Shades of Milk and Honey by Mary Robinette Kowal

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


I read this book more than a year ago, along with most of the others in the series, but I decided to read it again before giving it a review.

This one sits in the middle for me for a LOT of reasons. Let's do a list:

Pros:
-Regency Era setting (always a bonus with me)
-Magic (again, love it)
-Decent amount of historical accuracy
-Clean subject matter

Cons:
-Poor character development
-Minimal explanation of the magic system
-Predictable plot
-Uncomfortable, unrealistic emotions and emotional relationships between the characters
-Main character who is very hard to relate to/believe her emotions and motivations are sincere

Jane is a very odd duck. She feels like a stranger in her own family, especially with her sister. Yes, it makes sense that growing up an only child for ten years would make it difficult to relate to a younger sibling, but if Jane Austen could do it (Darcy and his sister, who care about each other and trust each other), Kowal should do it too. Melody's jealousy of her sister falls flat because they don't have a relationship I can ever believe was loving. Jane is too stiff, too formal, when no one else in her family is, even her father. Her father is kind and jovial and comfortable, Melody is petty and fanciful, and her mother is familiar and oppressing in her feigned illness, but Jane is a block of wood. Who taught her to be that stiff, and how did she avoid picking up even some of the more comfortable ease of her family? Not only that, but Jane is unfailing dim for all that Kowal tries to convince us otherwise. I have a very difficult time believing that Jane couldn't guess anything about the true state of her sister's flirtations and hints. It was SO obvious what was going on that there is no way Jane could have missed it. There is an attempt to convince us that Jane is just a girl ahead of her time, but I don't buy it. If Kowal meant to paint her as a bitter, emotionally insincere feminist from the 1970s, she achieved her goal. As a character built on the brilliant legacy of strong, feminine characters written by Jane Austen, this is a poor tribute.

Now for the magic, which is an interesting system, if poorly organized and explained. I love the idea of magic being part of the womanly arts. That is neat. Small magic is interesting to me because it affords more opportunities for uniqueness among authors. However, even small magic needs to be organized and explained in a way that makes sense to the readers. Instead, our knowledge of what is possible with glamour comes in fits and spurts, often throwing our assumptions about its workings for a loop we should not have needed to experience. The scope of the magic is very difficult to grasp because the rules and limits are only explained when it is of vital importance. It is also difficult to imagine at times, but I have a hard time explaining why. That is a comment that applies more to later books, I think.

The research done for the book is thorough, but I question why certain details were so important to include. A good example is the custom of the "table turning" for conversation at dinner. This is NEVER shown in Austen's work, in part because people probably would have assumed it was happening, and also because her characters almost always dined in very intimate settings, not with 40+ neighbors that we have never heard of until that moment in the book. They talked to everyone at the table, or held conversations between the people they were closest to without worrying about formalities. My basic opinion when it comes to Regency-era writing is that if Austen included it or wrote it, we can feel comfortable doing the same. Notice that it never detracts from an Austen novel to not know that the table turns half-way through the meal. This feels more as though it is Heyer-inspired than Austen-inspired, and I consider no one to be better than Austen.

The same stiffness that exists in Jane emotionally and behaviorally also exists in Kowal's portrayal of the era. Austen's characters were much more comfortable, even when in a more formal or even awkward setting. The ease of Austen's prose is not very well mimicked by Kowal either. I can't help wondering if Kowal herself is a stiff, uncomfortable person, because it keeps popping up in her writing. In general, too, I feel as though all of the characters are the kinds of people Jane Austen would have disliked in real life. She would have written them into her stories as people like Lucy Steele and Mrs. Elton--less refined, less informed, and worthy subjects of censure and satire.

I could go on, but I will stop here for now. My plan is to re-read the other books as well, and read the one book I missed last time. Overall, it was not a waste of my time to read this book twice, because there are enough good things to keep me reading. I'd probably read it again in spite of all this complaining because it is hard enough to find clean Regency romances. But Kowal has not absolutely impressed me with her abilities. I would only purchase this series if it was on a very good sale.



View all my reviews