There is a lot about objects that, as a book, is dated. Being flynn’s debut novel years on from its publication date, there are some things just don't how they would in 2006. Mostly the gender politics, which of course is the foundation of the book.

i think that flynn gets a lot of undue credit for saying something profound about Womanhood that just doesn’t really scan in my opinion. mostly consisting of the figure of the white woman, assumed to be eternally submissive and victimized, being imbued with a touch of ambiguity or mark of cruelty.

(see amma, victim and victimizer)

i don’t think this is necessarily a poor narrative choice per se, in fact for the book it is probably the best suited for Wind Gap’s own politics, but it’s not especially innovative or revealing, just well executed. i’ll give her that at least. 

conversely and maybe even hypocritically, I do think that flynn is good at anchoring characters within the context of their gender (no matter how limiting that context may be) such as Camille, who’s experience of gendered based violence colors her entire outlook. From “some women get what they deserved” down to her own descriptions of her adolescent sister and equally adolescent friends (describing their chests, legs, stomachs, and calling them hot little things) you can see how the rape culture of Wind Gap has permeated through her very being and is the lens through which she sees the world. 

i think the southern aspect of this southern gothic book is little more than window dressing for her clear personal interest, the dynamics of the preaker-crellin women. it is easily the most compelling aspect of the novel and why i kept reading. i wish it had gone farther in some ways, as flynn begins a compelling tale of generational trauma, but falls short of real critique. camille balks at the lives of the housewives of wind gap, and the obsession with men, marriage, and babies as well as being able to keenly describe the damage her mother does to her but falls short of going further.

joya abused adora who abused camille, marian and amma who goes on to murder other children whom she deems as threats for her mother’s and eventually camille’s attention.

I think this story would have been better served as a real critique of the family structure as a whole rather than continued individual pathologies.

camille’s ending after is not escaping the form of the family but rather becoming the right daughter for the right parents, echoing her earlier quote that some women aren’t made to be mothers and daughters.

i love women who have something wrong with them, so there was not going to be a world where i disliked this book. i just think that this and it’s gender politics could have been more cohesive if flynn actually was interested in the american south and not just using it as a backdrop so these themes could be grounded better. 

the portrayal of camille’s self harm was one of the things i respected, as flynn had a clear investment in what she is doing psychologically when she cuts and what it means to her.

even if i personally find the “character too ashamed to reveal their s cars” trope overplayed.

 

this seems like i really hated the book but i enjoyed it quite a bit! i just think that flynn clearly has a wheelhouse, and when she tries to reach for things that are outside of it, her narrative hold begins to fray. i’m still mad amy adams wasn’t given an emmy for this.