Review: "The Becoming" by Jeanne C. Stein
Aug. 23rd, 2009 11:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwrites
Title: The Becoming (Anna Strong Chronicles, Book 1)
Author: Jeanne C. Stein (JeanneStein.com)
Genre: Urban Fantasy
Page Count: 304
Publisher: Ace
Basic Plotline: Bounty hunter Anna Strong finds herself turned to a vampire after a job gone wrong, with Revengers - those who hate vampires - on her tail and a sexy doctor to guide her. Then her partner, David, is kidnapped. She must used her newfound abilities and navigate the world of vampires to rescue him before it is too late.
The Positives: As a book, The Becoming is very, very lean. Which is good, because if it had been longer I would have quit.
The protagonist, Anna, is more mature than a lot of other urban fantasy heroines that I've met. She has a sense of morals. To my relief, she was not obssessed with her clothing, looks, or other details such as that. Though, to my great sorrow, she too is one of the many urban fantasy heroine who is obsessed with cars and owns a completely impractical but expensive car.
The plot itself moves forward very quickly, taking place inside just a handful of days. It didn't waste time in getting from point A to point B. In fact, the book is, in a way, all plot and nothing else. I think the biggest positive was that the things that annoy me in other novels had been toned down quite a bit.
Of course, for all that was toned down, there were other, bigger issues that slammed in the face. So I'm afraid the positives will be quite scarce.
The Negatives: For all that the book didn't annoy me, it didn't delight me either. It fell very flat in a lot of the key areas that I look for in a book.
I'll mention this first, and will discuss it later in the scoring section, but if you have triggers concerning sexual assault/rape, do not read this book. Because not only does it portray a rape, but it delves into a whole lot of nasty territory and does not handle the subject matter well at all.
The characters all came across very flat and bland. This is a very whitewashed, upper middle-class novel with very little culture or even to go along with it. Anna is sensible, but not very individual nor is she the clever, quickwitted heroine I've been waiting for. For a book written in first person, Anna has very little self. There's a sort of blankness to her personality that made her less of a character and more of a camera to observe the things around her. None of the other characters really popped from the page, except perhaps Avery, and even he became less and less enjoyable to read as time went on.
Her relationships with anyone other than Avery are completely back burnered, even her friendship with David - the guy she is trying to save - takes a backseat to what's going on with Avery.
As plot went, such a quick pace didn't quite suit the book well. Anna goes from not knowing what's happening to being a Super Vampire Chick in a few days - and that felt very forced to me. Not to mention that there isn't any proper exploration of the forces that are working against Anna. Even in a first person novel, it's possible to show that.
There are the typical "people who hate vampires and want to kill them" group that goes around and seems to be irrationally harassing these poor, misunderstood people who just drink a little blood. There's also the completely cliche group of old vampires who have important positions and great wealth.
The vampire lore here isn't anything special. I saw nothing I hadn't seen in dozens of other books. Furthermore, a lot of the lore doesn't make sense. The vampires are fine with sunlight because they got that way over generations (by doing what? It's never explained), but garlic actually does affect them.
The ultimate plot twist of the novel failed for me, because I saw it coming. The reader is not supposed to, because the reader is, like Anna, supposed to be under Avery's spell and think he's the intoxicating, romantic, mysterious, powerful vampire lover. The back of the book clearly sets up a love triangle between Max (who could be nicknamed Sir Not Appearing In This Novel because he has like ten lines and shows up in two chapters), Anna, and Avery.
There are far too many clues scattered in the complete skankiness of the relationship between Anna and Avery to let you know that Avery is actually a lying bastard and a predator - this making the plot twist fail.
The only redeeming thing was that at least she went right after the bastard and did the sensible thing in killing him. I had to give her that. However, the ending wrapped up in a way that was sloppy without being smartly unsatisfying. The mystery of "Casper" (what the hell was the point of him in this book?) is left hanging, and Anna is left with her cravings.
It felt like the book got cut off rather than having a deliberate ending.
I can't say I'd recommend this book to anyone, and I certainly don't think that I will be reading anything in this series or by this author ever again. That's just how squicked and disgusted I was.
CoC Score: 2. This book features no main characters of color and hits a lot of bad buttons, race wise. If you've had your fill of subtle racism and white privilege, or just have some blood pressure issues, I would suggest going nowhere near this book. Because you will want to hit something with a hammer. I know I did.
There are some Mexican characters (like Culebra) who show up long enough to look menacing (because of course all those people of color are dangerous, nasty people) and then fix the white heroine's problems and take care of the white guy (because of course, they're just gonna help some random white American people who show up and throw some money at them) and then go away.
Like most books (especially those written by white authors), this book doesn't describe race unless referring to someone who is non-white. White people are just "a man" or "a woman". Because white is what's normal, dontcha know. [/sarcasm]
The parts that seemed especially bad to me were:
In referring to a waiter named Jorge:
His acceptance of my order as nothing out of the orindary is another confirmation of the wonders of beach life. no raised eyebrow, no frown of confusion to mar that wonderful, dusky-hued Latin face. (pg 39)
But then she describes her boyfriend Max:
But add to that the allure of tan Latin skin, dark hair, and eyes the color of the ocean in the morning (pg 65)
I picked up a very strong racial-fetishizing vibe from these two statements, especially since she never again mentions that Max is or isn't Latino and there is certainly nothing in his characterization that would indicate he's not just a white guy with a tan.
Then we come to her feelings about an an entire country:
Mexico is not my favorite place. There's the heat, dust, poverty and a ridiculous exchange rate. Not to mention the pollution that periodically closes down the beaches right at my front door. (pg 148)
Yeah, because America does not have dusty, hot places where people are living in poverty or anything. Because our exchange rates have always been the most sensible.
I'm glad that the entire country of Mexico could be summed up so neatly in two sentences penned by an overprivileged white American woman. I'm sure the residents of the country will be glad to know their home is actually a terrible place because it isn't comfortable for white people.
Well, that is until the heroine needs something from Mexico because she can't go to a hospital elsewhere (god forbid she drive out of San Diego or across state lines or anything) and then suddenly, she's willing to be courageous and face all those mean, nasty Mexicans and throw some money at them to fix her friend. *eyeroll*
And then this statement about the housekeeper at Avery's place:
She's young, twenties maybe, and beautiful in an exotic way. Her shiny black hair hands straight to her shouldres, fracming a thin face with huge, dark eyes and a generous mouth. Hispanic/Asian mix, maybe, or Eurasian. (pg 243)
Wow, she didn't just content herself with the classic Asian = Exotic fetishization and racism. You know, the kind that Kim Harrison enjoyed throwing around in "Dead Witch Walking"?
Oh no, she went for a whole new level. She established a pattern of fetishizing Latino/Hispanic people, then exoticized Asian people (because all Asians look alike. Because there's no difference in Chinese or Korean or Indian or Malaysian or anything like that!) and added a new category that I hadn't heard before "Eurasian".
I find it very interesting and saddening that white people are so obsessed with knowing what precise race someone is even in casual interactions. It isn't enough to know that they're not white. Oh no, we have to know "are you Chinese or Japanese?". We have to know specifically, if you're bi-racial, what your racial pedigree is.
Because apparently we white folks can't handle it if we don't know exactly how to stereotype you. I mean, if we can't tell whether you're half-Pakistani and half-white rather than just a white guy with a real good tan, we might have to treat you like we treat white people! We might have to respect you as being just as real and worthy of consideration as white folks are!
Oh, white people, when will we (yes, me included especially!) stop failing so tremendously when it comes to race?
GLBT Score: 3. A gay friend of the protagonist is mentioned in passing as having been beaten up once outside a bar for being gay. The friend doesn't get mentioned again. No other GLBT people, issues, or mentions appear in the book after that. Rank heterosexuality, complete with gender squick, abounds.
Gender Score: 3. Proof that women can write books that fail at gender. The book doesn't even pass the Bechdel test (not really).
There are exactly four named female characters in the entire thing. Dena, the housekeeper. Marianna, Avery's dead wife. Gloria, the bitchy supermodel girlfriend of Anna's partner David. And our heroine, Anna. Only two of those speak to Anna.
When Dena and Anna do speak, they talk about Avery, basically.
When Gloria and Anna speak, it's clear that the tension between them is because of David and because Gloria feels Anna is a threat to her romantic relationship with David.
The other two females are Anna's mom and grandmother, who don't have names. Other than that, it's all boys all the time. Anna's attention is only focused on Dena in the context of their relationships to Avery. Anna's attention is only focused on Gloria in the context of their relationships to David.
This is the most male-centric book I've read in a long, long time.
The sexual assault that takes place in the book is graphically described, and ends with the heroine "enjoying" the assault as she is being turned into a vampire. While I'm willing to allow a little leeway with something when we're talking about magical properties being involved, I got very angry and more than a touch queasy when Anna, after her experiences, says:
It seemed very real. And it strengthened one terrible, nagging suspicion growing in the back of my mind. Was it really rape? And if it was, why am I not feeling what I should be? (pg 26)
Now, I realize that there are a lot of rape survivors who experienced physical orgasms during their assaults and who are left wondering if this makes it less of an assault, if it means they "really wanted it". Every one - male or female - who experiences the horror of a sexual assault reacts differently. And yes, many do wonder if they're reacting "the way they should be".
Alone, this passage might not squick me, but soon after that, her partner David says:
"Maybe," he says softly. "But my injuries are just physical. What he did to you is more than that. He violated you, for god's sake. Can you ever really recover from something like that?"
Great. Learned helplessness being preached by a man who is supposed to be a good friend.
I quite nearly put the book down at this point. I am so, so fucking tired of the "eternal victim" trope when it comes to the portrayal of the survivors (yes, survivors, not victims) of sexual assault. I'm tired of this idea that once someone gets raped or assaulted, their entire life is all about being a victim and they will never move past it.
Yes, sexual assault exacts a terrible toll on those who are unfortunate enough to experience it. And yes, it does change things. But it doesn't mean that the rest of your life you're a crying, helpless, ruined mess of a person who can never do anything again.
With support, people can and do recover, heal, move on. Yes, the scars stay with them, but they go on to have happy, healthy, fulfilling lives. The assault does not remain the only important fact of their existence.
But this is the passage that clued me in to just how bad this novel was going to be (and also made it clear to me that Avery was either the world's most douchebag doctor or a potential bad guy):
I remember Donaldson worrying at my neck until...the intense, breathtaking, wondrous pleasure of the experience floods back. My body tingles with the memory even now.
Stop it. I give myself a mental thump on the head. you can't do this.
Of course you can, Avery counters. You just remembered how it was. And that was with a man who wasn't even trying to make it good for you. Think of what you do with your hands and body to give pleasure to your boyfriend. Then increase it by one thousand percent and you have an idea what magic you can work. (pg 57)
Seriously, Jeanne C. Stein? Seriously? This is the guy you were trying to pass off as a romantic interest on the reader? This is why your plot twist failed. Because anyone with a brain who did the math could see that this guy was a giant mysogynistic douchebag.
Dr. Avery comes to her house - oh, and by the by, the research that this woman did on doctors must have been from Gray's Anatomy because anyone in the real world would be surprised to see their doctor actually bother to show up in their hospital room to read their chart and say "take some meds" before fucking off, much less their place of residence - hours she's been released after a vicious rape and starts talking to her about how good her rape was and how she can give pleasure to her boyfriend and how great her sex life will be now.
Really? In what universe does this make Dr. Avery a charming man? In which universe does this make me think that the following sexual escapades Anna has with Avery are anything but a power hungry predator taking advantage of a woman in an extremely vulnerable state? For anyone who asks that question, Avery's eventual evilness comes as the least surprising plot twist in history - and the frequent sex in between becomes rather disgusting.
If the racism doesn't get you, the sexism will. I can't believe this has already become a series. Ugh.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 03:26 pm (UTC)Just listening to her didn't make me want to purchase any of her books. She had no enthusiasm for them at all.
Have you found any/many books that you consider well-rounded in all of the criteria you base them on?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 04:08 pm (UTC)As for other books, I've found tons of really good ones that get good scores in the criteria I look for. I know sometimes my reviews can come off really negative, but not all books are good.
"Butcher Bird" by Richard Kadrey got really excellent scores across the board and was all around an awesome novel, for instance.
At the end of this year, I'm going to list the best reads and the worst. I already know this book will be in the "worst" category - but there are plenty of books in the best category.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 12:10 am (UTC)So.While I never expect everyone to like my books, I also have never been categorized as having : established a pattern of fetishizing Latino/Hispanic people, then exoticized Asian people (because all Asians look alike. Because there's no difference in Chinese or Korean or Indian or Malaysian or anything like that!) and added a new category that I hadn't heard before "Eurasian".
I grew up with a very beautiful girl who called herself Eurasian, which is where I got the term. I certainly did not mean it to be offensive. I also never considered myself obsessed with race. My character descriptions are just that. Frankly, I’ve never had anyone say to me, you spend too much time telling us what a person is. Not before today, that is.
I am writing fiction. Urban Fantasy, to be exact. I can build my world and my characters and do anything that I want with them. It’s why it’s called fiction. If I want my doctor to come to the house, it’s what I’ll do. He has a reason for doing it, if you recall. And not to check on Anna’s health.
I find the discussion of the rape scene puzzling. Anna never considered herself a victim. She was attacked. The fact that her feelings were confusing stemmed from being turned—not from any sexual reaction to the act. And she is certainly no “eternal victim.” If anything, she’s just the opposite.
Well, I’ve probably said more than I should. I’ve always been told by my other author friends NEVER to respond to a review. But this one got to me, just as my book obviously got to you.
By the way, one more thing. Queenoftheskies said: Just listening to her didn't make me want to purchase any of her books. She had no enthusiasm for them at all.
She was talking about a signing I did with Sam Henderson. One I remember very well. How she can say I was not enthusiastic is beyond me. I am thrilled to have been published, thrilled to have fans who seem to like my books, and thrilled whenever I’m invited to sign. Lack of enthusiasm? I think she has me confused with someone else.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 01:07 am (UTC)When you want to respond to someone, you reply directly to them. You do not pass messages to me for
I said what I meant in that review. Nothing has changed and you have certainly not persuaded me that anything I said was wrong.
Yes, you can write whatever you please. But I am telling you in this review that there a LOT of people out there who may be hurt by your choices (and indeed, the choices of many writers like you) in their fiction. I am telling you that you are one among many authors who have used "exotic" to describe certain East Asian ethnic appearances and that it is part and parcel of the deep, imbedded racism against Asian-Americans in this country.
I am telling you that there are people who have to put up with teen pop stars mocking their eyelids (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/usa/article2200132.ece) because it's "exotic". How do you think that Asian-American teenagers, some of whom might have been Cyrus' fans, felt about that?
I am telling you that there are people who have to put up with white people who think of them as ornamental objects (http://aaprincess.com/?p=131). I am telling you that you are feeding into a long history in this country of treating Asian-Americans with disrespect, exoticising them as Other, and hurting them.
Try looking at
This is not the first, last, or only incident of such disrespect. It is endemic in American society and culture. So how do you think a reader might feel after the only such character that appears on screen is described as "exotic" and the enfeebled sex toy of a power white man because that is how she is seen through the eyes of a white author writing a white character after having all those other incidents, having that history weighing on them?
Whatever your answer is, the bigger point is that you, as a white author, didn't have to think about it. Because right now the genre you are writing in and the publishing industry you are working in is still a haven for this kind of racism.
Whether you accept any of this or not, whether it makes an impact on the books you write or not doesn't change the fact that you were extremely unprofessional in doing this.
I did not realize that your books came with a clause that says that any reader who dares review your work must do so in a way you approve of or risk your wrath.
I'm sure this review did get to you. I haven't met a fellow writer yet who didn't have at least one review that got under their skin. What I have met are plenty of writers who know better than to argue with them in public. There are certain things you do in private. This was inappropriate.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 11:59 am (UTC)My response was sent with respect. I'm sorry to have offended you so deeply. I am not and have never been a racist.It is your right to dislike my books. But to portray me as a white author with no understanding of racial bias reflects more on your bias than mine. You don’t know me well enough level such a charge. Oh, yeah. You don’t know me at all.
You also said: I did not realize that your books came with a clause that says that any reader who dares review your work must do so in a way you approve of or risk your wrath.
Of course they do not. I know my books do not appeal to all audiences. I don’t know of a book that does. I am writing entertainment. Not social satire or commentary. Not allegory. It’s fantasy. I do not, nor have I ever, meant to offend. And as for incurring my wrath. Hardly. I was and am more puzzled than anything else.
As for my direct reply to Queenoftheskies, in the blogs and forums I participate on, we do respond to each other directly. She has the right to respond in kind. I thought I had the same right. I guess there are rules to this LJ that I was not aware of. And for the record, I liked Sam’s book. It’s dark and creepy and I hope she writes a sequel.
Should I have sent this one privately, too? Or am I once again being totally unprofessional? Since you were open in your response, I will do the same. Somehow to send this privately seemed cowardly.
Jeanne
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 12:30 pm (UTC)Please point to the direct sentence where I said, "You, Ms. Stein, are a racist". Please, inform me of where it is that I've said that to you. Not where you think I've said it. Point me directly to where I have said those words. Because I haven't. I have however said that you've written some things which are racially problematic and hurtful to many people.
Furthermore, I'm not portraying you at all, Ms. Stein. I am studying the words that YOU YOURSELF wrote. I am quoting them directly. I am not making anything up. I am working with the very concrete evidence at hand.
It seems to me that you are far more invested in telling me how not racist you are and defending your book rather than opening your eyes to the fact that you have, probably unintentionally, written some things that were very hurtful because you, like me, live in a place where it is our privilege to ignore such details because we are white. It is called white privilege (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html). And there are some very good selections (http://delicious.com/starkeymonster/forcluelesswhitepeople) about it and about conversations concerning racism that you might read up on. I encourage you in the strongest possible terms to read about these things, to read about RaceFail09, and to educate yourself.
I do not think you are a racist running around in a pointed white hat burning crosses. I know what those people look like, thank you very much.
I do think you are willfully clueless. I think there's a lot around you that you are not seeing, hearing, or reading about because you neither want to nor have to. The experiences of people of color in this country, and the portrayals of them in SF/F literature, as well as their ability to work on equal footing in the SF/F field is not something you are forced to notice. I'm not forced to notice it either, but I choose to because I think turning my head away and ignoring it is inexcusable.
Furthermore, I think your willful cluelessness shows itself in your novel in the way you describe (or do not describe) characters, in the roles, importance, and actions you assign to characters of color, and in the things that your white characters say and do.
If you were as enlightened and not racist as you claim to be, your first response would not have been to defend yourself, but to carefully consider whether there was any merit to these claims.
If you were a professional, that consideration would have been done in private and not on the internet for all to see.
You are flashing your ignorance in public, Ms. Stein. You are acting so unprofessionally that it astounds me. As an unpublished, aspiring author myself? I now consider you a textbook example of What Not To Do.
And if you have to ask me whether something is or is not professional, you have very large problems indeed.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 12:54 pm (UTC)You have based your opinions on how I treat my characters on one book. You are entitled to do so. My books are a series and the characters "grow and develop in their roles, importance and actions." I don't expect you will ever find that out.
i still do not understand the "privacy" issue here. Your review was for public consumption. I expected my replies to be as well.
Jeanne
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 01:09 pm (UTC)Umm, that doesn't work the way you want it to. Because you're the author and I'm the reviewer. So, you're the one who initiated the thoughtlessness here. I think you should be saying, "I hope you're more professional with reviewers than I have been" - because that actually reflects events as they have happened.
Replying to reviews makes you look little. It makes you look petty. It makes you look as though you have no ability to deal with anyone disagreeing with you. It makes you look as though you have nothing better to do than to try to control other people's opinions through arguing rather than trying to change them by writing better books.
And if it looks like a duck long enough, it might just be a duck.
I don't expect you will ever find that out.
Is that supposed to be an insult to me? Is this your version of "I'm taking my toys and going home?" Because if so, please know that I am laughing at you. A lot.
There are so many books out there, and frankly, I have neither the inclination nor energy to waste my time on books written by authors who engage in fuckmuppetry on the internet.
If you were in my position, would you ever read anything by you again?
i still do not understand the "privacy" issue here. Your review was for public consumption. I expected my replies to be as well.
There is no privacy issue. There is the issue of you apparently having an entire other conversation in your head that we are not having here.
Yes, my review is for public consumption. And yes, you're free to respond (within the limits I set here, because it's my space) - but I'm telling you that you're making yourself look really bad right now.
You're the one who should want this to be private, because you're coming off extremely badly.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-24 05:32 pm (UTC)You know, it's possible to say/do/write racially clueless things (that are hurtful or offensive) without it being intentional or malicious; it very often isn't, which is why it's so hard to get somecluelessone to recognize what they're doing (and then hopefully stop doing it), especially when said clueless one thinks or does their best to be understanding of all issues, "colour blind", liberal, etc, etc (and likely has not been called out on it before). I or other people don't have to know you well or at all to pick up on these issues in your writings.
There's this comment I came across recently that uses describes racism like pollution (http://laurashapiro.livejournal.com/279323.html?thread=4936219#t4936219): "the vast majority of us aren't going out of our way to create it, but that we can't help breathing it in and being poisoned by it. And sometimes we unwittingly contribute to it. [...]" I don't know if that's easier to understand or get less defensive about.
As for my direct reply to Queenoftheskies, in the blogs and forums I participate on, we do respond to each other directly. She has the right to respond in kind. I thought I had the same right. I guess there are rules to this LJ that I was not aware of.
Are you aware that in LJ-land it's possible to reply directly to specific comments, even ones from earlier? I only ask because I've seen some people confused by the structure of other blogs, where the replies don't thread. (I'm not saying you should tell someone else that they're wrong about you.)