Ambitious, weird, metafictional horror-fantasy set in a magical city where all but three faeries have fled post-war. It’s now occupied by tightropers who spit out ropes and live in the air, and gnomes who live belowground. Faeries are immortal and every part of their body has its own sentience; they shed glitter constantly and each speck of glitter has its own awareness, which they tune out because otherwise they’d lose their minds. They are not considered dead until there is literally nothing of them left, so the heroine carries her father’s ear and eyeball in a jar; it presumably is still able to see and hear, though not speak. Pre-war, faeries had a wary co-existence with the gnomes, which eat faeries, usually bit by bit. Each eaten limb stays aware until digested. I think. It’s a little unclear what you have to do to a faerie part before it ceases to be aware.

And that is just one of the many, many, many things which are unclear in this odd, frustrating book. The ideas are intriguing, original, and horrific; the execution often uses that maddening trick of excusing its flaws by pointing them out and saying that they’re deliberate. The plot makes no sense? Well, real life often makes no sense. The emotions are weirdly distanced? The narrator is traumatized and emotionally numb. Key incidents are incredibly confusing or elided altogether? The narrator is traumatized and doesn’t want to think about them. Basic facts like how the body part sentience is actually experienced, how big faeries and gnomes are relative to each other (the gnomes can eat a faerie in one bite, but can also have normal-sounding sex with them), what the tightropers look like, the characterization and relationships of major characters, how any race survives when almost all females are killed by the act of giving birth to their first child, etc, are vague or confusing or contradictory or make no sense? It’s because the narrator is a traumatized teenager writing about experiences they don’t understand or can’t face, not a professional writer.

Here’s an example:

Once upon a time there was a writer who couldn't write a fucking book.

I don't know what comes next. That whole chapter's going to need to get thrown out anyway. You completely forgot halfway through that you'd said it was raining at the beginning.

Was it raining?

No one's ever going to know and it's all your fault.

Put a fucking map in the next draft.

The novel held my attention and is certainly plenty weird and ambitious, but using “in real life a traumatized teenager would write an incoherent mess of a book” as excuse to write an incoherent mess of a book did not work for me. The novel was too realistic to work as surrealism, too inconsistent to work as fantasy, and the whole “everything makes no sense because the narrator is a traumatized teenager” device didn’t work for me. These are the exact same problems I had with Moskowiz’s other novel I read, Break, so this is clearly her signature style and I’m just not her audience.

The worldbuilding is really interesting, which made it all the more frustrating that it had so little focus and what we did get didn’t make much sense. However, the novel also does some unusual (spoilery) things with narrative and metafiction, so if you like that sort of thing and don’t mind the issues I had with it, it’s worth a try. The horror is more conceptual than graphic, but dismemberment is crucial to the plot. (One of the things I found most frustrating was that I was really intrigued by the concept of having scattered awareness via shed glitter, eaten body parts, clipped hair, etc, but because the characters tune this out, you rarely get a sense of what that actually feels like.) Note that it contains underage (late teens, not children, but still) sex work (not graphic, but still).

A History of Glitter and Blood
sovay: (Haruspex: Autumn War)

From: [personal profile] sovay

The plot makes no sense? Well, real life often makes no sense.

That can be done well, but it has to be done really well. Like, Caitlín R. Kiernan's The Drowning Girl (2012) and Gemma Files' Experimental Film (2015) levels of well in order for me not to feel that it is simply the writer dodging the worldbuilding.

Put a fucking map in the next draft.

That's a great line. I'm sorry the rest of the book doesn't live up to it.
Edited Date: 2016-03-18 01:15 am (UTC)
gehayi: (Default)

From: [personal profile] gehayi

Sounds ghastly. I'm sorry that it was so poorly structured and illogical (two of my pet peeves with manuscripts).
owlectomy: A squashed panda sewing a squashed panda (Default)

From: [personal profile] owlectomy

I think I liked the book a little better than you did, but otherwise, I agree entirely! It's one of those books that's so weird and ambitious that I WANT to love it, but if you're going to be that weird and ambitious you have to get it RIGHT, and it's too much of a mess to be right.

I'm still sporadically interested in whatever Moskowitz writes, because I can't help feeling like one of these days she's going to write a book that's good enough to live up to all its weird ambitions.
skygiants: the aunts from Pushing Daisies reading and sipping wine on a couch (wine and books)

From: [personal profile] skygiants

I've been vaguely meaning to read this, but that's entirely because the model for the cover art happens to be a colleague of mine.
skygiants: Jupiter from Jupiter Ascending, floating over the crowd in her space prom gown (space princess)

From: [personal profile] skygiants

She totally is that gorgeous in real life! But I do not have a crush on her. :P I don't know her that well, but we're part of the same small professional community, and she's a couple years behind me on a pretty similar career path. Except for the part where she is also a model.
metaphortunate: (Default)

From: [personal profile] metaphortunate

Oh god, it sounds like a Charlie Kaufmann movie. No thank you.

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags