What do you think?
Rate this book


348 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 2, 2020
Metaphors and similes are one of my favorite parts of reading, so I’m fucking critical of them. Let’s list some of Ms. Duke’s best and worst, shall we?
Now, I’m no historian, but I don’t believe that the huns have ever invaded Italy/HRE. But boy oh boy, do you know who has?
AND FROM ALL THESE, WHICH TOOK ME 1 MINUTE TO GOOGLE, SHE PICKS THE FUCKING HUNS. I know I’m nitpicking, but I just think that our similes should maintain a modicum of continuity and verisimilitude.
Very early in the book, we encounter an interesting way to describe the death of Skye’s father.
“[He was] killed a few weeks after smiling innocently for the camera, blown to pieces by a six-year-old boy who led him to an IED by begging my father for help with some emergency. Of course, he obliged the kid he'd handed a chocolate bar the week before.”
My first question is why are we bombarded with this information. Knowing how her father was killed and the situation by which he was killed is acceptable. Why place a moralistic stance upon a child who killed a soldier with an IED, I don't get it. Is this supposed to prove to the reader that he was a good guy? Or does this prove that Skye thinks highly of her father… because he indulged a child with chocolate… But it’s not information privy to Skye… It’s fucking confusing. Who cares about your protagonist’s father when you’ve given the reader a situation where you’re judging the morality of a child (This “heaviness” doesn’t occur in the next 40 pages I read, so I’m assuming this is just poor control)
Also don’t ask me about the rabbit hole I went down to see if chocolate bars were even common during Iraq, just know that I learned a lot about chocolate melting points, military rations, military chocolate, and MREs, but very little of chocolate’s availability during the Iraq invasion. Just note that there is very little information about chocolate supplies for US soldiers during Iraq.
On a separate tangent, I abhor the fact that everyone is referred to by name. I understand that this is done to give the book a “small-town” quality, where everyone knows everyone. Using those names to proving character familiarity is fine, and well done in the Piggly-Wiggly scene. But I think I’ve been introduced to something like 20-25 names in 48 pages. That is fucking unacceptable. This is not a census Miss Duke, this is supposed to be a novel. Let’s look at where I decided to stop reading.
Exhibit A: “Gerald Davidson somehow forcing the truth about LeeAnne’s hiring from Darrell Edwards”
Expecting your reader to remember three separate non-main characters who are mentioned very few times before this, and only in one half of the book, about 22 pages into that story, is unacceptable and laughable. You’re a goddamned imbecile Ms. Duke, and if your editor(if you even have one) thought that was acceptable, fire the fool. I’ve read Russian novels that are easier to grasp than the litany of useless characters in this swill. At least Marmeladov from Dostoyevski’s Crime and Punishment was important to the novel's progression and provided a wonderful parallel to our protagonist, even if he was only mentioned for a chapter or two.
All right, let's just get started here. The bodyguard/consort who is defining character trait is that he went to high school with Mrs. darling and that he is really into guns. That’s all I got. He even reads magazines about guns. Wow, such a nuanced man.
Or how about miss darling herself, the wealthy heiress who hungers for power and adorns the latest in southern fashion. (Also don’t get me started on the faux opulence in the novel) Mrs. Darling is cunning…. I presume, she’s described as cunning, but I’ve yet to see many actions that prove this. Sure, she threatens that cowboy guy in the middle of no-where and tells him about the origin of the word sabotage… which I hated. It stripped all the meaning of the chapter for me. Beth, They’re called symbols because they symbolize things. Explaining the etymology of a word, in character, is the novel’s equivalent of starting your speech with a definition from Merriam-Webster’s. I digress. But this scene does little to advance the plot in my opinion. Next chapter, we are greeted with a plot advancement by the #metoo movement… So, what was the point of all that ‘conniving’, Miss Duke?
Pete, who is fat, and greedy, and slobbish… well, damn Miss Duke, make him a pedophile and call him Baron Harkonen. Or better idea, stop portraying your one fat character as greedy; leave that trope in the 60s, where it belongs. And I'm aware that it’s impossible to determine an author’s true thoughts from their writing, but let’s be honest here, Ms Duke isn’t smart enough to manipulate tropes into nuanced cultural critiques, she’s probably just fat-phobic.
Skye’s Mom, whose name I can’t remember, is sad about her husband dying… but not in an interesting way. She’s just sad. Maybe that played out better later in the novel, but you couldn’t pay me to finish this Novel.
Manny, the Mexican cook, who passed an immigration test and operates a Mexican restaurant. He’s angry, and his words are often spelled phonetically to emphasize his accent… while no other character's accent is commented on… Also, this line is uttered by Skye: “muy importante magic margarita tip potion.” Fat-phobic and a touch racist… You’re 0 for 2, Miss duke.
Skye: a boring excuse of a character who misses her dad? I guess. At least the other characters have something to define them. I’d venture to say my dog has more personality than Skye.
I’m not a person of color, so I won’t sit here and type up all the reasons why I think grandma is a bad character. I’ll just tell you about grandma. Grandma, the self-named Sparrow, was told by some Creek casino workers that she was Creek. “Sparrow” took it and ran with it. Grandma was not acculturated with Creek or Native American traditions during her upbringing, but she sure does participate in them with little reverence. She creates what is described in the book to be a culturally significant dish, called sofkey, then attaches mysticism to it, and finally mocks it, along with her ancestors. She wears deerskin and moccasins to the grocery store and is scared to get a DNA test done to prove her ancestry.
I can certainly see the beginnings of the “Magical Native American” trope, but I’ll be damned if I read far enough to see it pan out. Don’t even get me started on the fascist biological-determinist implications of Ms. Duke if the trope is carried through.
I think this is the worst book I have ever read. Legitimately. I’m fucking baffled at how bad it is. I wish I could burn every copy. I wish I could change the definition of art just to remove this one attempt at a novel. I will not call this a novel. A novel is an expression of artistic vision and skill. This is undeniably a book, but I see no vision or skill.