There is all sorts of wrong in this story :
- [ ] cliched writing and concepts
- [ ] nothing refreshing about the point of view of the protagonist (and author I suspect) about the role and reality of being female
- [ ] cringy pandering to the young female clique of the school, constantly referred to as The Cins, which is a futile attempt at subversion. The play on the word sin is evident, secondary character is called Tam(sin).
It’s cliched, repetitive, indulgent. Too much interiority in the central character: the tone of it is relentless and badgering. There are no redeeming qualities in any of the characters. And the fawning over a young teenager, the leader of a clique (Cinnamon, Cin, Sinisin, The Cins etc.), whom the protagonist (the principal of an elite private school) deems as her Golden Flower, referring to her as brilliant, creative, a gifted writer… is nauseating. All we are shown in the action is a cliched selfie-taking teenage girl with a potty mouth, caught in the social-media age of virtue signalling and pronoun pondering; she’s a narcissistically entitled, talk-to-the-hand elite-private-school mean girl, vacuous with arrogance.
This cringy pandering to The Cins, is a futile attempt at subversion. The play on the word sin is evident; the secondary character is called Tamsin(/sin), and yet none of their action matches the obsequiousness of the main character’s worldview.
“The Cins have a strange power over knowledge, notoriety, secrets in this place. The more sinful and silent the group seem, the tighter and more powerful they become.” Pp 230. They are approximately 15 years old. The main character wonders at one point if Cinnamon has ever had sex, and once asked her if she was gay when she was 13. You’re a career-driven principal of an elite private school, get it together! They’re just kids.
She refers to Cin as having a strong bout of testosterone. Pp262. Well what is it, is it girls trying to be as tough as boys, or girls with solid inner strength that is entirely feminine?
There are no thought-provoking refreshing new concepts of gender politics. It’s just the same old views of patriarchy and tom-boy feminists (The Cins) pushing at boundaries. The far-left fixations feel injected for effect, appealing to the trend of wanting to be contemporary in both language and ideology.
The cliches continue: a childless woman knows nothing of parenting, a childless single woman is loveless and barren; men in general have opportunity, strength and clarity above women, women have to gouge their way through life. Men are dangerous, men are sexual opportunists. The contradictions abound.
Flawed characters make good story, but this relentless internal monologue of self-loathing, being emotionally wobbly to the point of migraine, caught in the victimhood of singledom, childlessness and ageism is tipping the scales into contrived. The interiority is exhausting. It's one thing to have an unreliable narrator, another to self-indulge the protagonist and leave the reader on the periphery.
The whole thing was utterly boring. It’s no modern ‘Picnic at hanging rock’. That part of the story barely makes the page.
This is essentially a story about a childless menopausal woman fawning over the young, popular female student(s) inappropriately. It’s incongruent with a lack of self-awareness.
Oh and apparently: “‘Boner garage’ is what teenage girls are writing on their bare tummies; with an arrow pointing downwards…being artfully photographed in bedrooms with fairy lights…as celebratory birthday selfies. Happy thirteenth birthday, little one…” Pp 181
Don’t worry. I had to look that one up too!
It goes on to continue the cliche that females are used and abused by boys for sexual gratification and poor girls will just have to accept feeling ‘viciously lonely’ because that’s ‘how it is’.
Oh and the title, I missed that somewhere. I have no idea how it relates to the story. Happy to be enlightened.
Ultimately, Urgh. Two stars.