![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some thoughts on Lady Midnight
May. 1st, 2016 08:40 pm...Ahahaha.
I'm not a Cassandra Clare fan. I couldn't even get past the first chapters of City of Bones and The Clockwork Princess, largely because I don't find her writing style that compelling (and still don't), and then there's also all the plagiarism stuff.
So why did I read Lady Midnight (or, more accurately, skimmed some parts of it)? A) I heard there was an autistic character in it, and the masochist in me needed to see for myself how badly that character was handled, and B) I was intrigued by the character of Mark Blackthorn. (Yeah, I have a weak spot for characters who are trying to heal from traumatic situations.)
I will say that, to my surprise, I did like the focus on family relationships in the book, since that's another soft spot I have in fiction. And I liked how the book kind of addressed the Clave's ableism regarding neurodiversity, although I wish it could've been even further emphasized (as always). Still not a fan of Clare's writing style, though.
On to the reasons I skimmed the book:
A)
Ty Blackthorn, the autistic character, wasn't horribly portrayed, and I (grudgingly) appreciated Julian's attitude of embracing Ty's autism. However, Ty is still a somewhat "textbook" depiction of autism: he's white and a guy, he stims in "textbook" ways (i.e. rocking), he's obsessed with Sherlock Holmes. Also, we don't have any sections from Ty's POV, and even though Julian seems to be an A+ autistic ally, the narrative still seems to revolve around the experience of caring for a family member with autism, which I'm really tired of.
Though, I'll admit I was kind of reading fast, and I'd probably have to reread the book more slowly to analyze Ty's character in more detail.
B)
Mark Blackthorn was somewhat wasted potential, in my opinion.
Initially, he was portrayed as having pretty convincing PTSD, though that didn't last too long. Mostly, I really disliked how his dialogue was written, because it made it difficult for me to take him seriously, and the narrative itself also played it for laughs, which wasn't great. Also, I had a hard time understanding it from a realism point of view—I felt like he should've made more of an effort to try and speak like a 21st century human again, or possibly old speech patterns from before he was sent to Faerie would resurface. Also, I found his social naïveté kind of hard to believe. He might be a little socially awkward after so long away from the human world and a lot of abuse, but it's astounding to me that he would've lost his neurotypical social intuitions (social seclusion doesn't cause autism, people) and reverted to a completely literal understanding of language.
I've seen a reviewer describe Kieran and Mark's relationship as "Stockholm Syndrome," and I'm mentioning that here because I am dumbfounded by such a completely inaccurate statement—for God's sake, that's not what Stockholm Syndrome means! Now, after the whipping scene, it's pretty clear that Kieran is kind of possessive and, by extension, his and Mark's relationship was possibly a little unhealthy. However, it's certainly not freaking Stockholm Syndrome (for the sheer, simple reason that Kieran wasn't holding Mark captive, Jesus Christ), and the way the flashback was written, their relationship seemed not terribly problematic in the past. I suppose some people might find the idea of two people being drawn together in an otherwise harsh, abusive environment out of loneliness to be creepy...? But I don't think that's a common view, or that such a relationship is necessarily doomed to be unhealthy.
I'm not a Cassandra Clare fan. I couldn't even get past the first chapters of City of Bones and The Clockwork Princess, largely because I don't find her writing style that compelling (and still don't), and then there's also all the plagiarism stuff.
So why did I read Lady Midnight (or, more accurately, skimmed some parts of it)? A) I heard there was an autistic character in it, and the masochist in me needed to see for myself how badly that character was handled, and B) I was intrigued by the character of Mark Blackthorn. (Yeah, I have a weak spot for characters who are trying to heal from traumatic situations.)
I will say that, to my surprise, I did like the focus on family relationships in the book, since that's another soft spot I have in fiction. And I liked how the book kind of addressed the Clave's ableism regarding neurodiversity, although I wish it could've been even further emphasized (as always). Still not a fan of Clare's writing style, though.
On to the reasons I skimmed the book:
A)
Ty Blackthorn, the autistic character, wasn't horribly portrayed, and I (grudgingly) appreciated Julian's attitude of embracing Ty's autism. However, Ty is still a somewhat "textbook" depiction of autism: he's white and a guy, he stims in "textbook" ways (i.e. rocking), he's obsessed with Sherlock Holmes. Also, we don't have any sections from Ty's POV, and even though Julian seems to be an A+ autistic ally, the narrative still seems to revolve around the experience of caring for a family member with autism, which I'm really tired of.
Though, I'll admit I was kind of reading fast, and I'd probably have to reread the book more slowly to analyze Ty's character in more detail.
B)
Mark Blackthorn was somewhat wasted potential, in my opinion.
Initially, he was portrayed as having pretty convincing PTSD, though that didn't last too long. Mostly, I really disliked how his dialogue was written, because it made it difficult for me to take him seriously, and the narrative itself also played it for laughs, which wasn't great. Also, I had a hard time understanding it from a realism point of view—I felt like he should've made more of an effort to try and speak like a 21st century human again, or possibly old speech patterns from before he was sent to Faerie would resurface. Also, I found his social naïveté kind of hard to believe. He might be a little socially awkward after so long away from the human world and a lot of abuse, but it's astounding to me that he would've lost his neurotypical social intuitions (social seclusion doesn't cause autism, people) and reverted to a completely literal understanding of language.
I've seen a reviewer describe Kieran and Mark's relationship as "Stockholm Syndrome," and I'm mentioning that here because I am dumbfounded by such a completely inaccurate statement—for God's sake, that's not what Stockholm Syndrome means! Now, after the whipping scene, it's pretty clear that Kieran is kind of possessive and, by extension, his and Mark's relationship was possibly a little unhealthy. However, it's certainly not freaking Stockholm Syndrome (for the sheer, simple reason that Kieran wasn't holding Mark captive, Jesus Christ), and the way the flashback was written, their relationship seemed not terribly problematic in the past. I suppose some people might find the idea of two people being drawn together in an otherwise harsh, abusive environment out of loneliness to be creepy...? But I don't think that's a common view, or that such a relationship is necessarily doomed to be unhealthy.
