Scan barcode
A review by percys_panda_pillow_pet
Her Majesty's Royal Coven by Juno Dawson
adventurous
challenging
funny
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
This might be the longest review yet on my page. I may also include minor spoilers for the first time as there were very specific character and plot choices I wanted to bring attention to. Due to how the spoiler system works, I will save these insights for the very end.
Alright. So Her Majesty's Royal Coven by Juno Dawson was a book I had gotten last Christmas after I had put it on my list. I knew it was LGBTQ+ from the tags on the book online and I knew it was about witches, and that was enough for me (as well, the bright pink cover for the UK version was gorgeous).
When I started the book, I got immediately sucked into the story and characters, something that I felt was a bit unusual as even the most interesting books tend to have a slow start as I get used to the setting/characters/set-up. However, from the start, I could tell that Juno Dawson did a fantastic job of balancing each character's POV, creating unique and interesting threads for every POV to feel separate and not blend together, but not too separate that one POV may have been preferred over another. As well, the linking of plot threads between the POVs was perfect, and I was always ready to hear what was going to happen next, no matter the character that narrated. In fact, I was very anticipatory about how each character would react to the situations at hand.
That was the easy praise, now let's get into the tougher stuff. I have mixed feelings about how Dawson presented her main themes and ideas. On one hand, I am a fan of R.F. Kuang, who also tends to be heavy-handed with the themes and points she is trying to make in her books. Sometimes messages can't be subtle and need to be in your face to understand them. Sometimes the lack of subtlety really works as a tool to inform readers that they shouldn't misinterpret this important message of the author, it's literally written plainly in the text. As well, there are a lot of people for whom ignorance is a bliss they can afford and this is a way to wake those people up and force them to see what everyone else sees.
On the other hand, I felt like Dawson was even more heavy-handed than Kuang with her main message in this book. There was so much just obviously written out that I almost wanted to cringe at the lack of subtlety. As well, I found myself annoyed at a few of the celebrity author reviews inside the book that praised it for its use of metaphor. A metaphor implies a need for deeper reading and possible different interpretations. This was not a metaphor, it was not a commentary, it was a direct message to the masses. Even as someone who tends to enjoy a lack of subtlety in writing once and a while, the extreme length to which this author went even had me wishing for a more keen writing style, allowing for more work done by the reader. I do not blame anyone who does not or would not like this book because of that writing style.
That isn't to say that the book completely lacked metaphors, which I will go into soon. However, before I mark my spoilers, I lastly wanted to comment on the word choices within this book. Dawson is queer and she has her own experiences to draw from. However, there was a feeling while reading that I wasn't reading a book, but rather scrolling on the internet. I don't like to say when something was "trying too hard" to be inclusive, as it can often be taken the wrong way. I was drawn to this book because of its inclusivity and diversity. But, I did feel as though it was "too much" for just one book to cover. There was a feeling of "trying too hard" because there was so much effort to address all sorts of issues. While I am glad for the attempt, I feel as though the book suffered for it, and it would've been better to focus on a singular issue (understanding, of course, that oftentimes these issues are intersectional). The book didn't quite fail in my mind, rather, it just wasn't done as well as I had thought it should've been.
Now into the spoilers. Something I really enjoyed as a metaphor was Helena representing white feminism and cosying up to Hale, who represents facism, the patriarchy, and supremacism. She viewed herself as better for being a witch, one from a long legacy of other (white and rich) witches. She was a genuinely complex character for the most part, and I enjoyed her internal issues of feeling inadequate because of her mother but also believing that as a woman in power, she had to present a certain face. I do feel like as the plot went on, she became more caricatured, with no reasoning behind her bigotry except a need to maintain control over the status quo, which felt like a weak reason to me. Helena's type of bigotry is sewn into her life from birth due to propaganda persisting in the rest of society of othering certain types of people.
Dawson as well added the hint that Helena may have been abused at the hand of her lovers. It could've worked as an angle for her character if done better. It would've made sense within the metaphor of Helena representing white feminism, and how white women had certain power for their skin color, their gender will still be oppressed by the patriarchy. However, at the moment it just felt like a cop-out and an excuse that Helena had issues and that's why she was being awful.
I cannot say for certain that it wasn't on purpose that Helena slowly became a caricature of a villainous bigot. Perhaps as well, the sudden introduction of trauma from her past was meant to be a commentary on how bigotry is always trying to be excused for a sad sob story of how hard life can be. I am not sure what the intention was, and I'm not as concerned with it. The way it was written just didn't seem done well to me, and I felt the writing could've been stronger.
Focusing on another aspect of the story, as I said above, Dawson is queer and I won't question her experiences and what this book means to her. However, from a writing perspective, I felt like the plot was a little lost when Theo was outed/came out as trans. It's hard to say, as I do understand that a big part of the book was meant to focus on this storyline. This is the reason Helena becomes the villain. But there is a solid section of the book where all the magic is lost, all the lore and prophecy hearing and witchy vibes are gone in favor of a contemporary story about a teen coming out as trans. I just felt like it took over a bit too much and could've used a bit more balance. I was also going to talk about Theo's transformation at the end, but with Dawson's experiences and my own perspective being different, I didn't feel comfortable critiquing it fully. All I will say is that I didn't really know how I felt about the magical transition. It wasn't positive or negative, just middling.
Finally, to wrap up this LONG review, I want to pose a simple question: Who is this book for? Now a book can be for anyone, people can read what they want. But a book, like any other form of media or advertising or construct, can have a specific audience it is catering towards or aimed at. So who was supposed to read this book? Someone like me who already agreed with the author's feelings on the themes and messages? Someone who is vehemently against those things? Someone who is on the fence? I'm not entirely sure, and I feel like knowing exactly what audience this book was meant for would help a lot in solidifying its purpose. And it does have a purpose, that is for certain. What do you think?
Alright. So Her Majesty's Royal Coven by Juno Dawson was a book I had gotten last Christmas after I had put it on my list. I knew it was LGBTQ+ from the tags on the book online and I knew it was about witches, and that was enough for me (as well, the bright pink cover for the UK version was gorgeous).
When I started the book, I got immediately sucked into the story and characters, something that I felt was a bit unusual as even the most interesting books tend to have a slow start as I get used to the setting/characters/set-up. However, from the start, I could tell that Juno Dawson did a fantastic job of balancing each character's POV, creating unique and interesting threads for every POV to feel separate and not blend together, but not too separate that one POV may have been preferred over another. As well, the linking of plot threads between the POVs was perfect, and I was always ready to hear what was going to happen next, no matter the character that narrated. In fact, I was very anticipatory about how each character would react to the situations at hand.
That was the easy praise, now let's get into the tougher stuff. I have mixed feelings about how Dawson presented her main themes and ideas. On one hand, I am a fan of R.F. Kuang, who also tends to be heavy-handed with the themes and points she is trying to make in her books. Sometimes messages can't be subtle and need to be in your face to understand them. Sometimes the lack of subtlety really works as a tool to inform readers that they shouldn't misinterpret this important message of the author, it's literally written plainly in the text. As well, there are a lot of people for whom ignorance is a bliss they can afford and this is a way to wake those people up and force them to see what everyone else sees.
On the other hand, I felt like Dawson was even more heavy-handed than Kuang with her main message in this book. There was so much just obviously written out that I almost wanted to cringe at the lack of subtlety. As well, I found myself annoyed at a few of the celebrity author reviews inside the book that praised it for its use of metaphor. A metaphor implies a need for deeper reading and possible different interpretations. This was not a metaphor, it was not a commentary, it was a direct message to the masses. Even as someone who tends to enjoy a lack of subtlety in writing once and a while, the extreme length to which this author went even had me wishing for a more keen writing style, allowing for more work done by the reader. I do not blame anyone who does not or would not like this book because of that writing style.
That isn't to say that the book completely lacked metaphors, which I will go into soon. However, before I mark my spoilers, I lastly wanted to comment on the word choices within this book. Dawson is queer and she has her own experiences to draw from. However, there was a feeling while reading that I wasn't reading a book, but rather scrolling on the internet. I don't like to say when something was "trying too hard" to be inclusive, as it can often be taken the wrong way. I was drawn to this book because of its inclusivity and diversity. But, I did feel as though it was "too much" for just one book to cover. There was a feeling of "trying too hard" because there was so much effort to address all sorts of issues. While I am glad for the attempt, I feel as though the book suffered for it, and it would've been better to focus on a singular issue (understanding, of course, that oftentimes these issues are intersectional). The book didn't quite fail in my mind, rather, it just wasn't done as well as I had thought it should've been.
Now into the spoilers. Something I really enjoyed as a metaphor was
Dawson as well added the hint that Helena may have been abused at the hand of her lovers. It could've worked as an angle for her character if done better. It would've made sense within the metaphor of Helena representing white feminism, and how white women had certain power for their skin color, their gender will still be oppressed by the patriarchy. However, at the moment it just felt like a cop-out and an excuse that Helena had issues and that's why she was being awful.
I cannot say for certain that it wasn't on purpose that Helena slowly became a caricature of a villainous bigot. Perhaps as well, the sudden introduction of trauma from her past was meant to be a commentary on how bigotry is always trying to be excused for a sad sob story of how hard life can be. I am not sure what the intention was, and I'm not as concerned with it. The way it was written just didn't seem done well to me, and I felt the writing could've been stronger.
Focusing on another aspect of the story, as I said above, Dawson is queer and I won't question her experiences and what this book means to her. However,
Finally, to wrap up this LONG review, I want to pose a simple question: Who is this book for? Now a book can be for anyone, people can read what they want. But a book, like any other form of media or advertising or construct, can have a specific audience it is catering towards or aimed at. So who was supposed to read this book? Someone like me who already agreed with the author's feelings on the themes and messages? Someone who is vehemently against those things? Someone who is on the fence? I'm not entirely sure, and I feel like knowing exactly what audience this book was meant for would help a lot in solidifying its purpose. And it does have a purpose, that is for certain. What do you think?
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia and Outing