Scan barcode
A review by english_lady03
The Peasant's Dream by Melanie Dickerson
2.0
I have never given a book by this author such a low rating before, and there are various reasons for this, and I hope readers will have the patience of allowing me to lay these out.
Story-wise The Peasant's Dream is OK. Just OK. Rather like some of the other books in this series, and there was a lot of repetition. Being told over and over again how the characters felt, should feel or what would happen if they did this that or the other. The characters, I felt were too perfect, and even attempts to make them appear flawed did not work.
There were a few historical inaccuracies. I was prepared to tolerate the anachronistic references to a Ball (which almost certainly weren't a thing until the 17th century) because its a Cinderella retelling, but picnic baskets in the 15th century. When the very word is not recorded until 1690?
The claim that only men could get marriages annulled really riled me though. Nope. Wrong. Women could, and did, initiate annulments in the Medieval period. The most notable example would be Eleanor of Aquitaine who divorced her first husband King Louis of France, to marry Henry Plantagenet, who soon after became Henry II of England, but there were others.
Aside from these though, there were various aspects of this book that I found offensive. Although many don't just apply to this novel, but to others in this long series.
- The negative aspects and characteristics of women are consistently either denied or condoned. Obviously selfish, rude or spoiled females are told they are not selfish or spoiled. In a previous novel by this author the heroine literally stomps her foot when she can't get her way: only to be still told she's not selfish.
Instead, the men are made to apologize for calling out the women's negative behaviour, and they are the ones who have to change. There is no impetus on women to do so. I mean what is even happening there? Women are not perfect. I know that's a shocker for some, but its the truth.
- In this novel, it goes further, and the negative actions of female characters are actively blamed on men. So for example, Frederick's mother's premarital liaison is blamed on the man. It is made out that he seduced her and took advantage of her: even though it was previously stated that she wanted it, encouraged his attentions and their relationship was consensual.
Nope. You cannot just change the goalposts halfway through like that and make out that he near enough raped her, when it's obvious from everything she said and what we were told that he did not. That there was no coercion and she was a willing participant.
Women are capable of having consensual premarital sex. Not all girls are good girls. Not all girls are led on by wicked evil men.
Actually, I would say this is quite sexist in itself, because it removes all independent agency from women and girls, suggesting they can only ever be the passive and naive patsies of ill-intentioned males.
What is worse however, is when the abusive actions of Frederick's teenage sisters are blamed on their father.
It is said that the sisters were really good, sweet little things who did not know what they were doing or could not help it because they were scared. Baloney. They are old enough to be held responsible for their actions.
This smacks of the feminist narrative that females cannot ever be abusers. Which is a blatant falsehood, and a pernicious one at that. As any victim of a female abuser (including myself) could tell you. Making excuses for abusers in this way is beyond the pale.
- Leading on from this, I notice that this author has began rewriting certain fairy-tales so they have male antagonists instead of female ones. This is certainly going to be the case with the next one, in which the evil stepmother is removed, and replaced with (yet another) evil and abusive father.
Since The Golden Braid (in fact, perhaps even earlier) there have been no abusive or even moderately unpleasant female characters in Mrs Dickerson's books. Instead the old and tired cliche of the abusive male has been used.
Which is further evidence that she is buying into the narrative that women cannot be abusers, as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps the abuse storyline is intended to make the stories more 'relevant'. It is certainly not the first Christian Fiction novel to include such. Yet it is neither stunning nor brave to make out that only people of one gender can be the perpetrators of this kind of behaviour.
Unless and until we can acknowledge the ignored victims of female abusers, and admit that women can be the perpetrators thereof we cannot truly make a difference for everyone. In fact, I would argue, we are doing harm.
This narrative that only men abuse and women can only be victims is not only wrong, it is grossly offensive to the victims of abusive mothers, stepmothers, grandmothers, female caregivers, teachers, siblings and relatives. To the many victims of abusive and controlling women. In fact, its a form of gas-lighting, denying our reality and experiences by suggesting they could not happen.
I did not request this title from any reviewing platform, and purchased the Audible version of my own volition.
Story-wise The Peasant's Dream is OK. Just OK. Rather like some of the other books in this series, and there was a lot of repetition. Being told over and over again how the characters felt, should feel or what would happen if they did this that or the other. The characters, I felt were too perfect, and even attempts to make them appear flawed did not work.
There were a few historical inaccuracies. I was prepared to tolerate the anachronistic references to a Ball (which almost certainly weren't a thing until the 17th century) because its a Cinderella retelling, but picnic baskets in the 15th century. When the very word is not recorded until 1690?
The claim that only men could get marriages annulled really riled me though. Nope. Wrong. Women could, and did, initiate annulments in the Medieval period. The most notable example would be Eleanor of Aquitaine who divorced her first husband King Louis of France, to marry Henry Plantagenet, who soon after became Henry II of England, but there were others.
Aside from these though, there were various aspects of this book that I found offensive. Although many don't just apply to this novel, but to others in this long series.
- The negative aspects and characteristics of women are consistently either denied or condoned. Obviously selfish, rude or spoiled females are told they are not selfish or spoiled. In a previous novel by this author the heroine literally stomps her foot when she can't get her way: only to be still told she's not selfish.
Instead, the men are made to apologize for calling out the women's negative behaviour, and they are the ones who have to change. There is no impetus on women to do so. I mean what is even happening there? Women are not perfect. I know that's a shocker for some, but its the truth.
- In this novel, it goes further, and the negative actions of female characters are actively blamed on men. So for example, Frederick's mother's premarital liaison is blamed on the man. It is made out that he seduced her and took advantage of her: even though it was previously stated that she wanted it, encouraged his attentions and their relationship was consensual.
Nope. You cannot just change the goalposts halfway through like that and make out that he near enough raped her, when it's obvious from everything she said and what we were told that he did not. That there was no coercion and she was a willing participant.
Women are capable of having consensual premarital sex. Not all girls are good girls. Not all girls are led on by wicked evil men.
Actually, I would say this is quite sexist in itself, because it removes all independent agency from women and girls, suggesting they can only ever be the passive and naive patsies of ill-intentioned males.
What is worse however, is when the abusive actions of Frederick's teenage sisters are blamed on their father.
It is said that the sisters were really good, sweet little things who did not know what they were doing or could not help it because they were scared. Baloney. They are old enough to be held responsible for their actions.
This smacks of the feminist narrative that females cannot ever be abusers. Which is a blatant falsehood, and a pernicious one at that. As any victim of a female abuser (including myself) could tell you. Making excuses for abusers in this way is beyond the pale.
- Leading on from this, I notice that this author has began rewriting certain fairy-tales so they have male antagonists instead of female ones. This is certainly going to be the case with the next one, in which the evil stepmother is removed, and replaced with (yet another) evil and abusive father.
Since The Golden Braid (in fact, perhaps even earlier) there have been no abusive or even moderately unpleasant female characters in Mrs Dickerson's books. Instead the old and tired cliche of the abusive male has been used.
Which is further evidence that she is buying into the narrative that women cannot be abusers, as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps the abuse storyline is intended to make the stories more 'relevant'. It is certainly not the first Christian Fiction novel to include such. Yet it is neither stunning nor brave to make out that only people of one gender can be the perpetrators of this kind of behaviour.
Unless and until we can acknowledge the ignored victims of female abusers, and admit that women can be the perpetrators thereof we cannot truly make a difference for everyone. In fact, I would argue, we are doing harm.
This narrative that only men abuse and women can only be victims is not only wrong, it is grossly offensive to the victims of abusive mothers, stepmothers, grandmothers, female caregivers, teachers, siblings and relatives. To the many victims of abusive and controlling women. In fact, its a form of gas-lighting, denying our reality and experiences by suggesting they could not happen.
I did not request this title from any reviewing platform, and purchased the Audible version of my own volition.