Scan barcode
A review by beautyisterror
Not Before Sundown by Johanna Sinisalo
2.0
Read it with the book club! After Angels Before Man and this one I’m really curious to see what December will have in store for us,
I lowered the rating to a two after writing this review, but I’m still in search of the right words to describe this novel.
When I first came across the book I was under the assumption it would have a troll as an active protagonist, so in a way a more fantastical approach to the one we’ve been given. Here the troll is an elusive animal present in the northern reaches of Finland, which up until the beginning of the twentieth century was thought to be a mythical creature. Our protagonist, Mikael, finds a troll cub being kicked to death behind some trashcans, and justifies his bringing it to his own apartment by saying he loves to own beautiful things.
Trying to tame this animal in secret brings him closer to Palomita, a neighbour who is herself a captive of some sort, a Filipina mail-in bride who barely speaks Finnish, kept in the apartment with no means of leaving it by a controlling husband, who counts the change to check she doesn’t pocket it and asks the nosy neighbour to keep an eye on her movements.
The racial themes are there but they don’t really go anywhere: the troll is often described as ape or human-like, sometimes described like a black man, violent and wild, the protagonist and other characters even go as far as describing it as a sexual being - all things that have been said in history about people of colour while still denying them agency and the status of humanity.
There’s one line towards the end of the book that is the closest thing to decry this shift in power being about perception, and it’s still while talking about animals (especially ones used oftentimes to describe black and brown people) and I’m still trying to understand if it was done on purpose or if we’re really only talking about animals and missing the racist undertones:
“[…] we won’t recognise the chimpanzee as a person until it rises up against us in rebellion.”
Is this not what happens to all enslaved people? They get likened to animals and subhumans in order to justify their oppression, and they only get their personhood through violent uprisings (that will be used against them anyway, because “civilised” people do not choose violence, they just sell weapons to the oppressor).
Apart from Mikael, the troll and Palomita, there are three other men who all have a connection to Mikael: one past relationship, one present and one that he wishes he had, and in all of these he has varying degrees of control - in one way or another all three also have close encounters with the troll.
I think the novel was too short but also too long at the same time? The articles and excerpts of books interspersed within the pov chapters dilute it a lot, and that makes the novel seem longer, but it really should be considered a novella. Also some chapters are literally a sentence long.
I don’t think I grasped what the scope of the novella really was: was it an analysis of gay culture in Finland? Was it an exploration of hyerarchies and power in these relationships, using the troll as a “control” test? Was it a modern dark fairytale with a moral I didn’t get?
All the themes it wants to encompass are barely parsed and I am at a loss of what to think.
All I can say is read it for yourselves if you’re curious but beware of bestiality?? Kind of maybe??
I lowered the rating to a two after writing this review, but I’m still in search of the right words to describe this novel.
When I first came across the book I was under the assumption it would have a troll as an active protagonist, so in a way a more fantastical approach to the one we’ve been given. Here the troll is an elusive animal present in the northern reaches of Finland, which up until the beginning of the twentieth century was thought to be a mythical creature. Our protagonist, Mikael, finds a troll cub being kicked to death behind some trashcans, and justifies his bringing it to his own apartment by saying he loves to own beautiful things.
Trying to tame this animal in secret brings him closer to Palomita, a neighbour who is herself a captive of some sort, a Filipina mail-in bride who barely speaks Finnish, kept in the apartment with no means of leaving it by a controlling husband, who counts the change to check she doesn’t pocket it and asks the nosy neighbour to keep an eye on her movements.
The racial themes are there but they don’t really go anywhere: the troll is often described as ape or human-like, sometimes described like a black man, violent and wild, the protagonist and other characters even go as far as describing it as a sexual being - all things that have been said in history about people of colour while still denying them agency and the status of humanity.
There’s one line towards the end of the book that is the closest thing to decry this shift in power being about perception, and it’s still while talking about animals (especially ones used oftentimes to describe black and brown people) and I’m still trying to understand if it was done on purpose or if we’re really only talking about animals and missing the racist undertones:
“[…] we won’t recognise the chimpanzee as a person until it rises up against us in rebellion.”
Is this not what happens to all enslaved people? They get likened to animals and subhumans in order to justify their oppression, and they only get their personhood through violent uprisings (that will be used against them anyway, because “civilised” people do not choose violence, they just sell weapons to the oppressor).
Apart from Mikael, the troll and Palomita, there are three other men who all have a connection to Mikael: one past relationship, one present and one that he wishes he had, and in all of these he has varying degrees of control - in one way or another all three also have close encounters with the troll.
I think the novel was too short but also too long at the same time? The articles and excerpts of books interspersed within the pov chapters dilute it a lot, and that makes the novel seem longer, but it really should be considered a novella. Also some chapters are literally a sentence long.
I don’t think I grasped what the scope of the novella really was: was it an analysis of gay culture in Finland? Was it an exploration of hyerarchies and power in these relationships, using the troll as a “control” test? Was it a modern dark fairytale with a moral I didn’t get?
All the themes it wants to encompass are barely parsed and I am at a loss of what to think.
All I can say is read it for yourselves if you’re curious but beware of bestiality?? Kind of maybe??