![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh hey, it's Wednesday, and I have a working laptop again! And I read a book about which I have something to say (apparently, a lot to say.)
This was The House with the Golden Door, by Elodie Harper, the sequel to The Wolf Den, which I wrote about here. I need to tell you all up front that I did actually like this book, because I am about to complain about it a lot, mostly for not being the book I wanted it to be. What I wanted (and at one early point in the narrative, thought I was getting) was a book about Amara's trauma and her difficultly in accepting and understanding her new status as a freedwoman, and the way in which that trauma and that difficulty lead her to make increasingly poor decisions. What I got was a book about her romance with an enslaved man. What I don't like is that I'm not sure which of these two books Harper thought she was writing.
I can kind of see the outline of the book I wanted here, particularly in the way Amara tries to recreate her lost friendship with Dido with Victoria and Britannica, in her inability to extricate herself from her relationship (whatever it is) with Felix, and in the ambiguity of her relationship with Rufus, who tries his best to keep her dependent on him. And of course most of all in her pervasive fear that she will be re-enslaved.
( and here I digress about Roman law, and the weird way this is all set up in the book )
OK, that was a ridiculously long digression about why that element of the narrative failed to land as well as it could have, for me as a reader.
The other issue I had is that, the more the love affair takes over, the less interesting Amara is as a protagonist. All the other characters seem to have a lot more going on, most of which Amara is totally ignorant of, because she is totally wrapped up in her own concerns. And I get that the surprise of what Victoria has been up to has to be held back, but I don't see why we couldn't have more of Britannica or Martha's stories foregrounded in the text. Amara's lack of interest in the other women in her life -- at least, the ones who are of lower status than her -- turns out to be her undoing. But is that what Harper intended to write? I'm just not sure, because elsewhere in the text Amara seems to be untouched by her own decisions: she doesn't seem to see herself as doing anything dubious in her money-lending business even though she sees clearly the problems when Felix does the same thing. I do think that Harper did intend to write a story in which Amara's character flaws are foregrounded, but it doesn't quite come together for me.
( again a cut for surely the least intentional subtext of all time )
I think as I write all this up I am almost arguing myself around to seeing Amara as the antiheroine I almost thought she was. I am certainly interested to see what will happen to her in the next book, given that she is going to Rome as the companion of an imperial freedman: will that affect the way she sees herself as a free person? The way she treats other freed and enslaved people? Or will there be more love story and a torrid reunion as Vesuvius does its thing in the background and Pompeii burns? I did in fact like the book well enough to want to read the next one to find out.
This was The House with the Golden Door, by Elodie Harper, the sequel to The Wolf Den, which I wrote about here. I need to tell you all up front that I did actually like this book, because I am about to complain about it a lot, mostly for not being the book I wanted it to be. What I wanted (and at one early point in the narrative, thought I was getting) was a book about Amara's trauma and her difficultly in accepting and understanding her new status as a freedwoman, and the way in which that trauma and that difficulty lead her to make increasingly poor decisions. What I got was a book about her romance with an enslaved man. What I don't like is that I'm not sure which of these two books Harper thought she was writing.
I can kind of see the outline of the book I wanted here, particularly in the way Amara tries to recreate her lost friendship with Dido with Victoria and Britannica, in her inability to extricate herself from her relationship (whatever it is) with Felix, and in the ambiguity of her relationship with Rufus, who tries his best to keep her dependent on him. And of course most of all in her pervasive fear that she will be re-enslaved.
( and here I digress about Roman law, and the weird way this is all set up in the book )
OK, that was a ridiculously long digression about why that element of the narrative failed to land as well as it could have, for me as a reader.
The other issue I had is that, the more the love affair takes over, the less interesting Amara is as a protagonist. All the other characters seem to have a lot more going on, most of which Amara is totally ignorant of, because she is totally wrapped up in her own concerns. And I get that the surprise of what Victoria has been up to has to be held back, but I don't see why we couldn't have more of Britannica or Martha's stories foregrounded in the text. Amara's lack of interest in the other women in her life -- at least, the ones who are of lower status than her -- turns out to be her undoing. But is that what Harper intended to write? I'm just not sure, because elsewhere in the text Amara seems to be untouched by her own decisions: she doesn't seem to see herself as doing anything dubious in her money-lending business even though she sees clearly the problems when Felix does the same thing. I do think that Harper did intend to write a story in which Amara's character flaws are foregrounded, but it doesn't quite come together for me.
( again a cut for surely the least intentional subtext of all time )
I think as I write all this up I am almost arguing myself around to seeing Amara as the antiheroine I almost thought she was. I am certainly interested to see what will happen to her in the next book, given that she is going to Rome as the companion of an imperial freedman: will that affect the way she sees herself as a free person? The way she treats other freed and enslaved people? Or will there be more love story and a torrid reunion as Vesuvius does its thing in the background and Pompeii burns? I did in fact like the book well enough to want to read the next one to find out.
