Friday, November 30, 2007

Kit Whitfield: Benighted (Bareback)

Benighted (Bareback in the UK) is a striking and well-written novel set in a grim alternate reality. Whitfield depicts rampant social injustice and a culture of chronic violence. The emoting is on the heavy-handed side, but the main character and the world are engrossing.

Benighted is a modern-day story, but grounded in an alternate history dating back to the Middle Ages. Lycanthropy is the norm, and every full moon the population turns wolf. Society copes with its animal side repressively, imposing full-moon curfews and lock-ups.

Far worse off are the tiny minority who are born disabled, unable to change. These non-lunes or “barebacks” are despised and disadvantaged from birth; as adults, they’re pressed into dangerous work “dogcatching” for the government, sent out at full moon to round up and pen loose wolves.

The story is told by Lola May Galley, a dogcatcher and legal representative for lune offenders. When her colleagues are attacked by both wolves and humans, Lola fears she’s next.

Benighted society

Whitfield presents a very effective dystopia, with a lot to say about power and privilege, and clear analogies to modern social injustice. Non-lunes are only one percent of the population, but they’re crucial to maintain lune society’s compartmentalization of their wolf natures—a Faustian bargain dating back to the Inquisition years:
Luning, already regarded by the Church with the suspicion that sex, childbirth, and all the other carnal upheavals the human frame fell prey to, became a matter of panic. The Inquisition came down hard; they went on the hunt. The Dominicans, the founders of it all, took up their nickname like a banner: Domini Canes, the Hounds of God, appointed to run down Satan’s wolves. Protestants, who by then were killing Catholics with equal fervor, declared luning to be an unregenerate state, because you were incapable of faith while under its influence. Pious citizens who feared temptation to sin, or frightened citizens who didn’t want to find themselves at the stake, take your pick, but people began locking themselves away. […]

We were useful, back then. People needed us.
That’s Lola: intelligent, bitter, and well aware of the ugly sides of the law she serves.

Despite the themes of prejudice and alienation, this is not an epic struggle of good versus evil. It’s Lola’s book, and she lives in a moral grey area—as do her lune clients. Lunes rarely remember their wolf experiences, and civil trials permit what amounts to a sleepwalking defense: I did it while I was a wolf; I don't remember it; I wouldn't have done it otherwise. The lunes’ inability to police themselves makes it hard to imagine a "save the world" happy ending; the world of Benighted remains screwed up, and the focus stays on Lola’s struggle to stay alive and sane.

Not likable, but sympathetic and reliable

Lola is frankly a bit of a pill. She has to be tough to survive her job, but she’s also inconsistent, self-centered, and prejudiced. She’s a thorough pessimist, and a nervous wreck—certainly not the tiresome "plucky heroine triumphs over adversity" female character type, but is she too hard to like? Not in my judgment. Lola’s not precisely an unplucky sad sack, and she’s no villain, but she’s a character on the cusp. Will fear harden her attitude into outright persecution of lunes, or will she continue trying to walk the line, defending lunes in court and treating them as humans--except at full moon?

I find Lola more sympathetic than likable—or perhaps likable by Anne Lamott’s liberal definition: "someone whose take on things fascinates you", who’s flawed in understandable ways, or who has the survivor’s "certain clarity of vision". Lola’s rough edges are understandable, and I appreciate seeing a complex female character facing significant moral dilemmas.

The over-bright side

The writing and the messages in the book are not subtle. Lola has been abused in every imaginable way—the litany is overwhelming. Her downward spiral is relentlessly dark, while the happy-sunshiny scenes with her infant nephew and her lover, Paul, can be maudlin.

Paul especially is too good to be true. His entry into Lola’s life is overly serendipitous and he’s infinitely patient with Lola’s freak-outs. He does, however, make a significant contribution to the story: Paul’s hippie-dippy quest for self-knowledge provides a faint hope that lune society could change.

Benighted is not the typical werewolf novel that’s flooded the market recently. I imagine it could be shelved under literary fiction, science fiction, or horror. Like my favorite speculative fiction, Benighted alters today’s world just enough to create pointed social commentary, and it’s refreshing to see writing that makes me empathize with a challenging character. The dénouement is rather a let-down, much like a mystery in which on the last page the sleuth deduces the presence of some unseen hand directing the action. However, the provocative climax is what’s stayed with me.

Grade: B for Lola's melodramas, the "unseen hand" ending, and some clunkiness in describing her relationships. An A for an interesting voice, a fascinating world, and a provocative, memorable story. Overall, A-/B+.

7 Comments:

Tumperkin said...

Glad you're back RfP. Keep up the good work.

Meriam said...

You're back! Your review was - as expected - great. I am humbled.

'Lola is frankly a bit of a pill.'

This made me laugh - because she totally is. I was continually torn between annoyance and sympathy with her.

I don't know if you've been to Whitfield's blog, but she mentions being done with the world of Bareback - that the story has been told, the characters have evolved and she doesn't want to 'bore' people with a 'forced series.' God, how refreshing.

I've read Devilish and although I enjoyed it, it wasn't great. Perhaps your post will prompt me to reread and reconsider.

RfP said...

Thanks, Tumperkin!

Meriam, you do exaggerate, don't you :)
I was glad to see this in your review:

"Whitfield... mentions being done with the world of Bareback"

As tantalizing as the ending is, I'm glad she's leaving it be. However, I'd be interested in a book set in the same world in a different time period. I'd be interested in seeing some of how it came about, or what it becomes--say 50 or 100 years earlier or later.

"I was continually torn between annoyance and sympathy with her."

I wasn't sure about Lola at first, but her irritating-but-understandable personality turned out to be a strength in the book. She never became too pitiable or too triumphant, so I believed in the character to the end. (Unlike the C.L. Wilson I just read. In Lord of the Fading Lands, some of the characters are so perfect they're unsympathetic. Three cheers for Lola the Pill.)

On Devilish--it's interesting how everyone has a different favorite Jo Beverley novel; there's no clear consensus on the "best" books. I really like how evenly matched Rothgar and Diana are. That's what stood out in my "slow read" over the last couple of weeks. Their exchanges are very measured and perceptive--perhaps even overthought in places. I get a similar sense in My Lady Notorious--that it's meticulously thoughtful. The middle books in the series strike me as good but not stand-out.

Meriam said...

I'm planning to read some C L Wilson. Was it readable despite the too perfect characters? She's gotten a lot of buzz.

I think my favorite Jo Beverly is Forbidden. Virgin hero - yay!

RfP said...

Yes, the CL Wilson is very readable. I had a mixed reaction to the stereotypical alpha male/sweet female relationship and the similar-vintage, similar-gender-roles high fantasy setting, but she spins a good yarn. I read Lord of the Fading Lands in one sitting. I doubt I'll read Lady of Light and Shadows, but I'll try another Wilson book sometime down the road.

I'd forgotten Forbidden until you mentioned it. I haven't read Beverley's Regency romances in a long time. I'll have to pick one up for the holidays.

Anonymous said...

I bought this for myself for Christmas after reading your review.
Wouldn't have read it otherwise, as I normally avoid werewolves and vampires. As you said, Paul was a bit too good to be true, but Lola was an interesting character, and I liked the way the author gradually revealed more of the way that society operated, allowing the reader's sympathies to change.

(Though, truthfully, I'm still not sure why it's so important to police the city during full moon. If they left it alone, wouldn't any werewolves that were out just kill each other? Which would, you'd think, be sufficient incentive to obey the curfew.)

Anyway, thanks for the review.

Marianne McA

RfP said...

Hi Marianne McA
I've become rather anti-werewolf myself. Too often I feel it's an easy way to make a central character look unique, powerful, or misunderstood. In this case I thought Whitfield used lycanthropy to make some provocative points about society. I hope it struck you that way too.

Yes, I was puzzled by society’s broad acceptance of the curfews. Lola expresses some bafflement too--I believe that precipitates the passage I quoted, in which she explains the history behind the curfews. (I've loaned out my copy, so perhaps I've got the sequence wrong.) Of course altering the law would be an extremely bloody experiment, but it sounds like lycanthropy is a worldwide phenomenon, so you'd think another society would have tried a different solution. In particular, why are the dogcatchers necessary? If doing away with curfew would lead to deaths, surely that's motivation enough to obey curfew. Though either way, curfews are a stop-gap. The were group's approach looks hopelessly idealistic, but at least they're tackling the root of the problem.