Listen, I get it. The world sucks, everything is awful, we’re all in desperate need of hopeful, uplifting fiction to escape from this grim universe.
But is a simplistic, tooth-achingly sweet fantasy really the best publishing has to offer in these trying times?
Maybe I’m too cynical. Maybe I spent too many years working with actual children and youth in need to believe this idealized, pastel-colored fairytale. Or maybe I just hate being talked down to by the books I read. In any case, to say that The House in the Cerulean Sea didn’t work for me is an understatement.
Let’s start with what I liked: the prose was really easy to read, if excessively melodramatic at times. The love story, which took way less page time than I expected, was sweet and well developed. And I guess the author’s intentions are laudable, in the same way that any story promoting acceptance and diversity is.
But the execution fell completely flat for me. For one thing, everything felt so clichéd. From the underdog protagonist with a serious case of Cinderella syndrome (everyone is mean to him for absolutely no reason, and he takes every ounce of abuse without batting an eye), to the “depressing city vs. bucolic countryside” dichotomy, to the use of magic as an allegory for real-world discrimination, every element of the story felt tired and predictable. I could tell how things were going to play out right from chapter two.
Now, old tropes can certainly be re-imagined in fresh and innovative ways; in this specific case, however, I never felt like I was reading something unique. To me, this read like a standard middle-grade fantasy repackaged for an adult audience. It features all the typical elements of a children’s book: black-and-white morality, heavy-handed social commentary, cartoonishly evil villains, a fairytale ending where systemic oppression is magically solved by a few people. Granted, all the above are okay when used in the context of children’s literature: after all, young kids need to be explained things in a clear and easily digestible way.
The world of adults, on the other hand, is a lot more complex, and I really don’t think that over-simplifying your story to make it as obvious as possible is a good way to tackle social justice issues. Klune tries to say that people aren’t black and white (or rather, he repeats it over and over again, just like he does every other moral lesson in this book), but he never shows it: in fact, the story conveys quite the opposite message. Linus, Arthur, and the people who support them are good, everyone else is bad. No nuance is allowed, no antagonist is anything more than a farcical caricature.
Bigotry is presented as a problem that can be easily solved by the actions of a single savior, who goes from working for a discriminatory system to fighting and defeating it within the span of a few months. No consideration is given to the historical and societal roots of systemic oppression, nor are we given any insight into the work of other marginalized activists besides Arthur.
All it takes to bring down a government agency is one whistle-blower (apparently no one else in the government has any interest in locking up, or exploiting magical youth), an entire town stops being bigoted because their woke mayor said so, and a massive grassroots movement is born out of nowhere after a low-level employee denounces DICOMY’s abusive practices.
According to the book’s narrative, oppression stems from ignorance and fear only. Humans hate magical beings because they’re afraid of them: if they knew that they’re good and harmless, they would happily embrace their presence. Sounds perfectly logical, right?
Except we know that’s not how oppression works. Privileged groups don’t marginalize minorities because they don’t know them well enough, they marginalize them because it allows them to retain a position of power within society. Any allegory of systemic discrimination that fails to take this into account is bound to be a weak one.
And I know you’re probably thinking, “Why are you taking this book so seriously? It’s just a fun romantic fantasy!”. The thing is, The House in the Cerulean Sea is so preachy and didactic that I simply can’t review it without addressing its central message.
Even leaving aside this specific aspect, the book had a number of other issues that prevented me from fully enjoying it. Everything is spelled out for the reader, as if the target audience was middle schoolers who don’t understand subtext. Characters, including children, often serve as mouthpieces for the author’s ideas and speak in contrived lines no actual child would ever say. Even the villains are so obviously, over-the-top mean that they end up sounding ridiculous. For example, this is how a shop owner reacts when the protagonists enter his store:
"You aren’t welcome in my shop. You aren’t welcome in this village. I don’t care how much we’re paid to keep quiet. Go back to your damn island."
It took me a while to understand why this kind of didactic, on-the-nose writing style doesn’t work for me; and I've come to the conclusion that I just don’t like to be told what to think, or who to root for, when I read a book. Whenever I feel like an author is trying to force a certain perspective on me, I immediately start feeling manipulated and wanting to distance myself from the story.
And this is exactly what happened with this novel: I couldn’t buy into its binary, simplistic view of the world.