What do you think?
Rate this book


Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2023
Purchased a copy for $5.70 at the Book Warehouse Outlet's monthly sale in Pickens, SC. Bought the entire series in order to donate it to my local Spruce Pine Public Library.
Also, the following review contains necessary spoilers. Necessary, because they explain the tonality. They're not end-game, what-all-happens spoilers, but they spoil what would've been a five-star read with how the racism reveals itself, and the context is required to ground the critique in reality.
So now that you've been warned of spoilers, you can stay or go.
I'm allowing you some agency.
Anyway, continuing on.
There was an unsettling undercurrent throughout this book that seemed to embolden racism and prejudice in numerous small ways. There were repeated grammatical choices, pivoting racial adjective use, and ways McKinney undercuts characters that paint a more inward acceptance of prejudice. Surprisingly enough, a book about tyrants emboldened by the concept of salvation through magic conversion therapy is neutered by the irony that ignoring the value of a person beyond their skin tone damns all. All the bad guys are pale, and it's no accident that when we learn about how pale people were also victimized by eugenics or magic curses, it's disparaged or set aside for the conflict at hand. Human value is only acknowledged once usefulness outweighs their Paleness Danger Index. There's a procedural inequality at play, and it reveals itself beyond character marginalization. It does it through its own diction.
In college while working toward my Print Media and Business degree (and a visual art minor), I was familiar with the Associated Press's Guidebook like a pastor relies on a Bible. Even in 2007, many accepted terms were outdated, and eventually adjusted in later years for a more inclusive framework for objective writing. The AP's Guidebook change in mid-2020, however, bore its own contradiction: "AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person."
In this same context, would identifying Black persons and white persons automatically ping an inequality, stylistically if not racially? A glaring incongruency in context. Yet, further on in this update: "As a global news organization, we are continuing to discuss within the U.S. and internationally whether to capitalize the term white.
If the lowercase black is a color, not a person, why is the same not said for white? Additional arguments from news agencies reflect on how many "white" looking people do not directly identify as white, yet the Stylebook itself makes no commentary on the carte blanche (pun not intended) oversight. There are certain things that are deemed "white" in regards to white-skinned cultural traits, like under seasoned food, physical temperament (like posture), plain fashion sense, faith in law enforcement, and unmolested shopping experiences. "White" fits the same standards as "Black", and the book illustrates that magic and curses affect everyone despite these visual cues... So why did McKinney choose to capitalize Black, and not esteem black and white both in lowercase? You might not notice it, but your brain does.
As a reader, consistently seeing that visual dichotomy was stylistically unsettling. Sure, it abides by current writing standards, yet at its own detriment. The alternation between "white" as a necessary descriptor bore an undercurrent of something more demeaning in the plot's progression. "The other was a young white guy and a Black girl dressed in something outta the twenties (page 67)". Not only does McKinney describe the girl more vividly than the guy, seeing the style clash of capitalizing one instead of the other also employs a racial shoehorn assumption, a mental vision of Us Versus Them mindset, even if framed equitably in the painting. And Black capitalized for unnamed characters on page 22, 34, 174, and 245 are always portrayed neutral or positively, whereas on page 32, 59, and 237, it's in negative connotations.
The more the story progresses, the more being said about racial disparity hides in tonal indecision. Starting on page 70, the reader and protagonists learn this "generic white girl" was someone Blake, their mother, had seen and painted as well, imbuing value beyond the nuisance of the girl's existence, but it wavers. She is "prolly no one", according to their father. Is it because of her skin tone, or because it was an early work? What makes her "no one" if their mother painted her; is this a way to casually devalue Blake's work as a young artist? This Jane Doe's valuation of worth is further undercut here, as Tai questions why she feels "awash in emotions" for a girl that looks "so very, very tired" who had otherwise been a blight to her daily life to experience (71). Her skin tone was validated by Blake's portraiture, as if imbuing maternal favor by using resources to paint this girl at all. "This girl provided a connection to something Tai didn't realize she needed to be tethered to. (72)" This unnamed girl is repeatedly making herself visible to Tai, and in the most shallow basins of empathy, skin tone should never describe this girl in need as anything but a girl. But McKinney deliberately chose to make her skin tone a requisite marker of value in all of these instances. As Tai investigates further, the girl's skin tone's impact tends to dissolve on pages 80 and 85, as the painting's provenance is unearthed (also, HOW did their Dad, who read these provenance journals and converted them digitally, claim fervent ignorance of significance? It's just yet another undercurrent of excused ingrained racism.) The girl's portraits were tucked away because the alabaster and powder-shaded paints triggered a prejudiced opportunity for erasure, especially on pages 74 and 84, when pertinent information and effort to humanize her to Tai erodes, she became "the white girl" yet again.
There's also the part on page 215, and subsequent interactions with a character named James, that calling the man a "gorilla" is okay because he's pale? This is where the moral high ground washed out completely. The anger of previous prejudiced language, done to humiliate a people group, bleeds and further taints a work that is otherwise a beautiful, well-crafted example of inclusivity that elevates a fictionally enlightening minority experience.
When the story retracts from waves of racial prejudice, it slithers into another course of prejudice: hating redheads. Contrasting Ayesha's red microbraids, the twins are pursued by white-suited white folks, led by a redhead, the pinnacle of paleness. And even when the plot establishes the redheaded white-suited woman is a magic-user betraying other magic-users for the bad guys, the fact she has undergone the conversion therapy of "scrubbing" and torture is mentioned and never regarded again on page 263. The fact the enforcers with her aren't solely for her benefit, is regarded and ignored not because of her alliance, the plot relies on her pale skin tone more. No one affiliated with Corvus is melanated despite the capacity for prejudice of everyone involved. This unnamed redheaded pursuer is a prisoner just as much as the diverse and equitably included ones on page 351. When we learn the "Gorilla" James was also coerced and under duress to comply, no shred of empathy is spared at any interval. Sucks to be pale in McKinney's world.
Don't get it twisted, though. I am DEEPLY infatuated with McKinney's prosaic voice. Each character from a differing social class comports themselves in vivid phrasing, creating a kaleidoscopic cross-sectioning of speech mannerisms that are a verbose buffet. My problem is what she obfuscates using timely touchstones and healthy and realistic family dynamics. Everything outside of those boundaries, however, is Where Whitey Treads.
Also, there are minor plot peculiarities that bear acknowledgement.
Firstly, Tai's scrying ability wouldn't be thwarted by a digital camera. In the film camera viewfinder she first spotted the girl, I don't think McKinney understands how cameras work. What is seen in the viewfinder is initially transmitted by a mirror to the film, passing through it, before it is reflected back up to be displayed in the viewfinder. The photographer friends mentioned on 87 would have Tai's dad select a DSLR camera, which would have several series of mirrors inside, which would add to the heft and quality of the camera. It could bear to reason that the light sensitivity would make it more likely to capture auras and broader waves of light than our eyes can naturally perceive (which is why Tai could see it when adjusting digital files onboard the camera's settings. TL;DR: the girl in the old timey dress would have persisted nonetheless, because Tai was looking through mirrors on both types of camera.
Secondly, the repeated allusion of Sixth Sense-type happenings made me sigh. Had this book been set in 2003, the more apt Fatal Frame game could've provided a better reference point. I don't doubt the intentionality of setting this story pre-9/11 was an effort to avoid racial derailment by Islamophobia.
Where other reviews may be more discretionary or unaware of the prejudice that creeps through this work worse than kudzu in a Deep South summer, they aren't in regards to Ayesha's tokenism. There's a wealth of analysis in why Ayesha's dimensionality lies only in her wealth and romantic preference. McKinney had no space for why she's there otherwise (apart from a small aside of a spoiler later on which is flimsy at best). Why did Ayesha transfer specifically to the twins' school? How does she have so much competition experience? What makes her parents rich? Why does her initial value to the plot have to be framed as a fulcrum for tension, that only allows her to graduate into Third Wheel territory? Is she a placeholder for the reader's experience? Other than the convenience of being, she's not really useful to the story. Ayesha as a character provides no contextual allegory beyond being a plot entity. Which is a cruel irony: Ayesha has the most means as a character with the least impact written for her.
I would have laughed louder than I did had these Gundam Wing and InuYasha fanfics been found on Magoo! (Yahoo!) or Angledflames (Angelfire) fansites. At the time this book is set, I was the same age and busy in roleplaying chatrooms and participating in forums, crafting my own fanfics about Ranma 1/2 and The X-Files with others. Tai and I could've been besties, but with how she doesn't even spare a shrug when she hears a redheaded magic user was tortured through failed conversion therapy tactics, I'd probably be ignored and written off.
Just another sad looking white girl whose existence is perceived as pestilence, and not as a plea. Just like Elva.
Equality snuffed by engendered prejudices.
Yet another well-written work beset by its own cognitively dissonant virtue signaling. To elevate one does not require the dismissal of another. If black is a color, not a person, whose equity cannot extend to a white person, what hope is there for racial divides to blur if the capitalizing overcorrection persists? The work is written to intentionally perpetuate an imbalance of contextual value, institutionalizing racial debasement cloaked in unstigmatized clarity.
And yet, the book still seems predatory for younger/immature audiences.