puddleglum1983's review against another edition
4.0
Though this novel is set c. 1761, the story is vibrant with detail and subtly nuanced characterizations. I was disappointed when the book came to an end, but then I realized it is only the first in a series. I look forward to reading more about these characters.
sinuhe's review
3.0
There's good and bad to Bound, a story about a young indentured servant who flees an abusive master and finds loving friends in Cape Cod.
The good:
- I have been wanting to read books featuring "ordinary people" in historical settings (rather than the great exceptions or modern brains in historic bodies), or at least featuring characters that are somewhat extraordinary, as all fictional characters are, but still within the norms of the time. Bound delivers! Alice, the heroine, is a fairly average 18th century girl in terms of her mindset, and she deals with her pregnancy through denial and deceit, like many other 18th century unmarried girls.
- The story is so compelling. I spent the whole book wanting to know what happened next, how situations would resolve, how other characters would react.
- It's not common to see non-genre fiction written about a woobie (a character that generates extreme sympathy from the audience; all the bad things happen to them, and other characters either treat them horribly or take care of them). It's pretty rare for a woobie in any genre to be female. I like female woobies!
- It's also very uncommon for fiction set in late-colonials America to not be set during the Revolution. Bound takes place in the 1760s, during the outcry over the Sugar and Stamp Acts. Kudos! And while I don't think as many people really got on the homespun train as popular imagination believes, the book gets kudos for treating textile manufacture as a business that gives opportunity to the characters rather than an oppression.
The bad:
- Uhhh, this entire story is a case of deliberate whitewashing. Gunning explains in an afterword that she came across an instance of a young biracial indentured servant who was prosecuted for alleged infanticide following her child's birth out of wedlock, and decided that the story needed to be told ... but because "most people knew a good deal about the exploitation and enslavement of Africans and Indians", she felt she needed to educate the audience about the "white slaves" she felt they knew less about. Now, the book was written a decade ago when there was a lot less talk about diversity in various settings and the alt-right wasn't constantly going on about how "white people were involuntary servants too," but it's still a Bad Choice. The book would not lose anything by being about a mixed American indentured fifteen-year-old instead of a transplanted white Londoner who had to be sold to pay for passage, and it's not as though most people know anything in-depth about 18th century African slavery that needs to be "balanced".
- While I was sympathetic to Alice, it became sort of awkward how she rarely talks compared to other characters. Kind of like a literary Link. Most of the time this didn't stand out, but when it did, it came across as a little absurd.
- I'd rather read about non-importation arguments than Patriot-vs-Loyalist-family-torn-apart Revolution-era stuff, but, man, can't 18th century America ever just be a setting? And if we always have to do this, why can't good characters ever have "bad" opinions? It's not the Civil War or World War II, supporting the losing side doesn't make a character morally repugnant.
- Last and most nitpicky note: there were some clothing-description issues. Characters were described often as wearing "shawls", which were not a thing in the west in the 1760s (the word was known due to trade links, but they did not become a standard part of dress until the 1790s; characters would be wearing mantelets or short cloaks to warm their upper bodies). Alice's "bodice" was repeatedly referenced, implying a separate garment like the bicentennial-era re-enactor's "English bodice", which did not exist in the 18th century; a woman would have worn a gown or shortgown/jacket, which would not have had "bodice strings" such as Alice unlaces at one point. Even if she were wearing stays or jumps as her top layer, that would still be "a (stay) lace" rather than "bodice strings"; stays were laced with one spiraling lace rather than two criss-crossing.
The good:
- I have been wanting to read books featuring "ordinary people" in historical settings (rather than the great exceptions or modern brains in historic bodies), or at least featuring characters that are somewhat extraordinary, as all fictional characters are, but still within the norms of the time. Bound delivers! Alice, the heroine, is a fairly average 18th century girl in terms of her mindset, and she deals with her pregnancy through denial and deceit, like many other 18th century unmarried girls.
- The story is so compelling. I spent the whole book wanting to know what happened next, how situations would resolve, how other characters would react.
- It's not common to see non-genre fiction written about a woobie (a character that generates extreme sympathy from the audience; all the bad things happen to them, and other characters either treat them horribly or take care of them). It's pretty rare for a woobie in any genre to be female. I like female woobies!
- It's also very uncommon for fiction set in late-colonials America to not be set during the Revolution. Bound takes place in the 1760s, during the outcry over the Sugar and Stamp Acts. Kudos! And while I don't think as many people really got on the homespun train as popular imagination believes, the book gets kudos for treating textile manufacture as a business that gives opportunity to the characters rather than an oppression.
The bad:
- Uhhh, this entire story is a case of deliberate whitewashing. Gunning explains in an afterword that she came across an instance of a young biracial indentured servant who was prosecuted for alleged infanticide following her child's birth out of wedlock, and decided that the story needed to be told ... but because "most people knew a good deal about the exploitation and enslavement of Africans and Indians", she felt she needed to educate the audience about the "white slaves" she felt they knew less about. Now, the book was written a decade ago when there was a lot less talk about diversity in various settings and the alt-right wasn't constantly going on about how "white people were involuntary servants too," but it's still a Bad Choice. The book would not lose anything by being about a mixed American indentured fifteen-year-old instead of a transplanted white Londoner who had to be sold to pay for passage, and it's not as though most people know anything in-depth about 18th century African slavery that needs to be "balanced".
- While I was sympathetic to Alice, it became sort of awkward how she rarely talks compared to other characters. Kind of like a literary Link. Most of the time this didn't stand out, but when it did, it came across as a little absurd.
- I'd rather read about non-importation arguments than Patriot-vs-Loyalist-family-torn-apart Revolution-era stuff, but, man, can't 18th century America ever just be a setting? And if we always have to do this, why can't good characters ever have "bad" opinions? It's not the Civil War or World War II, supporting the losing side doesn't make a character morally repugnant.
- Last and most nitpicky note: there were some clothing-description issues. Characters were described often as wearing "shawls", which were not a thing in the west in the 1760s (the word was known due to trade links, but they did not become a standard part of dress until the 1790s; characters would be wearing mantelets or short cloaks to warm their upper bodies). Alice's "bodice" was repeatedly referenced, implying a separate garment like the bicentennial-era re-enactor's "English bodice", which did not exist in the 18th century; a woman would have worn a gown or shortgown/jacket, which would not have had "bodice strings" such as Alice unlaces at one point. Even if she were wearing stays or jumps as her top layer, that would still be "a (stay) lace" rather than "bodice strings"; stays were laced with one spiraling lace rather than two criss-crossing.
tamara12561's review
3.0
I loved The Widow's War, and I knew I wanted to read others by this author. I did not enjoy this one quite as much as the previous one, simply because I didn't identify as much with Alice as I did with Widow Berry. Alice's naivete did not ring entirely true for me, though I do realize she was written to be young and at times foolish. I got frustrated with the overuse of the references to "circle", also.
I did like getting to find out what happened to the widow, and I appreciated the political references leading up to the revolution. In the author's note she mentions the prevalence of indentured servitude in the 21st century, even in the United States, and I am reminded of my own naivete about "liberty and justice for all". I think it was great that the author included that mention in her book, since historical fiction often has lessons to teach us about our own era.
I did like getting to find out what happened to the widow, and I appreciated the political references leading up to the revolution. In the author's note she mentions the prevalence of indentured servitude in the 21st century, even in the United States, and I am reminded of my own naivete about "liberty and justice for all". I think it was great that the author included that mention in her book, since historical fiction often has lessons to teach us about our own era.
More...