User Profile

A difficult book to read, since it mostly talks about how people are harmed, and how society fails to protect & support them. The three main topics covered are gun ownership leading to (especially) suicide, opposition to government-provided healthcare leading to worse healthcare outcomes, and school funding cuts leading to many negative outcomes. Whiteness is a political doctrine which contains many jagged bits and pieces of ideology which don't necessarily fit together neatly. One of the things this book did for me was articulate that at least in the policy areas of guns and healthcare, white people aligned with the white political project are not ignorantly voting for harmful policies. The people interviewed know that widespread easy access to guns leads to more gun deaths, and they accept and acknowledge that as a reasonable cost of maintaining their rights. Likewise healthcare: there is no confusion about the fact that moving closer to universal healthcare would help them and their communities. But they are willing to forego that benefit in order to withhold it from other, mostly non-white, disfavored groups. These are deliberate calculated choices, not ignorant policy-against-self-interest. These people have simply decided that the individual and community costs of these policies (gun access and individualized healthcare) are worthwhile. Education seems like the exception. The voices highlighted seemed to reject the legitimacy of education funding cuts after seeing the negative outcomes of those policies. They previously believed that education was inefficient and overfunded, but amended those beliefs after funding cuts hurt schools. This outcome was not consistent, but it was noticeable for happening at all in contrast to guns and healthcare. However, even when it came to education, that policy objective was less important than other objectives more closely centered around the project of whiteness. Hence interviewees who objected to local and state school-defunding decisions but were still excited to vote for Trump's ethno-nationalist policies despite disagreeing with his education policy. Overall, it is abundantly clear from these interviews and analyses that whiteness is a doctrine of exclusion, perceived scarcity, and hatred. It is probably not surprising to hear that whiteness has racial animus at its heart. What was most interesting to me was that ignorance was not a key pillar of policy decision-making. White politics entails full awareness of the harm done by white policies to white communities. It is simply calculated that these lives lost are an acceptable cost.

Monstrilio is a hard novel for me to pin down. If I had to attach some labels to it I'd say literary fiction with a dash of horror.

It's a story rooted in loss: Magos and Joseph's son Santiago dies suddenly; Magos is enthralled by a tale about regrowing a child from its heart and so cuts out a piece of Santiago's lung from his body to do the same. As she feeds it and grows this lung, it becomes a monster that she treats as her son, and names Monstrilio. The book is divided into four parts from different perspectives: Magos, longtime friend Lena, Joseph, and finally Monstrilio.

But it's not just about grief, it's a story about family and relationships with the monstrous. Magos lives in denial and tries to believe her lung monster Monstrilio is her child Santiago again. Joseph speedruns acceptance and tries to forcibly conform his own life and Monstrilio into a facade of normality.

It's satisfying to me that the book ends from the fractured perspective of Monstrilio, rather than through the projecting biases of the adults in his life. It's interesting to see how the adults largely try to cover for Monstrilio's (at times horrible) actions and coerce him into humanity, while Monstrilio himself covers his own monstrous feelings from the adults and tries to exist in an ill-fitting human world.

I was quite engrossed by this book, although it is definitely quite (deliberately) uncomfortable at points and the book doesn't shy away from (usually off page) gore.

3 stars: enjoyed this book, you might like it too

This is kind of a weird review because I feel like it was a different book than what I expected.

What it ended up being was a history of how femininity was socially constructed, in the context of social class, in Britain over the last few hundred years, and how the construction of modern femininity (as distinct from medieval femininity) was very closely intertwined with the construction of social classes as the middle class emerged. It did this largely through the lens of embroidery. It felt surprisingly modern in how it talked about gender as something changing and socially constructed and existing in the context of other socially constructed concepts, but it did feel very narrowly focused on Britain and Britain-adjacent areas.

Except for at the end in the more modern area, I don't think it really demonstrated embroidery being subversive. Embroidery was used to enforce norms of femininity. At the same time, women rejecting embroidery, in the context of the various feminist movements, often reinforced the idea that things associated with women were inherently inferior. It did talk about how people related to embroidery in different ways and how people could make a world of mandatory embroidery/mandatory femininity more tolerable and find some agency within it, about how embroidery could both trap women and offer them freedom, but it felt rather incongruous with its title. I feel like the book described the situation honestly and accurately, but if you were hoping for more subversion, there isn't a lot in this book.

Wow. For one thing, it's very rare that I am consistently impressed with every story in a collection, even single-author ones. And it's a wonderfully varied collection too, in subject matter, mood, and form: everything from a two-page story that's actually satisfying to the title one which could have been published as a novella on its own. There are common themes about outsider perspectives and unexpected viewpoints, but a huge range of what those things actually mean. Many of the stories are clearly informed by the author being an intersex Jewish immigrant, but again that shows up in very different ways from one story to the next - this is not an author who just has one thing to say.

Content note: some of the stories have disturbing imagery and themes around abuse, body horror, and/or being trapped. There's a list of specific content notes at the back of the book - if those sort of themes could be a problem for you, it's worth flicking to that first.

I enjoy a good mystery novel on its own, but when one brings in enough worldbuilding that can stand on its own, it makes the mystery so much sweeter. Tainted Cup is one book I read earlier this year that did this to great effect, and The Last Murder at the End of the World strikes a different blend that kept me engaged the whole way through. Unlike Stuart Turton's previous time loop-esque murder mystery, I found this one to be temporally more straightforward and the worldbuilding to be much stronger and more intriguing. There's still plenty of red herrings, questions, and multilayered deceptions.

The premise is delightful. The first quarter of the book is an intriguing worldbuilding and character introduction. The earth is covered in a deadly fog and a single Greek island is the only part free from the apocalypse. The villagers and elders who live on this island have some peculiar routines and customs. Finally, and most importantly, Abi (the first person perspective of this book) is able to read everybody's thoughts and can speak to them internally.

Then, the hook. Everybody wakes up. There's a fire. Everybody's memories of the past night have been forcibly wiped by Abi. There's been several murders, people have injuries and blood on their clothes. The murderers could be anybody, even the person investigating it, as nobody has any memory of that night. As a bonus wrinkle, there's time pressure that these murders must be solved in two days or everybody will die.

For a moment only she allowed herself to be irritated that the woods could take as much of her blood as they liked, while she was not permitted to take even a drop of theirs; it wasn’t fair, nothing in here was fair. That was how it worked. No different without than within.

Forced into a second journey into a magic forest that nobody has ever gotten out (but her), Veris is tasked with going back and retrieving a tyrant's two children before the day is done and they are lost forever. It opens strong, with Veris being kidnapped from her home and forced into this very unwanted task. The forest is deeply creepy in a way that manages to feel fresh--there's dead sentinel deer corpses; a floating "cloth" manages to be one of the most terrifying monsters; there's also bargains, games, and tricks galore. I quite enjoyed this novella.

“In exchange? You dare, you worm, filth, you ask anything of me? If you do not recover my children your village will be razed to the ground and burnt, and we will roast your people alive upon it and eat them.”

Many pieces of fiction also have fey creatures ask "are we truly the cruel ones, given the action of humans", but I quite enjoyed the parallel that this book makes about the unfairness of power dynamics within and without the magical realm. Veris must play the games and take the deals of the fey creatures, but she also is forced into taking whatever deal the Tyrant forces upon her too. When the reader discovers later that one of the rules of the forest is to never try to negotiate deals, it echoes the way the book opens with Veris's attempt at negotiating with the tyrant.