Welcome to our first #CannonBookClub of 2017! We’re tackling the fantasy work The Devourers by Indra Das. First, a personal thanks to all of you who attempted this book: reading something because you are ‘supposed to’ is rarely as fun as reading something because you want to, but I always feel our discussions more than make up the difference.
Ground rules remain the same as they always have. For those of you who might be joining us for the first time (hello new friends!) all are welcome. All of our topics are numbered and we ask that you refer to them below by that number to help people find the conversation topics they are looking for. If you are responding to someone else’s thoughts, please try to respond directly to them as suits your own ponderings. Also, note that while I’ve never once had to use it and don’t expect to now, I’ll delete comments that are not germane to our discussion or get out of hand.
In addition to the topics here I’ve saved a few for our Facebook group, Cannonball Read Book Chat so feel free to wander over there throughout the course of the day.
On to the topics:
- “I am going to tell you a story, and it is true.” What does this pronouncement mean to the reader? Also, how does it relate to the title of our YA read from last year The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian?
- The Devourers asks complicated questions about what it means to be human. To desire and create, to have control over our bestial selves, to do the ‘right’ thing? How does the book argue we find our true identities, and what propels us towards them?
- The Devourers contains quite a bit of the violence — cultural, sexual, and racial — that humans continually inflict upon one another. It’s been a stumbling point for several of our own readers, how do you come to terms with it, if you did.
- Are we able to garner the nature of humanity through non-human eyes? Is it the only way to truly understand our own humanity?
- What do you make of this work’s take on a werewolf origin story? Das, through Alok, namedrops the tropes, but then builds on it. What do you think of his storycraft in this regard?
- How do you, as a reader, think we are supposed to feel about Cyrah’s relationship with her shape-shifting companion, Gévaudan? As a werewolf himself, Gévaudan represents the hatred shape-shifters have for humans, yet he displays a fierce love for and loyalty toward Cyrah.
- This novel has little horizontal movement – not much happens in the plot. It is instead built on the vertical axis, digging ever deeper into the meanings and emotions of choices long since made. Is this a strength, or a weakness?
- I didn’t finish this book and I want to tell you all the reasons why.
And… go!
The Devourers asks complicated questions about what it means to be human. To desire and create, to have control over our bestial selves, to do the ‘right’ thing? How does the book argue we find our true identities, and what propels us towards them?
The Devourers contains quite a bit of the violence — cultural, sexual, and racial — that humans continually inflict upon one another. It’s been a stumbling point for several of our own readers, how do you come to terms with it, if you did.
For me these two questions are linked. The shifters, as the allegedly “advanced” race, loathe humanity for the outward expression of our essential base desires. Like our banality that “There is a fine line between love and hate,” the shifters see passionate love and passionate hate The violence that we commit against each other is a natural consequence of unchecked emotion, which the shifters are “above” and therefore find distasteful.
(Of course, this dynamic is muddied by the fact that humans are prey to the shifters and being killed and eaten is inherently violent to us, but the perspective of the shifters is stoic on that point. If there isn’t emotion behind the kill, it’s not violence, it’s just pragmatism — the predator/prey relationship.)
I am able to read about rape in books, without finding it gratuitous, mainly if two things happen: 1) it’s clear through whatever means — be it tone, dialogue, etc. — that the author does not condone or excuse the behavior; 2) that the rape survivor is treated respectfully by the story in full, if not in that moment.
When you get Fenrir, who has against his nature become obsessed with the human Cyrah, he essentially becomes more human. His passion and need for power, for her to recognize him as superior, is unchecked. I thought this was a pretty clear condemnation from the author, that when another race/species emulates humanity, they tend toward the games of power and sexual violence that they see in us. That if we are not careful, what we project is the worst of us. It’s like the idea that you only see bad news on the news, because the good news isn’t worth reporting. That most humans don’t rape isn’t important to Fenrir, because he sees that there are humans in his position that do. Since he already feels that he is debasing himself, what’s the point in controlling himself? After all, humans don’t (according to him.)
Interestingly, Gévaudan feels the same way toward humans as Fenrir does, but in protecting Cyrah, he represents the other side of humanity, that tends toward love, loyalty, and companionship. Fenrir treats his similarity to humanity as an excuse for depravity, while Gévaudan discredits any comparison between himself and humans because he thinks his better behavior is just more naturally advanced. Obviously his is also a flawed point of view, as he struggles with recognizing that there are humans, like Cyrah, that every day exhibit non-violent behavior.
Overall, on this point, I just really responded to both narrators being unreliable and biased in their views of what is acceptable violence — both in the sense that as a humanoid, if not human, race/species they feed on humans, and in the sense that Fenrir in particular exhibits a classic narcissism and entitlement. It’s heightened in this fantasy setting, but his basic thought process that Cyrah, as a creature lower than him, is his to do with as he pleases, is the pernicious logical extension of our rape culture.
Lost a part of a sentence there 🙁
“the shifters see passionate love and passionate hate as fundamentally similar.”
What bothers me is that Fenrir and Gevaudin both repeat over and over that being a shapeshifter means having no feelings, but rather being super matter-of-fact all the time. But we never know them at a time when they are exemplifying this. Fenrir starts by stalking and raping Cyrah and then has a temper tantrum for the rest of the book. We meet Gevaudin when he kills for love of Fenrir and then stalks Fenrir for a million pages with Cyrah in tow. Then they fight to the “death” out of passion, and then we jump cut to a shapeshifter society of bitches who can’t handle a half-blood? No.
Ah, I kinda responded to this sentiment with your comment below. Essentially, the alleged superiority of the shiftters parallels the alleged superiority of men in the patriarchy. Obviously neither is true, not least of which because shifters and men act so out of accordance with their supposedly superior characteristics all the time. But I think this book was critiquing that perspective, not endorsing it.
I have to agree with a lot of the reviews posted so far – only parts of this one worked for me (Team Cyrah!). I wish we had gotten a chapter from Gevaudan’s point of view. I realize it would not have worked for the conceit of the story, but I would’ve liked to see his justifications for his feelings for/about Cyrah. I think to him, Cyrah represents a part of Fenrir he can never have, so she starts out as a next best thing. Once she bonds with his second self, though, I think it becomes something else completely.
Yes, I wanted to hear more from Gevaudin. Did I miss what finally happened to him? From what Cyrah said, he just went back to France, which was a bit of a letdown.
This was wayyy more gory than what I’d usually read. So thanks for pushing me outside my comfort zone.
I would have liked Gevaudin’s perspective also, but I wonder if it would have felt like a contradiction for him to have a narrative? Considering his hatred of humanity, could he have deigned to write his side of the story down?
The part where Gevaudin left was so abrupt! He just up and changed his mind one day, knowing that his leaving would mean Cyrah would get eaten? I wish she had gone with him and the rest of the book were their adventures in France.
I also was struck by Gevaudin’s struggle with keeping true to his second self’s nature, but his obvious care and affection for others, which should have been something which didn’t happen.
1. “I am going to tell you a story, and it is true.” What does this pronouncement mean to the reader? Also, how does it relate to the title of our YA read from last year The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian?
I love a book that encourages the reader to imagine that there’s more to the world than is known, that magic is real, and gods, and so forth. It’s one of the reasons why I’m so in love with Gaiman, for example. And I think that Alok’s journey toward believing in and understanding the existence of shapeshifters makes a very compelling argument for us to believe in it, as well. He confusion and his attempts to reject the stories as pure myth mirror ours, so that as he comes to a confident acceptance, we can, too. It’s also strengthened by the subplot about the British trader, and Alok’s discovery of the stories of that trader going mad. I love that.
On the flip side, doesn’t “The Absolutely True Diary…” title tend to imply that this is definitely a work of fiction? It’s interesting to think about, considering that shapeshifters actually aren’t real (but are they?), and yet the Alexie book actually is mostly memoir. “The Devourers” is masquerading as memoir, while “The Absolutely True Diary…” is masquerading as fiction…
Your last paragraph is my general idea. Any time we have a narrator say “this thing is 100% true, I promise” I’m always assuming that the opposite is true. Something here is being fabricated. In each case, I’m caught up in wondering what that thing is.
But in the case of the Alexie book, almost everything was true… the fabrication was that it wasn’t a memoir! Love that. Love the whole book. Love it all. Sigh….
2. The Devourers asks complicated questions about what it means to be human. To desire and create, to have control over our bestial selves, to do the ‘right’ thing? How does the book argue we find our true identities, and what propels us towards them?
Ugh, this was one of the things that infuriated me about this book. The adamance that shapeshifters are superior beings to humans, while behaving SO UNBELIEVABLY STUPIDLY AND TERRIBLY. Blech. Screw you, shapeshifters.
I appreciate that the question frames humanity as the state of “doing the right thing,” but I think that the book didn’t do so well with that argument. Certainly, the shapeshifters spend a huge amount of breath arguing that it is they who have control over their bestial selves. It’s an argument in conflict with itself, and I don’t have time for that nonsense.
The adamance that shapeshifters are superior beings to humans, while behaving SO UNBELIEVABLY STUPIDLY AND TERRIBLY.
Whereas, I really loved this and found it interesting. This was but one aspect of the story, but the book itself brings it up, so I don’t think I’m completely reaching: I think the behavior of the shifters, as well as the superiority complex, is a pretty apt metaphor for patriarchy and how the traits and behavior masculinity are valued over feminine traits, and how some men behave incredibly poorly in this context. Fenrir is unchecked, toxic masculinity. It’s a pretty spot-on parallel for how men are rational, superior beings, not dominated by their emotions, and yet commit the vast majority of violence.
I love that this worked for you! I was thinking the same things as I was reading, but honestly, it made me angrier because it didn’t feel like Das was super-aware of what he was doing with it, so it felt toxic instead of insightful.
This type of thing is so YMMV, and a lot of the time even when I feel like the author’s intentions are good, the slightest thing about the execution can throw it off. I think I had faith in Das because he ended up doing well by Cyrah (her section was so strong) and it quelled any discomfort I might have had.
I felt Das realized what he was doing with Fenrir as toxic masculinity, but I thought the structure was god awful. The Alok section, and then Fenrir post rape, and then Fenrir pre rape just made for an unwelcome entry into the larger ideas of the narrative.
I really like this interpretation of it. I wonder if I would have liked the book more if it had been written by a woman. Is this “werewolf = patriarchy” idea a little too “oooh, look how evolved I am!”? Or I could just be cranky.
4. Are we able to garner the nature of humanity through non-human eyes? Is it the only way to truly understand our own humanity?
I’m so grumpy about this: no.
Ha! I think in the book, no. In real life, yes. I always trust more what an animal tells me about another human than the human in question, but that may just be me.
Sing it!! Animals know!
I’m only halfway through, but I think I agree with you that this book isn’t using the shapeshifters in that way, at least not primarily. But I do think it does what a lot of speculative fiction does, in that it uses fantastic conceits to amplify a particular theme or idea, and then plays with it, usually coming to some sort of conclusion. Like I said, I didn’t finish the book, so I’m hesitant to say what I think those conclusions are just yet. But I did get the feeling it was trying to get somewhere with this by the end.
I don’t think non-humans are the only way for us to see humanity. But any immortal creature is better positioned to see humanity on a whole than we are ourselves.
5. What do you make of this work’s take on a werewolf origin story? Das, through Alok, namedrops the tropes, but then builds on it. What do you think of his storycraft in this regard?
I’m so into this take on the origin story, but I was super bored in the unfolding of it. I wanted to know more and more, but it just didn’t flow for me. Why is that?
I agree, I thought Das took some interesting enough ideas (and I really would like to know more about the rakshasa of Indian folklore), but didn’t really develop them fully or clearly enough. The world building as a whole was muddled and confusing, because all three narrators are so unreliable. It was never entirely clear to me why all the shapeshifters were men, and why some were in packs and some not. How exactly did they become what they are, having started out as human?
Yes, I mean, there must be some sort of practiced magic from an already-turned shapeshifter involved? Because cannibalism alone can’t be the key! I would have loved more about this!
I feel like Das was trying to drop bread crumbs, or assuming more knowledge on his reader’s behalf than we (I) actually had. There’s an interesting idea to a second self creating a hermaphroditic nature, but then why default Male? That’s where Das looses me.
Speaking of which, at the end when Alok starts exploring his own gender fluidity? Loved it, but also I couldn’t place it properly in the context of the rest of the novel. I couldn’t figure out how it fit other than that he was becoming more comfortable with himself because he could see there is more to the world? Das tried too many things, all good ideas, but couldn’t balance it properly at all!
He needed more pages to do all the things. But I don’t know that I wanted to read more pages.
Agreed. Unless they were about how Cyrah went about becoming a jungle goddess. I would have read those pages.
I would read that series.
6. How do you, as a reader, think we are supposed to feel about Cyrah’s relationship with her shape-shifting companion, Gévaudan? As a werewolf himself, Gévaudan represents the hatred shape-shifters have for humans, yet he displays a fierce love for and loyalty toward Cyrah.
I have to say, Cyrah was amazing. She’s complicated and angry and hard and fragile. There were times when I thought “UGH, of course she’s pregnant, because that’s the only way a woman can fulfill her ultimate destiny. BLECH.” But the character really surmounted that expectation. I highlighted this as a perfect example of why I love her… she says: “I am one woman. I am not all women.” This is a point that I want to make all the time, to everyone, and you never* get it from fiction, and I was particularly surprised and touched to get it from a character written by a man.
*well, hardly ever
I thought Cyrah and her story was fascinating and while I hated the rape part and her being pretty much compelled into keeping the baby, the bits about her were the parts of the book where I actually lost track of time. I felt so incredibly frustrated that I didn’t get to read more about her and how her friendship with Gevaudan developed. How did she end up becoming this sort of jungle goddess? Why did Das need to upset me by having her killed and eaten by her own son – that felt pointless and gratuitous to me.
I also love love love love that Cyrah never hesitated or hedged at calling her rape a rape. It immediately sold me on her.
Same. Cyrah’s honest appraisal of her situation, both in the micro of the rape and the macro of her life situation made her a fantastic character. Unfortunately I just don’t think the book served her well.
Sounds like we are all in agreement that Cyrah is the shit.
7. This novel has little horizontal movement – not much happens in the plot. It is instead built on the vertical axis, digging ever deeper into the meanings and emotions of choices long since made. Is this a strength, or a weakness?
In different hands, it could have been a strength! There was something about the prose that just stalled it out for me.
This novel has little horizontal movement – not much happens in the plot. It is instead built on the vertical axis, digging ever deeper into the meanings and emotions of choices long since made. Is this a strength, or a weakness?
In my review, I called this book “the Hannibal of books.” They are so thematically similar, and spend as much time on style as on substance. Hannibal utilized this really dreamy, tactile imagery that almost made you forget that what you were looking at was horrific, and likewise, I think the prose does that here. Both have point-of-entry characters (Will, Alok) that are susceptible to appreciating that type of violence as an artform, because they have the aptitude to empathize with those who commit violence, and they both eventually find themselves somewhat lost in the conflict of different moral standards. The show and the book both do a deep dive into the confluence of emotions and rationalizations behind that type of grotesque violence, which I really responded to as a kind of study of characters in a pseudo-realistic setting.
This is such a good explanation of why I had absolutely no issue whatsoever with the violence!
See, I was absolutely hooked on Hannibal for three seasons, while frequently being rather disgusted by the gory violence. I see what you mean about the same dreamlike quality to the narration, but one worked well for me, the other (this book) didn’t. Watching something on TV and reading it in a book are two such very different things. There was such a focus on all sorts of bodily fluids and excretions and I had more of an issue with the long-winded and seemingly graphic descriptions of that than the violence, as such.
Also, Hannibal had the immense benefit of having a large cast of very compelling and attractive people, with Mikkelsen being the spell-binding force at its centre. In this book, the only one I cared one jot for was Cyrah. I loathed Fenrir, didn’t really feel I got a handle on Gevaudan, was largely indifferent to “I’m so different and mysterious” half-werewolf-guy (can’t be bothered to look up his name) and felt mainly just sad pity for Alok.
Malin, you nailed it. “There was such a focus on all sorts of bodily fluids and excretions and I had more of an issue with the long-winded and seemingly graphic descriptions of that than the violence, as such.”
To me it doesn’t work in this medium. I enjoy some gory and uncomfortable things: Grindhouse is one of my favorite movies, and I have seen just about every episode of SVU. But I wouldn’t want to read that level of detail, and don’t enjoy it here.
Oh my god, if ONE MORE PERSON PEED….
I didn’t mind all the bodily fluid stuff at first, because I thought he was trying to portray the shifters’ base instincts in choosing to reject human social behaviors in favor of what they saw as the purer animal version, but at a certain point it’s like, OKAY WE GET IT. You can stop describing this now!
PISSED. I READ THAT WORD TOO MANY TIMES.
DOWN THE INSIDE OF THE LEG.
IN HOT CIRCLES OF SMELLINESS.
HA
HAHAHAHA. I didn’t mind the pee to save their belongings from wild animals during the journey. However, the 3 bullies peeing description was a bit much!
Just so y’all know, I’m only halfway through, so if my thoughts are only half-formed, that’s why.
2. The Devourers asks complicated questions about what it means to be human. To desire and create, to have control over our bestial selves, to do the ‘right’ thing? How does the book argue we find our true identities, and what propels us towards them?
This is the one thing so far that I really like about the book, even though I don’t think the way he’s written it entirely serves the purpose, though again, not sure yet of my final thoughts bc not finished w/ book. But this idea of creation vs. destruction, the creative impulse of life and art, and the destruction of murder and the devouring the shapeshifters do, I find it really intriguing.
I also am leaning towards seeing it as intentional on Das’s part that Fenrir and the other shifters are so dismissive of humanity and its virtues (while assuming the worst of them), while engaging in despicable behavior that belies their views of themselves. That seems very human, actually. It doesn’t seem to me that the shapeshifters are any less capable deep down of good behavior and true emotion than any human is, just that their culture has evolved to dismiss humans, humanity and anything associated with them, because humans are beneath them. They are prey. They are food.
alwaysanswerb noted above that this reminded her of the patriarchy, but I think it’s broader than that. I think humans (or human-like) creatures are capable of both creation and destruction, and it’s a choice to remain in a power structure or society that reinforces destructive behavior, that chooses death and dismissal over life and empathy. As much as I dislike Fenrir, I do somewhat sympathize that he abortively tries to regain that part of himself.
I felt that the werewolves used their non-humanness as a shield. Throughout the entire novel (that I am also not 100% done reading) the very behaviors and emotions they are disavowing as human as the ones they are demonstrating.
Not just hypocritically, but very developmentally arrested…ly (???). I kept thinking how they claimed to be super evolved, but were actually refusing to evolve at all…
That’s a good point. Maybe a connection there between that arrested development, and their devouring nature. It’s like, they’re stagnant, only consuming and recycling life, never living it.
I know. Gevaudin was all “love is stupid and humans are stupid”, but meanwhile he is head over ass in love with Fenrir, and then he goes and develops a close emotional bond with Cyrah, and I’m like, dude, you need to work on your self-reflection skills.
YUP. He also always acts from emotional standpoint and then attempting to gaslight Cyrah about those choices.
8. I didn’t finish this book and I want to tell you all the reasons why.
I’m a little over halfway through and I will power through because I am a completist but I don’t like this book.
It is a slog. I like plot and character development and I don’t see how this has either. We learn about the characters but they just “are.” The development happens as they slooowly reveal things about each other to each other, but for me it is just stagnant and at a snail’s pace.
I don’t typically read fantasy for all these reasons, so I’m definitely not the audience. This book has yet to hook me: it just comes across as very disjointed and jarring.
I’m not sure use this book as a reason not to read fantasy. It’s not exactly representative of the stuff you normally find in the genre.
Hmm. What would you say differentiates is from good fantasy? Like I said, I’m a fantasy noob.
Well, that’s tough. Most fantasy books I’ve read have been a lot less experimental in style, first of all. The experimental/metaphorical stuff in fantasy usually takes the place of fancy language or other literary devices, though some fantasy writers (like Neil Gaiman) can occasionally get away with both. But generally, fantasy is a lot more grounded stylistically because what’s going on in the text is so weird, you need the balance.
I think there was a good book hiding in this one, but as others mentioned above, it tried to do too much, and a lot of the stuff that was good was hidden in between stuff that actively repelled a lot of us.
Fantasy is such a good genre, in my opinion, (especially in the last twenty years or so), because while we do enjoy our tropes, it’s also not bound by the limitations of reality or the conventions of literary fiction (which are constantly striving to impress, in my opinion, and be IMPORTANT). I feel like there’s a type of fantasy for everyone, even if you don’t normally like sword and sorcery type books. So many different sub-genres. Soooo many great authors, artists really, have been writing in the genre writing all different types of books.
This one is definitely on the more literary end of the spectrum.
Does all of that make sense?
It’s definitely a mix of fantasy, horror and magical realism. It is dissecting the werewolf myth from a world history perspective. More a rumination on humanity and myth, but not all that mythical or magical.
I agree with narfna that this isn’t a great fantasy genre indicator. It read more as historical magical realism to me, but how the heck do you genre that?
I felt the book got stronger during the Cyrah centered section in the middle, but the constant POV switching early in the book led to a bunch of skimming.
I seriously almost DNFed it in the first 50 pages, and I never do that. I’m glad I stuck it out, though. Cyrah’s section is legitimately interesting.
If this book hadn’t been for book club, AND the one I actually voted for, I would probably have DNFed it long before I got to the second manuscript, because I really wasn’t feeling the book at all. But then I would have missed out on the bit I really liked, so I’m glad I stuck with it. Plus, as I said in my review, I read the entirety of the 1200+ page Count of Monte Cristo for book club, I wasn’ going to let a measly 300-page book best me.
Same, same, sameness!
I would agree with narfna and faintingviolet that ‘fantasy’ is a questionable way of describing this book.
The ‘fantasy’ label to me means that there should be plot-based narrative. That’s not what this book does; it’s about the psychology of the characters. That disconnect is a large part of why I did not like this book at all. I do however love me some fantasy.
That’s why the only enjoyable parts to me were the frame; those sections actually had stuff happen AND character insight/development.
8. I didn’t finish this book and I want to tell you all the reasons why.
I really wanted to read and like this. But I just couldn’t. I tried for three weeks to get into it, but never really got past the first 20 pages or so. It wasn’t an easy book to mentally access for me, at all.
I worked in Mumbai for a time back in the day, and was looking forward to a magical story about an interesting place, but this was not that, at least for me.
It is definitely not a magical story about an interesting place. We hardly get any sense of place at all. But it did get much, much better around page 75 or so when the narrator switches to Cyrah. The whole book should have been from her perspective.
We seem to have bad luck in CBR book club with books set in (or partially in India). The Bollywood Bride was also a dud, book wise, but at least this book tries do do something a bit different. The Sonali Dev book was just a disappointing romance.
I feel the first one of the year may be developing a curse, because The Bollywood Bride was also our first book club last year.
When I eventually review this one (tomorrow or Friday) it will be getting three stars, to Dev’s 2 stars for The Bollywood Bride a lot of the weaknesses in this feel like debut novel mistakes to me.
I think I’m landing on three stars as well.
Yes, it really took until the big murder for me to be properly hooked. Once I got to the transcription though, it was much easier. Perhaps it’s how boring Alok is as a listener/transcriber?
Going off everyone’s warnings that it took a long time to get into I skimmed the first 50 pages when it felt boring and unrealistic. There is much of Alok’s first interaction with the stranger that had me thinking the book was dumb. It wasn’t, but its intro was.
The part in the baul tent was great, but once they met up in the bar and all the detail about the city surrounding, my mind wandered. I only started the book properly last night, despite attempting to jump into it all day. This morning the pages breezed by though and not much more to go.
That was my big lean-in moment, also!!
On a random note, I had been looking forward to gushing about this with other people because I had not anticipated being literally the only person who liked it, but even with not having that particular opportunity this has been a great discussion so far. Everyone has really thoughtful things to say and that’s the best thing about book club. So five stars for you all.
I heart all of this comment. I liked this book more than I didn’t, if I’m being very honest. But I also haven’t finished (bad book club coordinator!) so I’ve been cautious about being super enthusiastic to my response.
Das is working with so much rich territory in how we define and use our identities. Its a topic I’m going to drop over at the Facebook page in a little while. I think the best parts of the book are when the various main characters -across the multiple timelines- are ruminating on what their lives mean. Cyrah is neither vested in dying or staying alive, based on her life experiences. Fenrir and Gevaudin are struggling with staying within the stereotypes of their werewolfness. Alok and the stranger are finding their own ways to survive, and Alok is working through the fluiditiy of his wants and needs. This is all so interesting.
As is, honestly, the weaving together of the various cultural narratives about shape shifters into the werewolves of this story, particularly the incorporation of the djinn which I was not expecting. I just wish Das was a little clearer, a little stronger in his world building.
I’m not disliking it (though I’m not precisely *liking it* either). If it had all been like the first fifty pages, I wouldn’t like it, but the book has definitely recovered quite a bit from my initial bad reaction.
It was a slow start, but I’m giving it a 4 star review probably. I have about 60 pages left (post the big battle in the abandoned city). This was already on my 2017 TBR pile before it got picked for the book club. Fantasy, horror and shapeshifters are right up my alley. 🙂
Also, he doesn’t always get around to book club posts but I know that The Chancellor really liked this book, so keep an eye out for his review.
1. I didn’t read the YA pick, so can’t fully compare, but it’s an alert to the reader that this tale will be fantastical and have subjective components. Up to us (the reader) to believe or not.
2. I still have about 60 pages to go, but the theme of the book is that only by exploring the unknown and uncomfortable will we really understand who we and what we are. Humans and non-humans can become complacent and arrogant. When approached with the forbidden (for the non-humans) or magical (for humans), we can see outside ourselves. There’s a lot of focus on creation to give yourself further meaning. Only mothers holding on to children semi-deter the shapeshifters because this is something they do not understand – to nurture and love unconditionally.
3. I’m fine with violence as I often read crime thrillers about murder etc. I liked the carnal descriptions of violence as it made you feel how non human the devourers were. The rape scene actually wasn’t very descriptive of the act itself, which I appreciated. Also we eventually get to see it from victim pov and she kept it short.
4. As I mentioned above, I don’t think non-humans are the only way for us to see humanity. However, an immortal creature is better positioned to see humanity on a whole than we can ourselves without becoming seriously immersed in history and philosophy.
5. I love stories about shape-shifters (and most supernatural creatures). The idea of deconstructing the myth is what drew me to this book most. I loved how each culture had its own name for them – rakshasas, djinn, werewolf, lycan etc. In the first parchment from Fenrir’s pov, this history was hard to really grasp. It was very glossed over. Once we see from Cyrah’s POV, I began to marvel on Das’ writing style and how ambitious a story he undertook.
6. Cyrah humanizes Gévaudan and is the conduit for us to understand how he fell in love with Fenrir. He had base intentions when first meeting her, but his loyalty and respect grew because he finally decided to get to know a human. Also, because he let her feel his second self. Moreso than drinking the blood as Fenrir accuses, it was the time spent together and intimacy shared not the fluids that connected Gévaudan and Cyrah.
7. This novel did have a slow start with Alok. I didn’t get why he didn’t start believing sooner that the stranger might not be human. There was enough action in the parchment translation sections to hook me eventually down the line. I appreciated the POV switch from Fenrir to Cyrah. Alok by that time was nearly forgotten. Merely a device to move along the reveal of the stranger (I hope by the end of the book).