Why no star rating when I really, truly enjoyed so much of this book? Quite simply: I don’t know how to rate it – mostly because I feel unqualified since part of this book is outside my genre preference. Which is to say: yes, I knowingly picked a book that had descriptors such as mystery, thriller, and mystery thriller because the story, itself, sounded deep and fascinating.
A protected community of women living in the redwoods. Mountain lions that guard it. Magical realism. Nature. Sign me up!
And for the most part – up to the 70% mark – I was all in. The book, up to that point, was literary and flowing with majestic nature descriptions; it also was building up some fantastic thematic weight about community, women’s suffering at the hands of men, alongside their inherent strength, and it – surprisingly – had beautiful, alternating historic sections about the community’s founding mother that I gobbled up. It even touched on some environmental elements that were organic and lovely.
The writing, as noted, for this first chunk of the story, was absolutely gorgeous:
… in the dirt alongside the worms were the roots of redwood trees reaching as wide as the trees were tall, passing sugars and water back and forth, feeding the weak, holding the tallest of them upright, flashing memories to one another along the mycorrhizal network of a time before this time, when something had been set in motion. Gathering what was needed because it seemed it was beginning again.
Things went south for me, however, when the mystery was introduced. You know how most books have some type of a mystery component – a central question that needs to be answered, but often a slow-burn kind of unveiling, woven into the writing so that it is not entirely noticeable? I thought this might end up being one of those books, even with a “mom goes missing” plot.
It wasn’t. For me, this was the downfall: the standard interiority found in mysteries where the main protag makes her plan and continually second-guesses herself, where certain events fall into place with way too much convenience, or the events are just a bit too contrived for one to suspend disbelief.
When the mystery kicked in, the writing changed to more significantly commercial, and as a reader, I felt this jarring stylistic change and it screamed “mystery/thriller” plot contrivance.
Mystery readers may have zero qualms with this. They may actually love this aspect of the book best (and I hope they embrace this book). So, as noted – since I don’t read the genre – my opinion might be worth nothing more than a hill of beans. Give this a try, please!
But, honestly, the character-driven and thematic aspects of this book were strong enough to have carried the entire novel, making it fully literary, without any commercial aspects or adding the mystery, at all. It could have been a beautiful story about the difficult relationship between a mom and daughter, the ways society has failed women, the ways we use stories for survival, the healing power of nature, the power of believing in magic. I personally think it would have been stronger that way and hope the author will take that route on future novels. She certainly has the talent.
I could be wrong, but suspect maybe what Fontaine submitted was more on the literary side, and that she was advised to commercialize the story for sales purposes. If so, it’s a shame. That said, I’d give her a go again. The mountain lion symbolism and descriptions, the interconnectedness of humans to the Earth … it was superbly done.
My thanks to NetGalley and Farrar, Straus and Giroux for the gifted e-copy in exchange for my honest thoughts.