I don't normally give long reviews to books, but this one has filled me with so much anger and disgust I feel the need to rant. I don't want to hide this review, in the hopes that it might save someone from dealing with the nastiness I felt whilst reading, but please be aware I will be mentioning plot points, so somewhat mild spoilers throughout!
I should preface that gore and horror does not bother me. I love a good horror, thriller, slasher etc. So this is nothing against those aspects of the book. I will credit Sodergren here that he writes these portions and descriptions well. He also has a good sense of pace and suspension throughout, but it is from this that most of my anger stems. He obviously has skill as a horror writer, so why does he chose to write such horrible, vitriolic depictions of violence against women?
You might think with the plot of the book that this is something that could not have been avoided, but, as a fan of religious horror plots, I believe there was a much better way this book could've been written, still giving it those slashery horror elements, but removing the rampant gore and over-the-top violence against the book's female characters.
The book begins with a flashback to the night of a church burning - something that is going to be an essential part of the plot. Within said church, there is a man and a woman having sex, the woman just so happening to be a sex worker. Naturally the plot progresses to Father Patrick Morgan having to murder both of them, supposedly under the instructions of his God. I do not take issue with this, what I have problems with is the juxtaposition of how he describes the murders of the man vs the woman. I shall take quotes here directly from the text.
'Patrick slit the man's throat. The flesh tore like cheap fabric, thick gouts of dark blood gushing forth and spraying wildly over the pulpit. The man gurgled, then dropped lifelessly to his knees, exposing the woman in all her naked glory.'
This is the majority of the description of the murder of the man. We get this small quote, then the rest of the chapter is dedicated to the horrors Father Morgan enacts upon the woman. She is splayed out, naked, covered in blood, 'her breasts stained red with the man's lifeblood'. She attempts to escape, she is tripped, he begins quoting from the Bible at her. A candle is knocked over in this struggle, setting fire to a banner decorating the pulpit. It is noted here that, on any other occasion he would have noticed, but, because of the blood soaked, naked woman screaming in his church, crawling along the floor 'her legs spread wide open' (why am I rolling my eyes ten pages into the book), he simply does not notice the large fire beginning to rage behind him.
As she attempts to escape, the door obviously being locked to prevent this, he stomps on her ankles, breaking the bone. Further descriptions of violence against her, and Father Morgan, with the 'virtuous power' of God flowing through him, cradles the woman, taking the opportunity to fondle her breasts and stray towards touching her further. He spouts some more nonsense about her being a jezebel and a temptress, it obviously being her fault that he cannot keep his hands to himself, that its her fault he is taking advantage of her. There is some more horrible descriptions of him dragging her backwards by grabbing her, seemingly like a bowling ball, by her genitalia. Which, I want to point out here, is not really how feminine anatomy works, but I don't really expect proper depictions of women to occur by this point.
Father Morgan ends up killing her by slamming her head between a door frame, taking time to point out how fascinated he is by 'the jiggle of her buttocks' as her dying body spasms on the floor, having been almost completely beheaded. All of this happens within the first 12 pages of the book. You could make the argument that obviously Father Morgan is going to be the villain of the story, or part of the greater horror that is to occur, and so actions must be taken to make him seem so dreadful of a person. I understand that is how a story and its characters have to function, but why is this much effort not placed also into the male character? Why is he, to be vulgar, boringly killed and tossed to the side in order to focus the larger descriptions of violent actions against the woman instead?
This is a trend that continues throughout the entire book. I won't go in depth into the rest of the story, lest you wish, for some reason, to read it yourself. But there are multiple instances of Sodergren introducing female characters, attempting to flesh them out quite poorly, and then going into great detail about the horrific ways they are to be violated and then murdered. The whole plot of the book, for a good portion of its length, revolves around introducing another sex worker from the brothel, who has not been mentioned previously, only for her to be murdered in a grisly way, and then repeat.
Another issue I had was with the male patrons of the brothel. Obviously, with the emerging themes of the novel, they're not going to be the most savoury of characters, but there is very little in terms of variety of characterisation. At one point the main character is injured and so her friend grabs who she believes to be a doctor, who is the client of one of the other girls. It is later revealed that he is merely pretending to be a doctor, and spends the entire interaction oogling the injured girl, making lewd and inappropriate comments about the little clothes that she is wearing, how big her ass is, how it "eats up" her shorts, because of course he does. I get that this is set in a brothel and these women are sex workers, but it feels like Sodergren is taking every opportunity to objectify them, even in scenes were it just isn't at all necessary (which I think is all of them, but this is written by a man so the bar is exceedingly low at this point).
There are further examples of this, but I don't want to harp on about the same problem multiple times. I felt it was necessary to talk this much about it purely to show how much it occurs within the book, it is an almost constant background point of every scene.
The other, major issue I had with this story is the overt stereotyping of the only black character (if I remember correctly, but I am trying to forget I even read this) in the entire novel. She is one of the sex workers at the brothel, described as being probably the closest friend the main character has. She is head-strong, somewhat sassy, and very out-spoken in key scenes later on in the novel. And her name is Foxy. The only black woman in the book and her name is Foxy, and she is the biggest Foxy Brown stereotype you could have written. She also does not have a good relationship with her family, she is too proud to ask them for help. It just feels a bit, I don't know, Racist? At least to me, but I fear I am the wrong person to properly dig into this one too much as I am white. But surely if I can pick up on it, with my short amount of research to properly confirm why I felt it was off, surely it should have been picked up by an editor or a beta reader, to not write the only black character this way?
Obviously we can read whatever we want. You're not a bad person if you enjoyed this book, although I would be interested to know why, as the only thing I got out of this was increasing levels of disgust. I hope that, in the myriad of positive reviews that do not touch on any of these issues I have perceived, my review will help at least one person to realise this book might not be for them.