Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Skin Hunger by Kathleen Duey

I knew this day would come.  The day when someone would recommend a book to me and I would just completely dislike it.  It would be a slog to get through.  I would have to force myself to stay positive and not slip into old habits of blaming the entire genre of fiction, then reaching for that copy of The Stalin Cult that's been sitting on my nightstand for a month, taunting me like a devil on my shoulder, whispering in my ear and crooking a finger at me in a "come hither" manner.

Skin Hunger was that book.  I've been dreading writing this book review for days, weeks even, when it became clear to me that I just was not going to like this book.  In the time I've been struggling to finish Skin Hunger, which is not that long of a book, I finished reading Wonderstruck and listening to Between Shades of Grey.  It was recommended to me as a "personal favorite" by a Children's Librarians whom I like and respect very much.  Here's hoping he takes professional disagreement well (I think he probably does).

The plot of Skin Hunger is pretty simple.  There are two intertwining storylines, like in Wonderstruck.  A boy is forced by his unloving father into a school for wizards, which is abusive and which he may or may not survive.  The other story, which takes place earlier in time, revolves around a girl who is due to circumstance (and the death of her unloving father) into fleeing her rural life to the city, where because of her natural magical abilities she joins up with the two future magician founders of the school the boy will eventually join.  Oh, and the wizards are abusive to her as well.  And the father of one of the wizards is trying to hunt him down.  (There are definite father issues at work in this book.)

My main gripe with Skin Hunger is the ludicrously slow-moving plot.  The boy has joined the school and the girl has run away within about the first 75 pages of the book.  Then, for about two hundred pages, nothing happens.  At the wizard school, they don't feed you unless you can do magic, which makes the main plot tension "will the boy starve to death or will he not."  In the case of the girl, who (of course) falls in love with one of the magicians, the main plot tension is "will the magician run away with her or will he not."  This one is especially frustrating, because the second magician is constantly abusive to both of them, verbally and physically.  But the one magician is beholden to the other one, and the girl is beholden to the magician that she (of course) is in love with, so nothing every happens.  Not unlike the "will they or won't they" tension felt between Ross and Rachel over ten years of Friends, sometimes you just want to grab the characters and SHAKE THEM and tell them to JUST DO IT ALREADY.  Note to authors: for maximum plot tension, consider inserting a few twists into your plot.  Do not just place two characters apart from each other, and move them closer to each other, then further away, then closer, and then end the book without resolving anything.

That, specifically, is what killed me about Skin Hunger.  At the end of the book, the characters are in the exact same positions as they were at the beginning.  It's built right into the plot.  The boys at the wizard school aren't allowed to help each other, or even really talk to each other, so it's basically impossible to build anything resembling relationships between them.  They go to class, they fail at class, they go back to their rooms.  Then we check in with the other plot line.  Then we come back to the boys, who do it all over again.  Then, three hundred pages later, the book is over.  Except for it's not!  Because it's the first book in a trilogy.

Let me talk about the main "plot twist" that occurs at the end of the book.  If you're worried about spoilers (and if you are, I need to seriously work on my book reviewing skills), stop reading right here.  At the end of the girl's plot, she uncovers the fact that the two wizards have been keeping children in a cave, starving them, apparently the better to teach them magic.  However, we as readers saw this coming, or should have, because the boy's plot line talked about nothing except for how the same two wizards are now operating a school where they, wait for it, starve children, the better to teach them magic.  TWIST!  Or it would have been, if the author hadn't scooped herself two hundred pages earlier.  Because of how the book is set up, we already know that the two wizards will succeed in restoring magic to the land, will set up a school, and will continue to be abusive to children, essentially making redundant half of the entire book.

I honestly sat down to write this review intending to be as positive as I could, but now I see that I have excoriated this book.  Chris Koppenhaver, if you're reading this, I'm really sorry, but I had to be honest.  I am so glad to not be reading this book anymore.

There are many, many books that I would suggest you read before Skin Hunger.  Two of them follow.  If you want a well-written fiction book about magic being restored to the land, check out Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell.  Its plot is pretty glacial as well, but stuff does happen, and Susanna Clarke is an infinitely better and more imaginative writer than Kathleen Duey.  If you want a YA novel about kids being forced into abusive environments, read Sold by Patricia McCormick, which is the extremely moving (and largely fact-based) account of a young girl from Nepal who is sold into sexual slavery.  It's both moving and educational.

Ok, that's over.  Onward and upward!

4 comments:

  1. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it and feel bad for inflicting the experience upon you. If you’re ever curious to try another one of my recommendations, I can promise you many of them are quite different than this one.

    This is actually an excellent opportunity to consider appeal factors. I would argue, not surprisingly, that there is plenty of tension and development in this book--except it is not plot- and action-based, but of character and atmosphere.

    To me, this series is an examination of the darkness within each of us and how it can insidiously twist even our best intentions, so the development is within the characters and the tension lies in how their darknesses will (or won’t) manifest. The magicians start with the best of intentions: to return magic to the world for the benefit of all. So how did that idealistic dream turn into the situation where they hoard their power and teach through abuse? What twisted them? And will those factors infect Sadima? Will Hahp find a way to overthrow their system and turn it into something better or will he become just like them? The book is very internally focused, one of ideas.

    It's one of my favorites because those are my favorite types of books, the ones focused on and driven by the internal examination of characters, whether anything external of note happens or not. And, it would seem, you prefer fiction with much more emphasis on plot and external action.

    You realize, of course, this means I can never again trust your judgment or opinion, since you are obviously a very confused, shallow person with a distorted view of the world and storytelling. ;-P

    (Oh, and thanks for the honesty. If you want evidence I can relate to torturing yourself to finish a book you can’t stand and to see me rant about a much-loved book that many would have picked as the best of its year, check out my review of The Underneath by Kathi Appelt. If I’m going to dish it out like that, I have to be able to take it when my turn arrives. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't feel bad at all! I will absolutely be taking on more of your suggestions and applying my confused, shallow worldview to them.

    When I really think about it, there are lots books that are short on plot movement that I have enjoyed (Harris and Me, for one). I don't know what got under my skin (ba dump ching) so much about this book. It sounds like you're better than me at really getting inside a fictional world, as opposed to just observing it and waiting for details to be revealed.

    Your review of The Underneath is hilarious, BTW. Maybe we should have a contest to see who can write the most cutting book review...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just curious, as an aside (since I'm not sure it applies so much to this book), but how do you react to what I wrote as part of this review?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two types of readers: those who like a straightforward story firmly based in the rules of standard plotting and those who enjoy feeling off-balance as they puzzle through strange pieces of information parceled out in bits. I don’t just mean the challenge of solving a mystery or the surprise of a twist ending, but of having no real idea just what the book is about or where it’s going, of having to figure out the very rules of reality in an unknown, possibly fantastical setting, of not knowing whether you can trust anything an unreliable narrator says, of swimming in ambiguity and uncertainty and the unknown. If I’m succeeding with this review, you should have an idea which camp you fall into by now based on whether you’re intrigued to know what I’m doing or frustrated at having to read a book review that has yet to mention the book.

    But as to, "It sounds like you're better than me at really getting inside a fictional world, as opposed to just observing it and waiting for details to be revealed." It's always my hope that a book will make me feel something. I don't want to just vicariously observe a character, I want to try on that person's skin, experience the world as he or she does, truly know the emotions that he or she is experiencing. It's all about the empathy for me, along with an evocative atmosphere that draws creates a mood I can feel for myself. I don't know if that's what you mean by getting inside a fictional world, but the books that do that for me always end up as my favorites.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you hit it on the head, although I wouldn't say there is necessarily a distinction between "standard plotting" and feeling off balance. A story can have both. What I tend to get frustrated with is a narrative that just meanders and meanders and meanders. For example, Charles Portis's "Dog of the South." Extremely well-written, really funny, but I couldn't finish it because it was just too unfocused for me. If I want a rambling internal monologue, I can just tune into my own brain. The reason that I read is because books (when they are done the way I like them) take reality (or a fantastical reality) and sharpen it into something more. Something that makes sense, something that is cohesive. I have plenty of stuff to figure out about the real world without having to figure out other worlds on top of it all.

    Which is not to say I'm of the opinion that all books need three acts, and resolution happens in act three. Or that there need to be clear good guys and clear bad guys. I just like to know what general direction we're going, you know?

    Maybe the difference is that you want to become the characters yourself, where I'm satisfied with just knowing them as others. Making friends (or enemies) with them. In that sense, I want to love them or hate them, not just be annoyed by them, especially if they're talking directly to me like Hahp in "Skin Hunger."

    ReplyDelete