaviour and would not be attacked. This is what I read. But this is not what I should be reading.
NEVER, EVER blame the victims. The blame always, always lies with the criminal (or predator).
And just like that I am done with the book. Because I can’t respect the characters who think like this, because I lost respect for their motivation for being hunters (it’s not about REALLY about protecting the girls is it? It is almost about proving a point) and if I can’t relate with their plight then the book is nothing to me. Because the bottom line is this: the book empowers women yes, but ONLY certain types of girls, not all of them. And I am sick and tired of books that associate girls that are self-confident and beautiful with being shallow and superficial and deserving of bad things happening to them. SICK AND TIRED.
That is not ok. And I suggest you read the article in this link to see why exactly I think it is not ok.
I did read till the bitter end in the hopes that another character would come in and say: “yo, stewpid, GET A GRIP” but alas, no such thing has happened. I can’t even be bothered to rate this book. I will only say:
Verdict:
Thea’s Take:
Clearly, Ana feels VERY strongly about this book, especially about the excerpt above. Now, I’ll admit that when I first read this passage, I didn’t immediately see what Ana picked up on. I tend to get annoyed with flitty girls in general, and Scarlett’s anger at the “dragonflies” seems well-founded and in line with her character, regardless of whether I liked her character or not. As a scarred, bitter young woman dedicated to destroying all Fenris at any cost, this sort of thought process makes perfect sense for someone like Scarlett.
But then, after Ana pointed out the next section, it made me think about the overall message…and I stand firmly with Ana. Enraged.
Just because a girl is pretty, and likes to look pretty; just because a girl goes out to the club in revealing clothes; just because a girl likes the attention that comes with being young and attractive, this DOES NOT MEAN she is stupid, or a whore, or fucking “asking for it” (pardon my French, but this is a disgusting mindset and pisses me off to no end). It is frustrating – no, infuriating – beyond belief that the women in Sisters Red are so stereotyped and marginalized. Don’t get me wrong – I love warrior women/strong women/badass fighter women, as much as the next person. But this gross generalization that girls that go out to have fun and be noticed are somehow billions of times inferior to their too-tough-to-look-pretty (but OF COURSE are effortlessly gorgeous *eyes rolling*) counterparts?
Nu-uh. Not cool.
Now, you might be telling yourself, ‘well, these two seem to be taking a single passage a bit far’ or something to that end. Well, folks, unfortunately Sisters Red has a whole lot of other problems too.
1: The characters are mind-numbingly repetitive and boring.
Initially, I found a lot to like with Sisters Red. The opening scene with Grandma valiantly holding off the big bad wolf to save the children, and then Scarlett’s desperate last stand to save Rosie, is EPIC. I loved that Scarlett is abrasive and tough, that she’s missing an eye and is both terrified of the wolves, yet completely in love with the hunt. I love that Rosie is a different person – that she cannot remember the past too clearly, and that she clearly loves Lett, but needs to grow to be her own person.
BUT. All of this? All this promising characterization is exhausted in the first thirty or so pages of the book. From then on it is more of. the. same. Scarlett gets mad at Rosie for being careless. Scarlett goes hunting for Fenris. Scarlett gets mad again and wallows in her pit of eternal self-suffering. Meanwhile, Rosie wants to be taken seriously (and thinks Silas is freaking HAWT). But she wants to be taken seriously. She tries to make peace with Scarlett (and Silas is HAWT). And so on and so forth.
Things get pretty dull, pretty quickly. These characters never felt real to me – more like your standard cardboard stand-ins. (Just because characters are “troubled” doesn’t immediately mean they are well-developed. SHOW me. Don’t keep TELLING me.)
2: The “Romance” is the same predictable uninspired tripe.
From the second Rosie sees Silas, and vice versa, it’s all “he looks different, his jaw is so angular and manly!” and “she looks different, all ‘grown up’ and beautiful!” (I’m paraphrasing of course). To be honest, I’m sick of it. Could this book just have been about the sisters without one of them needing the catalyst of falling in love with the studly boy next door? ARGH.
Of course, this could just be me and how burned out I am with YA paranormal romance. Lots of people love this stuff. I, unfortunately, am at the end of my rope.
3: The hunting element of the story is STUPID.
*Caps lock engaged* WHY THE HELL WOULD THESE SISTERS BE HUNTING WITH HATCHETS AS OPPOSED TO…I don’t know…GUNS?!??? If Scarlett’s true ambition is to take out every single “Fenris” on the planet, wouldn’t it make sense to take out a bunch of them with a semi-automatic weapon, as opposed to the good ol’ woodsman hatchet technique? And while scampering around in a blood red cloak is awesome and all, this book doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The story takes place in MODERN DAY. The red riding hood cloaks, while they go great with the idea of the story, aren’t exactly…congruous with the time period. (Not to mention, you’d think the stupid wolves would remember two chicks – one with an eyepatch – hunting around not-so-incognito in bright red cloaks)
Also, in my opinion the term “Fenris” is stupid. Is it plural? Singular? Yeah, yeah, I get that it derives from Fenrir – but “Fenris” just looks stupid and forced to me. If you’re going with Norse mythology, stick with the root name. (That is, if you’re not going with the more familiar “werewolf” terminology, which doesn’t make sense in the first place given how much more prevalent “werewolf” is in modern vernacular!)
These were my issues with Sisters Red – which arose long before the club scene – and they were enough to make me put down the book.
Verdict: DNF – Life is too short to force myself to finish books that don’t work for me.
You want a good Red Riding Hood retelling? Stick with Bill Willingham’s Fables series. Now THAT has solid characterizations, a plot that won’t quit, and empowered characters – both male and female.
Reading next: A Wish After Midnight by Zetta Elliott
sharing is caring
135 Responses to Book Discussion: Why We Didn’t Like Sisters Red by Jackson Pearce
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
This – btw – is completely derailing the focus of the review thread.
Exactly my point, Celine. The tone argument is derailing.
A discussion of the gender politics that inform how we read the book is not.
I’m not sure I get you. Renay tried to negate Gerd D’s post by asking him to suck it up when he said he felt men might have a problem being told they’re all potential rapists ( a comment he recognised was off point) and I simply pointed out that no-one should be judged based on gender. I was responding to a blatant lack of respect for someone based on thier gender! For goodness sake. Get on with the conversation and stop beating to death a perfectly legitimate point which is that no-one should be judged based on thier gender!
do excuse my bad spelling.
@ Rachel Bateman – I am sorry your comment did not show up sooner, for some reason it ended up in the spam folder!
I am sorry you feel this way.
The thing is: I don’t know Jackson Pearce, I never read her blog, never watched her videos, didn’t know her intentions. I only interacted with her text and part of doing that, as a reviewer I think, is to interact with the subtext as well because to me, most of the time a book is not “just a book”. And I am glad and proud to be passionate and have thoughts on rape culture. And because I am passionate about this, ,because I am aware of this, I can also say that even if I had read her blog and watched her videos, I would still find problems with this book. It is a circle back to the very discussion that we are having.
I believe we did not base our entire review on 100 words and we mentioned other things that bothered us as well, since it was a book discussion on why we didn’t like the book – including repetitiveness, rehashing of the same conflict, worldbuilding that did not work for us which yes, included the name Fenris – pet peeves, we have them too.
As for the author’s comments – she made a point about what her intended to have written and I simply replied to her. Was I not supposed to reply to her comment? She came into a conversation after all even if she doesn’t intend to be a part of it.
I’m inclined to agree with Rachel Bateman here. I haven’t read the book myself, but whatever the intentions of the author, it’s a mistake to believe that a character’s opinion is the same as the author’s opinion. The author isn’t preaching to anyone, the author isn’t responsible for putting “bad” attitudes out there. The story is what it is, and it’s okay for characters to be unlikeable and to say things we find abhorrent. Increasingly, I’ve noticed a trend in genre fiction where the protagonist is just a bit too “perfect”. Not in any traditional sense, but it’s almost as if they’re tailored for a specific audience (prolific readers) to not cause any offense or be annoying or stupid or weak or hateful. They always do the right thing, they always behave in exactly the way we’d like to think WE would behave in that situation, and so they placate us. Terms like “TSTL”, “Mary Sue”, etc, have contributed to this kind of backlash, but in a weird sort of way, the emerging breed of “anti-Mary Sue” protagonist is just as much of a plastic creation. We say we champion the “flawed” character, but a vast majority of them are perfect in their imperfection. The featured excerpt is a much better example of flawed characters, even if (or especially if) they do mean what you think they mean. The rest of the book may be tosh, of course, but the excerpt in question didn’t offend me.
I would usually agree with that, there’s few things more annoying than people trying to read subtext into something when there is non. But with picking Red Riding Hood she picked one of the best know, most dissected and discussed analogies for sexual abuse. This is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it has become practically impossible to read any version of the story without looking for subtext. And she writes practically writes in Horror which very much lives from using subtext.
Still, I do think that the general idea sounds like something one can have a lot of fun with and just relish in girl power and bloody mayhem, without intending to send out any kind of message. But I dare say that as an author she should have been aware of the whole possible implications that choosing this specific character brings with it, and when she then did go and have her wolves, as I gather from the review to be the case, prey on dressed up party-girls looking for fun, it becomes difficult not to notice the metaphor that creates.
It is perfectly clear that the Smugglers reviewed the book and their views of it. Not the author. Where the heck do any of you see the author being reviewed? Ana replying to the author’s statements isn’t an attack on the author. Nor does it mean they are determined to hate anything. Strong, well-reasoned arguments are not hate. Get a grip, people.
Whoa hold up here! Thea and Ana saw something in the book they wanted to point out and I don’t see anything wrong with that. They are in no way lashing out at the author, just a specific part of the story that made them uncomfortable.
How by them expressing their opinion is disgusting? They have a valid point and why should they be thrown under the bus for stating their opinion?
I applaud both Thea and Ana for this review, just like all their past ones.
To the above commenters, if the author’s intentions and/or beliefs aren’t a factor, then what’s the issue with what the characters say in this particular scenario? If it’s not the author’s intention to make a statement or condone a certain way of thinking, why can’t the characters be the type of people who say sexist and judgemental things that show their skewed view of the world? I’m not saying Jackson Pearce intended for her characters to represent this view, but even if she did, why can’t the characters be this way? And to go one step further, is it essential for us to like a character in order to appreciate a book? Does it always have to be someone we root for, someone we’d like to be friends with? Other issues with the book aside, is it a valid criticism to say that a character is unlikeable? To use The Catcher in the Rye as an example, I can’t say I like Holden Caulfield very much, but I still value the book as a whole.
Of course the characters can be that way. After all, they are. The book was published with them being that way. As you say, unlikable. No, it’s not essential to like a character in order to appreciate a book. What is apparently important to some readers though is how the characters GROW from what they do and say and see and react to and so forth. I believe this is essentially part of the valid points Thea and Ana were making in their review. That the characters being this way didn’t serve any greater purpose in the book. So the characters remain the same old same old – what’s so great about that? What makes that worthy of appreciating the book as whole? Maybe some just don’t appreciate characters that are determined to remain as Thea and Ana saw them to be? I mean I guess if you like characters that remain as the ones in this one do, and they never try to become anything more, that’s great. But just because Thea and Ana have a different view doesn’t make it any less valid or less of a reason to call the things they do into question.
I’d say it is still definitely valid to say a character is unlikable if you can follow up with good examples of WHY. If you can have one, you can have the other in these cases (Because reading is what? Subjective). After all, there are plenty of positive reviews for this book, and I’ve yet to see people raising a stink over them – you just usually won’t when there’s no criticism. And Thea and Ana explained their dislike very clearly. So it’s entirely valid to also ask why isn’t it OK NOT to like a character? And to express clearly why (although I think it’s simplifying their criticism way too much – they are doing a hell of a lot more than merely explaining a dislike of characters here)? Some have taken issue with them doing so in this review. Should they have quietly shut up when the author came in to explain HER side? Pearce is the one who’s made it seem like they are attacking her as an author. But some are able to see through that.
It’s not just about disliking a character. The review makes this pretty clear.
Much depends on the character’s purpose, naturally.
But take “twilight” as an alternative example: Jacob is described as being borderline abusive, controling and doesn’t shy away from using emotional blackmail. And he’s toted as being one of the good guys.
Now, is that really something you would want people to accept as being natural behaviour?
If character flaws do not get counter balanced the author runs in danger to create an acceptance for them in his readers.
Gerd, that’s a great example and explanation. Couldn’t agree more.
Re: Aja and Celine: I didn’t include the linke to the essay in my comment to derail the discussion of the book here, but actually thought it fit with themes that seemed to be included aka “if the girl dresses sexy, she’s asking for it”. I had come across it recently and it seems connected to the things in the book that disturbed the Smugglers to me, so I added it.
I would definitely agree that a discussion of the post I linked to should happen in the post’s comments or would need a wholly new post about the subject as such, not connected to this specific book review.
KMont – Thanks for talking to me like I’m an idiot, I really appreciate it. I never would have known that reading is subjective otherwise. For the record, I’m not saying Thea and Ana shouldn’t criticise the book or that their opinions aren’t valid, I’m merely bringing up some questions that the community might like to discuss. Let me say once more that I haven’t read the book, so I’m going on what I’ve read in this review only, and my reactions to it.
When you talk about character growth, are they supposed to become better in some way, more moral, kinder, etc? I don’t think that’s necessary, and can even come off as forced in some cases. As for their behaviour and attitudes serving a “greater purpose”, I would argue that not many character traits serve a greater purpose as such. It’s easy to say that a negative character trait should serve a greater purpose, but that’s because it makes you too uncomfortable for them to stay that way (regardless of other character growth they may go through). From what I can tell, Scarlett’s actions and thoughts were in keeping with her experiences and emotions. They serve the character in that moment, and very well if the excerpt is any indication, but I don’t see why it has to be some kind of basis for personal growth. In this particular case, other issues with the book contributed to the low grade given, but by Ana’s own admission the scene outside the nightclub incensed her immediately and from that point onwards, she was unable to take the characters seriously or care about them. When I eventually read this book, I too may come to dislike many things about it, but the morality of the characters rarely, if ever, affect my estimation of them, so perhaps that’s where we differ.
Gerd D. – I don’t think books (or any media) have a duty to foster or preserve morality in its readers. We don’t always see model behaviour in real life, so I wouldn’t hold a book up to that standard either. I disagree that Jacob (or Edward) is abusive, though. You can make an argument for manipulative and controlling behaviour, but a lot of teen relationships (romantic or otherwise) can be that way, and Twilight is amped up to the extreme when it comes to melodrama. I take it as campy entertainment and not much more. Of course, there are many teens obsessed with Twilight and its version of idealised love, but they’re not stupid. I think they know not to take lessons from a story about obsessive vampire love.
Lacey, I didn’t talk to you like you were an idiot – you decided to take it that way. I’m sorry you did so, but I was merely trying to get my views across in response to your questions and I am laughing that you decided to take it as an attack on you. You invited us all to discuss things by asking questions. I think it’s pretty obvious that we differ without you pointing that out. I’m really confused as to why you’re acting so defensively, but rest assured I don’t intend to go any further with you on this, as to who the heck knows what you’d take offense at next.
Ana, Thea, apologies. I thought my posts here would be helping, but I see that they’ll only derail this train more.
My apologies. Of course it’s all in my head and your tone isn’t belittling in any way…or perhaps you talk to everyone as if you’re a teacher explaining something to a dim child? I also find it ironic that when it comes to this, I’m simply taking it the “wrong way”, but when it comes to the author of this book, no such excuses are allowed and the reader isn’t “taking it the wrong way”.
Regardless of your tone, I gave you the courtesy of replying to the statements you made, but I suppose I don’t merit that much in return. Who knows what I might take offense at next, and who knows what book you might take offense at next. Swings and roundabouts.
Lacey, I can only try one more time to assure you that I wasn’t trying to be belittling. I personally, actually, take offense to you likening me to someone that would treat a child in an ill manner but I also realize you’re a little angry, and I didn’t ever intend that. I was just trying, with all honesty, to respond to you. Maybe I misunderstood you? It’s possible, but it’s clear you’ve misunderstood some things as well.
I think the thing that set this all off is when you ask “is it a valid criticism to say that a character is unlikeable?” Obviously some think so and others don’t. I admit I don’t understand at all why you would think it’s not a valid thing to talk about in a book review, but apples, oranges and so forth. I didn’t think pointing out that reading is subjective, and therefore we all see things differently in books, was a cause for taking it as saying anyone was an idiot. I’ve always thought it meant we’re all different as readers – and that it’s OK. Clearly I’m not going to get what you’re saying, or rather, see it as you do (so yes, I completely agree – we’re very different). You have your feelings on the great wide open questions you’ve asked, some have completely different ones. And that’s OK.
That’s all.
Hi folks, and thanks for the continued comments.
KMont and Lacey – I think emotions are definitely running high, in part because this is a more delicate subject and an impassioned discussion. I don’t think anyone is intending to make personal attacks or sound intentionally belittling/condescending – but teh internets are a tricky thing, and it is touch to get “tone” and full context sometimes (especially in a volatile environment, such as this one)! All Ana and I can ask are that you please refrain from personal attacks – but please continue with the discussion!
Lacey, I think you bring up a very interesting point. Like you, I completely agree that characters need not be beacons of morality or even likable, or that a book need have a Good Message. How boring would the literary universe be if that were the case? Some of my favorite books star flawed, “terrible” protagonists, or incredibly bleak, amoral conclusions. (This is just my opinion, I cannot speak for Ana or anyone else)
That said, I don’t really think that is what the issue is with Sisters Red. To answer your first comment:
I think it’s perfectly fine to have characters that say sexist and judgmental things – they are characters in a book. The issue for me is that the book in its entirety subscribes to the same sexist and judgmental view – intentionally or not, the allegory, the overall message is sexist, judgmental, and embodies the worst, most pervasive elements of rape culture in our society. The book was written with the intent of empowering girls (as stated by the author above), but in reality Sisters Red does the exact opposite. It perpetuates the same oppressive, disempowered mentality that tells girls that if they act, dress, or behave in certain ways, they get what they deserve.
THAT is why I have a problem with the book (in addition to the other flaws listed above). Of course, this is just my own opinion.
And further – just because I feel that a book has a reprehensible message, that does not mean I feel this about the author. I cannot stress this enough. There is a huge difference between thinking something of a book, and thinking something of its author. This review, these comments are in no way a personal attack against the author.
I hope that clears things up somewhat.
I guess I should have clarified better. I did not say I was disgusted because you don’t like the book. I didn’t say it because I think you are taking the “rape culture/victim blaming” thing way too far. What disgusted me was your response to Jackson’s comment.
Yes, of course you should be able to respond to her. Why not? What got me what when you broke down what she said into component pieces and twisted her words to say that she was saying exactly what you were saying. Her saying that it is a woman’s right not be be a victim in no way meant she thought women were by default weak victims.
Anyway, people can break down other peoples’ words all day long and make them say what they want to hear, good or bad. People will read into this book (and any other) whatever they want, and me typing this comment will never stop it. I get that.
Rachel Bateman – Thanks for clarifying that, and what can I say? I am sorry that you feel disgusted with us (me?) because of our response to Ms. Pearce’s comment.
That said, I don’t think that either Ana or I twisted Ms. Pearce’s words – in fact, we directly quoted her words in full context – but obviously our responses struck a chord with you. I do have to disagree with you – because by saying that women have the right to NOT be a victim, that DOES imply that the normal state of things is that women are victims. I don’t know how else to explain this – wouldn’t it be simpler to say “Women are NOT victims” than to say “Women have the right NOT to be victims”? Again, I think this is very relevant to the discussion at hand, especially as it pertains to the subconscious psychology of victim-blaming and rape culture. I don’t think that Ms. Pearce intended to imply that women are naturally victimized – but that is how it came out.
Of course, this is all a matter of interpretation. This is my personal interpretation, and you have your own views and understanding.
I do want to apologize to you though, because it was never my intent to disgust you or come across as snarky or vindictive! But, again, there is a difference between intent and reality. Right? I sincerely hope you don’t hold this discussion against Ana or myself, as we do try to be as fair and honest as possible. Thank you, again, for sharing your opinion.
Don’t worry! I love your blog, and will continue to love it long after this post. Like you said, we obviously have very different views and interpretations of this. I was reading the comments again, and I find the irony of us all talking about our different interpretations of what Jackson meant in the book….and we all have our own interpretations of what we are saying as well.
I will continue reading your blog. Apparently this one post just really got me riled up for some reason.
KMont – When I said “is it a valid criticism to say that a character is unlikeable?”, I’d like to clarify that I wasn’t making a statement that it’s not a valid criticism, it was a genuine open question which I thought (and hoped) would produce a variety of opinions. I didn’t intend to compare you to someone who would treat a child badly, either, but merely someone who would talk slowly for the benefit of a slow-learner. Saying “reading is subjective” is different from saying “reading is what? subjective”, and can come across as if you’re talking down to someone. But that’s by the by and I’m happy to move on from it.
Thea – Thank you for your reply (and among other things your professional approach in a heated environment). I do understand where you’re coming from, and it’s very possible that once I read this book I will have the same feelings and reactions as you did. I suppose what confused me is that if the book has an overall tone that women are victims or deserve some sort of punishment, but we’re all in agreement that the author didn’t intend to send this message to her readers, then I’m left wondering where it comes from. I think it’s interesting in a wider context that such thinking can be prevalent even when unintended, and I’m sure there’s a lot of room for social commentary here. I do think, though, that women empower themselves in different ways (not all of them noble ways), and perhaps Scarlett makes herself feel better by viewing The Dragonflies as weaker than her or deserving punishment, and somewhere deep in her mind perhaps thinks that she deserved her punishment (disfigurement) as well. I think I would understand her in this case, but it’s clear that she has a complex psychology and we could probably be here all day and night talking about issues of gender, psychology, imagery, sex, etc. I suppose I’ll get a move on a read the book for myself!
Lacey, I’m sorry, but no. That whole thing about subjectivity, that was a rhetorical question. It was not as you keep insisting it was. I don’t know what to say on that any further, except to show that it wasn’t as you say. I was merely using what is generally a given to most readers to try to help make a point. I’m sorry you took it another way, but I won’t sit here and look the way you’re saying it was. I’m sorry that became such a big issue.
KMont – In the contest and tone of your overall post, I couldn’t help but feel I was being talked down to, and just like you, I’m not going to pretend that wasn’t the case. I’m happy to agree to disagree.
Got me there.
I have to admit that I’m a subscriber to the adage that an author should strive to better the world, never to worsen it.
But I do agree with you, to a degree, characters do not have to be beacons of morality nor do authors have to be. However, I adamantly believe that media and authors do have to take responsibility for their output.
And here I do hold Kids and YA literature (and other media, too) to a different, higher standard than I do their produced for a grown-up audience counterpart. I do believe that authors and publishers in this filed have more of a duty to be keep aware of what they put out.
Now let me take a wide swing here to hopefully better illustrate why these things matter, I promise to try and not get too far off-topic:
I think we can unisono agree that language plays a large part in rape culture, everything that is bound to offer perpetrators an excuse for their actions, or allows “us” to shift blame, is potentially dangerous. The over and over repeated use of slanderous, or objectifying terms for women is an integral part of rape culture. Even though it is hard to put a finger on the exact mechanics of it, it is a fact that calling somebody “Bitch” or worse, does change the way we further interact with that person, these terms are aimed at lowering the threshold, though so far you probably wouldn’t get published in YA using them.
The repeated use of rape myths works in a similar way.
The very first reaction you will invariably get to hear when a woman is attacked alone in a park, or on a street, is: “What was she doing alone there?”, you’ll never hear that question asked when the victim was male.
What is the message?
Women should not (be allowed to) move around on their own, if they do so anyway they have to face the consequences.
The use of this particular myth is by the way my pet peeve with “twilight”, Bella strays from the way and promptly has to face the threat of being raped and murdered. This becomes particularly aggravating as it serves no other purpose in the story than to have an excuse for Edward to appear on the scene and rescue her.
One couldn’t have written the message clearer using neon letters.
Now, the message does not have to be delivered that blatant or intentional for “Sisters Red” to still potentially help to lower the threshold or aid the system when it uses the “dress or act flirty and you have to face the consequences” myth.
Does it matter that the authors intent was a different one?
No, it doesn’t, much.
Actual intent of what is written is often not as important as how people read it.
But let me add here that I didn’t read the book, and therefore have to give it the benefit of the doubt that as unfortunate as that particular passages comes across it can still be a worth while read. Personally I’m worried most about how easily YA literature adapts certain tropes from Romance these days for a younger, less prepared audience (or maybe it always did, and I’ve just become more sensitive to it). But again, I’m not saying that YA literature should be all puppies and happy dances, to the contrary, I think it is most important for this genre to also tackle uncomfortable topics, it’s just that I’m not willing to give them as much leeway to err when doing so.
So, to end this tl/dr entry/rant:
“Is it valid to criticise a book for its (use of) characters?”
I would answer to that:
It’s not only valid, it’s necessary.
Personally I never read “Catcher in the Rye”, but what I gathered from discussions about this book is this, it’s not the story in itself that is of such greatness, it’s the discussion it fanned up and still continues to, that elevates its worth.
Gerd. D – You raise some interesting points, and I agree with you on several. I too think that an author should strive to contribute something positive to the world, but I’m of the opinion that the only duty they have is to the art and not to the audience. If someone writes responsibly, then I think it’s commendable, but they shouldn’t feel an obligation to do so. I’d much rather a violent, puerile, sexist piece of art exist rather than not exist, and I think we should leave moderation to parents/teachers/etc. As long as the quality of work is good, the themes and subject matter aren’t a factor with me.
In regards to Twilight and Bella constantly having to be saved, I was always of the mind that it’s because she’s a fragile human, not because she’s a weak female. The vampires also protect Charlie, though it’s from afar and Charlie is unaware of the danger he’s in. To follow on from that thought, when I first read this review I thought that the Fenris were hunting young women and raping them. Thea and Ana can correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume that there’s no rape in the book? I’m not implying that there needs to be rape in this book to make that connection, but the connection won’t be as glaring to some readers as it is to others. You can take so many approaches to literary criticism (gender, post-modernism, marxism, psychoanalysis, the list goes on an on) that it depends on how the reader approaches it. I hate to use the word “sensitive”, but for lack of a better word, if a reader is sensitive to feminist themes, then I understand how they would make the link between the themes in this book and an irresponsible portrayal of rape and the effects of rape. I suppose my main point out of all this is that it’s not how I would immediately read the book, I think I would take various approaches to it and see how one might relate to the other, and so on and so forth.
I don’t know if I articulated my thoughts as well as I wanted, but that’s how I see it in a nutshell. I hereby conclude the end of my own tl;dr entry.
I came her from @SamSykesSwears link for this post.
Haven’t read any of the 77 comments.
Fenris is the Norwegian name for the Fenris Wolf. Fenrir is Norse (they speak that in Island still).
So it’s not actually a term, but a name, the same as THE Kraken. According to Norse legend there is only one. have no idea why it’s become a term, mostly used for werewolves in modern day English language genre fiction.
Oh, thank you. I love contemporary fairy-tale retellings, but really loathed this book. I had problems with all the stuff you mentioned–the victim-blaming, repetitiveness, etc.
I also found the plot either way too transparent (is there anyone who *didn’t* know that Silas was going to turn out to be the would-be werewolf about a hundred places before any of the characters did?), or completely nonsensical. Why does no one else in the world know about the werewolves? Why did these two sisters take it upon themselves to single-handedly hunt them all down?
I also really, really hated Scarlett’s holier-than-thou martyr complex. Ugh.
Interesting discussion! I really enjoyed the book but also got angry at this passage…I think the way I dealt with it was by ascribing the belief to Scarlett as a character rather than to the book. (I had forgotten Silas chimed in on it too.) In this scene I read Scarlett as actually kind of secretly envying the girls for their looks and lightheartedness, and justifying her negative feelings by telling herself she’s just worried about them getting eaten. She’s on a big martyr trip here, and I think I overlooked the comment I didn’t like because it just sort of rolled into this whole character I didn’t like much at that point in the book. Silas saying it is more problematic for me because it makes it sound more like a unified message, even if it wasn’t meant to be.
And I definitely understand how one thing can wreck a book for a person, especially when it’s a YA book and especially when the issue is rape or abuse. I just finished Raised by Wolves and had huge problems with its representation of abuse.
This passage is deeply upsetting, the attacks (female victim, victimization directly related to higher levels of feminine performance with male perpetrators) are a metaphor for the power dynamics in our society that all too often result in rape.
That being said, I find it interesting that the author clearly states that victim blaming, the cultural cornerstone of regulatory gendered power dynamics, is not her intention. The problem with much of rape culture is the degree to which it saturates our socialization, to the point that many people are not even aware of when their actions or words perpetrate this insidious system.
I believe the author had no intention of engaging in victim blaming, nonetheless, that is what is on the pages she wrote. I believe she even intended to portray a positive model in this text. But here, that is not what fell out on the page.
What is most disturbing here is that the author wrote a classic scene of victim blaming and power binaries based on stereotypes, and not only didn’t realize that she was participating, regurgitating and enacting rape culture, but she thought she was combating it.
There are a number of text analysis methods, like critical discourse analysis, that one can use to break down a scene like this to evaluate the actual messages it bears. Sadly, this scene has little to do with the author’s probable intentions.
Props to the reviewers for picking up on the victim blaming and calling it clearly and succinctly for what it is. I discovered this blog through a link from another review site and am subscribing here too.
This is a really, really useful review, and I’m glad to have read it.
It’s really damning that something by the completely obnoxious sexist jerk Willingham is superior.
It was the same for me too! After the first 100 pages, I just couldn’t get past the characters themselves. They had no real potential to become anything that they weren’t already, like you said, no space for character-developing. I really wanted to throw the book at my bedroom wall and be done with it. Considering the ARC wasn’t mine, I couldn’t, sadly.
This this this. Oh god, this. I, too, believe the author when she says that victim-blaming wasn’t her intention. Nonetheless, that’s what she wrote.
Not just “that’s how people read/interpreted it” as some comments are saying. That’s what’s actually in the words on the page.
Depressing, that.
@Vixy: No.
That’s how you have interpreted it. I, and plenty of others in this discussion have interepreted it differently.
[...] is an interesting debate over at The Book Smugglers about why they didn’t like it. The passage where it is suggested that girls would [...]
[...] all seem to start when The Book Smugglers reviewed Jackson Pearce’s Sisters Red book. I haven’t read the book so I cannot say [...]
[...] has been a fair amount of discussion over at Book Smugglers about a certain passage some have interpreted as a metaphor for [...]
I’d just like to let you know that this book was amazing beyond belief. And the passage with the dragonfly girls just showed how naive some girls are. And this proves how naive a reviewer can be to a good book. Sisters Red is a phenomenal novel and I loved it. If you feel inclined to review books then I don’t know, try knowing something about books first. Jackson’s writing is littered with metaphors and beautiful complex symbolism, and it’s obviously gone right over your head. You may feel strongly about Sisters Red, but just know that I feel strongly about your opinion of Sisters Red. So you fail Ana, you fail. Your uneducated review of this fantastic novel appalls me. I just hope that you will think a little bit before you judge a book. If this is how you feel, then it’s obviously too good for you.
And on another account. Next time you write a scathing review for a book, try to be a little bit more civil about it. It only makes you look like a jerk.
You both need to be knocked off your “high-horses” and brought back down to Earth, divas.
Wow, Camille, that’s kind of harsh, don’t you think? Why so nasty?
I’m really disappointed that some folks decided to come back to this review after so long name-calling. All because of someone’s list, in which this book was taken off of?? By the way, this review isn’t responsible for Sisters Red being taken off of anything. You need to direct your ire towards Bitch Media, don’t you think? The articles and posts citing this review are also failing to take into account that both Ana and Thea did their best to defend why the book didn’t work for them. For THEM. Not you. Not anyone else. Just them.
People, discuss the book. Have some dialogue and honest discussion. There’s no need to be petty and nasty just because you may not agree with others. Thea and Ana gave their honest views, and believe me, they are quite down to earth. They know and appreciate that others may not agree and also know that their opinion isn’t the only one.
And I respect that. I’m not associating with the list. This is about applicable claims being pressed against this book. If it were me, even if I didn’t like a book, I would be slapping F-bombs on it. They may have not liked it but they judged the book on 100 words of it. 100 words. That’s the excerpt they were providing. 100 words. There are 72 THOUSAND words in the book, and their whole point was based on 100 words of it. That is laughable to me really. But Sisters Red has a lot of merits and none of them were mentioned. I feel that just because someone has a blog does NOT give them all power to wrongly review a book without telling their readers positives and negatives about the book so then they can make an informed decision about whether or not to purchase and read the book in question. I saw where someone had mentioned a rape scene in the comments, and in the review and I have read, and reread Sisters Red and there is no such scene. This just proves that the Ana and Thea do not make applicable judgments about this book.
I will say that I may have been a little harsh, but please understand the state of rage I was in.
I can say that I am not against bad reviews because it can help the writer grow, but not reviews pinning wrong labels on the book like “rape” and “victim blaming”. That just gets to me. My apologies.
…in the comments, and…
Sorry, this is the correction to my comment.
Camille, I know how hard it is to take a bad review. (Believe me, I know
) I know it’s difficult to listen to someone painting an unflattering portrait of something that matters dearly to you, or to step back when someone seems wilfully determined to misinterpret work you love. But such is the life of an author. You write your book, you hand it out and then you accept that folks will discuss it as they see it.
This is Thea and Ana’s book blog. It is here solely for the purpose of giving Thea and Ana’s opinions on the books they read. Often terrificly interesting conversations happen as a consequence
(and this is one of those sites where folks really discuss stuff. It’s certainly no echo chamber where all the commenters follow along like little sheep baaing their agreement. With every review Thea and Ana freely leave themselves open to criticism and debate.)
In Thea and Ana’s opinion this book is x, y and z. They have stated clearly why it is x, y and z to them. They have read the entire book, they have thought deeply about the entire book and then they have stated their opinions clearly, in detail and quite succinctly. This is what they do.
) But I can assure you that as reviewers their methods and their attitude to reviewing is above reproach. There are an awful lot of bad review sites out there where reviews are written with no other purpose than scoring points off the author or impressing readers with snark – this isn’t one of those sites.
You may not agree with them ( clearly you don’t
Okay, fair enough. I assure you, I am fully involved in the writing industry and I know how these reviewing sites work. I’ve gotten my fair share of negative critiques but as you said, Ana and Thea’s opinions are x,y, and z. And opinions are a, b, and c. Please, refrain from lecturing me on my opinion. This whole discussion has gone from Sisters Red to condemning me for having and voicing my opinion, and I will not have it.
…And my opinions are…
Sorry for the correction
This whole discussion has gone from Sisters Red to condemning me for having and voicing my opinion, and I will not have it.
Er… nope. I was pointing out that you may have your opinion, but that it is uncalled for to say things like this
‘If you feel inclined to review books then I don’t know, try knowing something about books first’
and this
‘Your uneducated review of this fantastic novel appalls me. I just hope that you will think a little bit before you judge a book. If this is how you feel, then it’s obviously too good for you.’
and this
‘You both need to be knocked off your “high-horses” and brought back down to Earth, divas.’
these are reflections on the reviewers and their ability/right to review and not articulate defences nor expressions of opinion about the book. It’s a poor reflection on you that you see them as a lecture on your opinion. I think I’ll step away now, I’ve said my piece and you are quite obviously too exercised to listen to even the most civil of criticism and have a discussion like an adult.
I meant to say ‘It’s a poor reflection on you that you see my pointing them out to you, as a lecture on your opinion.’
Can I just say that I’ve read through your follow-up discussion, Camille and Celine, and I totally agree with Celine.
This was criticism done right and clearly explained why and when the reviewer could NOT accept the interpretation of what the author was saying according to how she read the text.
She showed clearly why she was emotional and quoted where it happened, so the readers can even decide for themselves just by reading her review if they agree or not. Ana finished the book in the hope of it being redeemed, Thea threw up her arms and added some more emotional criticism (I agree that the Fenris bit was somewhat over the top by then), but it would have made no sense for her to repeat all the things Ana had already said. She also didn’t finish the book – I think that’s fair considering this is a two-person blog.
They’re not perfect reviewers, but I haven’t come across a perfect review blog yet – and if I did it probably would only be my own definition of perfection ^^.
Like others, I have found my way here from the Bitch magazine controversy post. I hope it’s not too much of a shock to the editors here to find themselves being pinged months after writing this review.
I wanted to say that I thought the review was fascinating and it helped to have the transcript of the text. It’s very clear to me that Jackson Pearce is an excellent writer.
That said, I agree with the critique the editors made of that particular passage. I respect Jackson’s comment that this was not her authorial intention. But my reading of the text given here is completely contrary to her comment that “This section, and this book, in many ways, is trying to point out that no matter HOW you dress/look/are, you have the right to fight back and be strong. You have the right to put on makeup and still wield and axe, or, if you prefer, not. You have the right to NOT be a victim.”
I will now have to read the book so I can decide for myself what I think of it. Thank you though, for prompting and hosting such an interesting and thoughtful discussion. I hope you don’t take too much flack for it.