A Pocketful of Crows

Book Title: A Pocketful of Crows

Author: Joanne M. Harris

Date Started: May 14th 2020

Date Completed: May 16th 2020

Genres: Fantasy, Romance, Fairytale, Historical

Quality Rating: Two Stars

Enjoyment Rating: Two Stars

Final Rating: Two Stars

Review:

A Pocketful of Crows was not a fun read for me, to put it lightly. To summarise if you don't want to read all my rantings: whatever it was trying to achieve it didn't, and whatever else was added to the mix along the way wasn't enough to help me get on with it. There are minor spoilers ahead because I had to get out why this book was so utterly infuriating for me, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't see them coming from the first chapter anyway. The book's saving grace was that it was over quickly.

The first thing became apparent to me was the fact that there's no description. Anywhere. Which is really bizarre, especially for a book that's selling itself so strongly on being a fairytale. You can't just list things like mountains and rivers and trees and think that counts as magical. Sure, traditional fairytales don't overload themselves with extensive details about how everything looks or feels, but they are absolutely overflowing with imagery. There is no rhyme or reason to what is listed (it's the same things over and over again, but they don't enrich any metaphors or even give us a specific sense of place or aesthetics). They're just included, I assume, to sound 'mystical', but with no motivation behind them, it fails.

To carry on with the misunderstanding of what a folktale or fairytale is, it feels like nothing happens in this book because we skip over the actual story events. Yes, you're right, fairytales do act in a detached and out-of-time fashion, but they still work because we 1) have the metaphors and imagery to fill in the blanks, 2) are already placed in a situation that we recognise and can fill in other blanks, and 3) are not being overloaded by other information. 80% of this book is listing the same things over and over again, and our unbearable protagonist speaking her mind. It's too much, it's distracting and pointless. I'll also make a point that Harris clearly thinks she's retelling Cinderella (the book itself is literally referenced and comparisons to the protagonist are made again and again), but it's actually a very derivative Little Mermaid narrative, and I'm not sure the author noticed that was what she was writing.

So, okay, structural and technical aspects aside, was the book really that bad? Well, honestly I don't know because I found it hard to care because the characters have no conscience and therefore no fears. Which, actually, means yes. Okay, I get that the protagonist falls in love and is then scorned when she's rejected (clichés abound if you haven't noticed) to the point of wanting revenge. Fine. But if not one really considers their morality or has a moment of doubt (the other characters as well), then there aren't any stakes. So what if they ruin someone else's life? They don't seem to care, and neither does anyone else. 'That's fine, though, because it's a first-person narration so we understand the character's innermost thoughts.' No, we don't. I also think it's a completely stupid idea to use a first-person perspective when the main 'excuse' the book falls back on all the time its supposedly timeless, detached folktale style - which is the exact opposite of what first-person prose achieves. Don't even get me started on the 'I have no name' trope, because you do. You have loads of them whether you like it or not, you can't just ignore them if they bind you because it suits the later narrative.

One thing that I am genuinely confused about (along with the magic rules, but that just wasn't thought through enough) was the fact that the heroine is actually everything she is villainised to be. Isn't she? She is a witch, in some form, right? She has cursed the castle. She has done all the things they've said she did. Of course, I get the feeling we're supposed to think they've making her a scapegoat, but I just don't get it. Sure, they're acting in an exaggerated way because of the misogynistic society, but they're aren't actually fabricating anything. I don't get it. My only conclusion is that Harris is trying to make us see anyone but the heroine as an enemy (which is ironic, because I can't bear the protagonist at all). Don't even get me started on the 

I thought this book was just bad when I was reading it. But then I got to the end where there's this meta-narrative backstory, and I realised that had been the problem the whole time. Harris had been forcing and manipulating everything so that the final 'twist' worked, and in doing so completely sacrificed her story. Somehow, that makes me less frustrated than everything else, because it's just misjudged rather than having no skill. But wow, that was on big mess of a book just so you could have your feminist twist - which honestly doesn't feel particularly feminist. And I don't mean that because it has a female character who is capable of wickedness, or there are women that are selfish, those things are perfectly valid. I say it because there are dozens of sexist clichés thrown into this thing, and at the end it's all dismissed like it never happened, and the women are practically deified, and it's just not that simple. Implying so is honestly patronising.