Primarily, I would like to make it clear that this is not the worst book I've ever read, and from the looks of it, other people seem to have a high opinion of it. I was originally going to give it three stars, but when I looked back on it, the absolute absence of anything enjoyable made me reconsider. I don't even really hate it, other than a few things that irked me; there's just nothing redeemable for me.
So, what's it about Girl in the Blue Coat that gets under my skin? Why am I not gushing over it and saying how it tore me apart emotionally? Why did I, at a certain point, laugh maniacally to myself before throwing this thing across the room, then proceed to pick it up and continue reading with mild interest?
Well. I'll tell you.
For starters, the writing is competent. There is absolutely nothing special about the way the story is told. There's no style or excitement to the writing. It's just there. Not every author needs to be a master wordsmith, but since I wasn't interested in anything else going on, it would have done a world of good to have seen some fabulous description of a building or a rock or something.
The characters are flat, but not in the way that stereotypes are flat. At least with stereotypes there's a sort of personality that comes with it. Here, all the characters are non-people who, if you took away the speaker tags, I never would have been able to tell you who was talking. In the author's note in the back, the author mentions that she wanted to tell a story about people. But I never felt that, because none of these characters ever felt real to me.
Speaking of characters, that main one? Hanneke? Yeah, I didn't like her. And I guess the point is, you're not supposed to like her. At its core, Girl in the Blue Coat is more of a redemption story than anything else. Hanneke is supposed to grow and change and learn to forgive herself for something she didn't actually do (What? You've heard that story already? Don't worry; this entire book is like that).
So yeah, the intent seems to be that you don't like Hanneke in the beginning, since she starts out as a hardened, kind of selfish, broken person. And in the end, after learning her lesson, she becomes...a hardened, kind of selfish, broken person. And yes, I acknowledge that that might have been the author's intent. Another thing the author mentioned is that this story is about people who are both heroes and villains. Hanneke starts out broken and ends broken, but in different ways and also fixed somewhat. But there's a way to write unlikable characters in a likable way. It's not achieved here.
Oh yeah, and then there's a part where a thing happens, this thing being the thing which caused me to throw my book across the room. I'm not going to go into detail, but it involves homosexuality, and it frustrates me to no end to see this trend in books nowadays. While I get that the author's intent was to show the struggle of the gay community during WWII, especially in a country where being gay could literally get you killed, it feels less like an emotional punch and more like, "Well, nothing else is going on, so let's make this kid gay!" It doesn't help that it's brought up in one scene at the tail end of the book and never again. To some people it might have been tragic and gut-wrenching, but to me it just felt cheap.
The most disappointing part of all was how many things this book could have been but wasn't. Hanneke is supposed to find this missing Jewish girl, and when I first read the synopsis, I was genuinely convinced that meant she found the girl within the first few chapters, and the rest of the story would have been them bonding and grieving together, something like that. Or maybe it would have been more involved with Hanneke's black market connections. Or maybe it could have had actual stakes, rather than telling us how much danger the characters were in and instead showing us. The author even mentioned she wanted to highlight certain unknown aspects of the resistance, like the group of university students who rescued and relocated Jewish children, or a group of photographers who secretly photographed the war. So why didn't she tell those stories? Instead, they are parts of a whole.
Instead of stakes, the characters dick around and are rescued before anything bad can ever happen to them. Instead of the story of university students in an underground resistance, we have the story of a girl constantly reminding us how much she's changed, but it never really feels like that means anything when we never see what she was like before. Instead of a unique story set against the backdrop of Amsterdam during WWII, we get a hodgepodge of stories that have been told a thousand times, in WWII settings and contemporary settings and every other setting under the sun, and yet none of them feel universal or as if there's a new perspective on these stories.
I think my biggest problem stems from the fact that there are so many WWII stories out there, especially in YA literature, that are so much better than this. It never feels like the author takes advantage of the setting. In fact, the story really has nothing to do with the titular girl in the blue coat. The story is entirely Hanneke's, and it's a story that could be told in any time period or setting. But there are still ways that the author could have connected Hanneke's struggle to the terrible things occurring around her. We've all seen this tale told a thousand times, and there's nothing new added to it. The girl in the blue coat within the context of the story is more of a plot device than a character in the midst of a terrible war. In this way, it doesn't feel like a WWII story at all, and I truly wonder why the author chose this setting. It feels out of place.
All this said, after reading the author's note, I can't be mad at this book. It's coming from a genuine place, and I can respect that. That doesn't mean I have to like it, or that I feel guilty for taking such issue with it. But I can't fault it for trying to do some good.
Overall, it seems that I'm in the minority when it comes to my feelings about this. It's just not my cup of tea, but I am glad I read it. If the synopsis interests you, then read it. Don't let my silly personal opinion influence yours.
2/5 stars