Initial review was four stars, but with my growth, upon reflecting on the book some, I have realized it is really only deserving of 2.5 stars. I'm going to round it on up to 3.
As a teenager, I really did like this book. Or, I wanted to. So badly. The premise of a daughter being raised as a son intrigued me. Partly because I'm a trans*boy, partly because gender is a very interesting topic to me. This could have been a really good book. It could have even addressed the issues of gender and how we raise children to meet gender roles really, really well. Except. Of course it didn't. Because the ghostwriter follows the same basic formula.
Before I get into what I did and didn't like about the book, let me point out said formula:
[x] Crazy mother, so character has "mommy problems".
[x] Death of father, because obviously women have to have "daddy problems", too. Unlike their counterparts, they can't have just mommy problems.
[x] Weak female protagonists who can't seem to do anything for herself. Is usually incredibly naive.
[x] Either rape or incest (two checks if it has both).
[x] Stronger male characters than females. Because. Well, obviously.
The V.C. Andrews formula is so antifeminist thinking about the fact that I actually do enjoy some of them makes me want to weep. Because yeah. I do enjoy some of them. Not because of the cliches, nor because of the weak writing of the ghostwriter, but because very few people are willing to go there. V.C. Andrews proved that she was with Flowers in the Attic, and proved it again with My Sweet Audrina. Neiderman, bless his heart, tries to match the style of Virginia, but he seldom comes close. His writing is full of purple prose, weak female characters (as much as Cathy in FitA angered me, she was a pretty strong character), and everything is always mommy's fault. And of course, Mommy only goes crazy because Daddy died. Because, obviously. Freud would be proud of Neiderman.
This book presents that basic formula. Celeste's dad is dead. Her mom loses it after her dad dies. This book adds an extra element that all the past books lacked. A twin brother. I don't remember if it ever says whether they were identical, but judging by the premise of the book they must be. For if Celeste was to pass as Noble for so many years, she must have looked exactly like him. Except, this is not possible. Identical twins are identical in every aspect, not just appearances. They have pretty much the same genetic makeup. Meaning, they are always the same biological sex. Now, they may not be the same gender (one could be transgender, hypothetically, though there's a high chance if one is both would be), but their parts are always the same. Knowing that, the entire premise of the book becomes completely unbelievable. Nevertheless, I did enjoy the book.
My reasons for enjoying Celeste were personal. Being a trans*boy, the idea that "passing" as a boy was so easy was intriguing. It captivated me. But that's the thing: it isn't easy. I suppose the mother must have realized that on some level, to hide Celeste. But even when Celeste meets outsiders, they believe it. Now, we transmen go through a lot to look like the men we identify as. Even when I do "pass" (I really do hate that word, but it seems the only accurate one for this review), I look like a 12-16 year old boy. The distinct lack of facial hair would make Celeste look twelve. Yet, nothing is ever mentioned about her mother making her fake facial hair (there are ways). Nothing is every mentioned about her mother teaching her to look more masculine outside of binding (dangerously, she would not last long with the way the binding was done - fainting, breaking bones, none if this is ever addressed!!) and wearing clothes from the boy's section. I do believe her voice is addressed, but even that is hard to do. We literally have to think about our voice all the time. But here Celeste is, being forced to do it, and all the teenagers believe it?
Yeah. Okay.
The other thing that bothers me is the way he handles gender in the book entirely. Neiderman has proved time and time again that he probably thinks little of women, and this book solidified that for me. He assumes that all the things women do come naturally. Now, I will be the first to say, gender is part genetics... but it is also part environment and part social. Celeste was raised as Noble. How are we supposed to believe she would automatically have a desire to wear make up? She was shut away from the world. She would have had zero knowledge of these things. But of course he had to make her desire to. For a woman character to be feminine in Andrew's world she must be frail (check), dainty (check), and like makeup (and check). Yes. Celeste fits all of this.
Still, I did enjoy the book. I loved Noble's character, and I loved that the book was told from a kid's point of view for quite a long time. I loved the idea of the spirits, even though it's assumed the mother is experiencing psychosis (likely related to prolonged grief). The neighbor boy turning out to be a pervert was intriguing, and a bit different than the normal formula (in which they're presented as a love interest who has zero bad qualities... until the sequel, when he's abusive). Still, all the things I enjoyed, I feel bad for enjoying. The book, while an easy read for me, still had a lot of terrible aspects, and a lot of plot holes. Not to mention the female characters left a bitter taste in my mouth.
Sometimes I hate that I enjoy these books. A lot of the covers will say things like Not since Flowers in the Attic.... I have my own tagline.
Not since Flowers in the Attic has a V.C. Andrews book been good (with the exception of My Sweet Audrina)