Scan barcode
ergative's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I will always love Hilary Tamar. I feel a little bit tricked at reading the tax law components of the plot so carefully, taking notes, and then having the solution be--well, unrelated, sort of. But it's also clear that this was not laziness, but Caudwell being playful with the reader, and given how delightfully she writes I can't really hold that against her.
I do, however, want to say clearly here and now and forever that Gabrielle raped Cantrip. It's not a tricky case: If you do not consent to have sex with a person and they do it anyway, it is rape. Consenting to have sex with one person does not constitute consent with another. You don't consent to the act in general; you consent to the act with a person. Cantrip did not consent to sex with Gabrielle. He consented to sex with Clemmie, and consent to one person is not consent to another. Really, it's a pretty straightforward. I get rather annoyed with Caudwell, because she's trying so hard to do clever things or at least provocative things with gender: There's Hilary Tamar's unknowable gender; there's the fact that, outside the Chambers of our ensemble cast the world is horrible and patriarchal, but inside the Chambers the women can be as sex-hungry and the men as diffident as the more standard reverse stereotypes. I really appreciate what she's trying to do here. But the sex switcharoo was rape when Shakespeare wrote it, so when Caudwell draws that connection to the Shakespeare play it isn't any less rape now, and I wish she hadn't thought that playing jokes with sex in this way was funny. Think of it this way: If they were so certain that Cantrip wouldn't mind, why do they not tell him who it was he slept with?
I do, however, want to say clearly here and now and forever that Gabrielle raped Cantrip. It's not a tricky case: If you do not consent to have sex with a person and they do it anyway, it is rape. Consenting to have sex with one person does not constitute consent with another. You don't consent to the act in general; you consent to the act with a person. Cantrip did not consent to sex with Gabrielle. He consented to sex with Clemmie, and consent to one person is not consent to another. Really, it's a pretty straightforward. I get rather annoyed with Caudwell, because she's trying so hard to do clever things or at least provocative things with gender: There's Hilary Tamar's unknowable gender; there's the fact that, outside the Chambers of our ensemble cast the world is horrible and patriarchal, but inside the Chambers the women can be as sex-hungry and the men as diffident as the more standard reverse stereotypes. I really appreciate what she's trying to do here. But the sex switcharoo was rape when Shakespeare wrote it, so when Caudwell draws that connection to the Shakespeare play it isn't any less rape now, and I wish she hadn't thought that playing jokes with sex in this way was funny. Think of it this way: If they were so certain that Cantrip wouldn't mind, why do they not tell him who it was he slept with?
Content Warnings
Minor: Rape
More...