Book Review: Prince of Shadows
"A
curse for love, cast in my own hand and faith and flesh. A curse of
love, on the house of the guilty. Let them feast on love, as crows feast
on the dead. Perhaps I am, after all, mad."
(Several times when reading this book, I found quotes that I thought, "That's it. That's our quote." But I need to write them down, because I can't find them now. And that has happened with other books...you think I'd learn my lesson).
I know I still have a stack of reviews to write, and this one is not first in line, because I just finished in yesterday. However, I wanted to write its review while it was still fresh in my mind, because it had lots of thoughts and feels to it.
We all know the story of Romeo and Juliet. Or do we? We just know a part of it. This is a Romeo and Juliet retelling from the perspective of Benvolio. And really, Romeo and Juliet had no clue what was going on.
Oh the mixed feelings on this one. I was skeptical. Because, a lot of times, retellings are just someone telling the same story in a different format and, usually, with less skill. But I found that that wasn't actually the case. The writer actually did a fantastic job of mimicking Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in the dialogue (and that's really impressive for someone whose other writing credits include a teenage series called "The Morganville Vampires"). True, Romeo and Juliet was probably Shakespeare's weakest, and this is probably Rachel Caine's greatest (though I haven't read anything else from her, so I could be wrong about that), but I do have to give credit where credit is due. And Benvolio was a fantastic choice of retelling protagonist. I've always kind of liked Benvolio. As shmoop.com explained, "Benvolio, whose name literally means "good will," is a classic nice guy: stuck playing the straight man to Mercutio and the non-romantic-idiot to Romeo, constantly telling everyone else to chill and stop fighting and "keep the peace" (I.1.61), and being asked to spy on his friends. What? That's right: Romeo's parents (his aunt and uncle) turn to him when their son is acting weird, and the Prince always asks him to explain what went down in the most recent street fight."
Benvolio, in the play, is Romeo's barely older cousin. In the novel, they make them 16 and 17, but it's also kind of implied (and you can see it in the play as well), that Benvolio was just kind of born older.
Rachel Caine takes Benvolio to the next level. He is the one who thinks before he acts, who has, as Mercutio says in the novel, has "cold milk instead of blood." But that doesn't mean he doesn't care, and that doesn't mean that has no feelings. He just considers consequences before he does things. In this retelling, he also happens to be in love with Rosaline. However, both of them don't run off and do stupid things about it. And they actually make a lovely foil couple to Romeo and Juliet.
In the end, Rachel Caine takes a Shakespearean Tragedy to a Shakespearean Comedy (complete with all its earmarks of magic/supernatural powers toying with people), but does it very well, I have to admit.
Some things to advise for the parents of young readers:
1) This keeps the Shakespearean sexual innuendos. If you get the references, you go, "Oh that's bawdy." If you don't, goes straight over your head and doesn't even phase you. Very much the same level of Shakespearean sexual innuendos that littered his plays (but middle schools read them anyways).
2) There are many Shakespearean scholars who believe that Mercutio was homosexual. That is played straight (I swear, no pun intended) and actually becomes a huge plot point. I was kind of like, "That's just that movement of seeing gay where it's not," but actually after knowing that people have seen that, and lines from the play that the author used in their original contexts, I thought, "Holy cow, I think he is supposed to be a homosexual." Taunts from Capulets to Mercutio. Jokes between Romeo and Mercutio. I think it's supposed to be there. In the portrayal of his homosexuality, it is never explicit, and does deal with it in the way it would be dealt with in the era--which could be upsetting to children. We all know what they did with homosexuals in the Renaissance. However, you get the whole array of individual reactions, and the loving response of "love the sinner hate the sin" that Friar Lawrence takes has a lot of good to talk about. There is also a lot to talk about in the not-so-loving responses that are given. However, if you give this to a child, know that there are some conversations that need to be had. I was not personally offended by it any way shape or form, but it is there.
Also some nice feminism, which, is welcome to Renaissance Italy. As Rosaline tells it when Benvolio tells her to go home where she is, as a woman, safe, "Safe? You know nothing about us, Benvolio Montague. We live our lives in terror, not in safety - terror of our fathers, who may beat or kill us with any reason or none at all. Terror of the men we will wed, having scarce set eyes upon them before that moment and yet expected to submit to all they may ask. Give me a sword and I will make my own safety." However, Rosaline (the biggest feminist) has respect for herself, and Benvolio is a virgin (unlike some of his cohorts) because he respects women. I do have to say, though, that at the end, they started to take it a bit far. I have no problem with Rosaline liking reading and defying the role of women of her age, but I'm sorry, Rosaline. Benvolio has been training in swordplay since a very young age, and is used to defending himself from Capulets every day he walks out of his house. He even takes down assassins while in confession without even blinking. So, no, I don't think you're as adept as him, and no, I don't think that you are every bit as capable as he is.
My mixed feelings come from this: Some of the moral-of-the-stories are a bit altered. The original moral of the story was mostly "Young love is stupid and don't be an idiot." And this is somewhat there, but the prevailing moral seems to turn to "Hell hath no fury like a gay man betrayed." It actually has a lot of morals in terms of "Vengeance only hurts you in the end," and "Just because you're not dramatic doesn't mean you don't care," and "Don't make Satanic deals," etc. I like it, but there are some conflicts of agreement sometimes. I don't necessarily agree with one line of reasoning which kind of implies that if you do something in anger, even if you were wronged, it's the fault of the person who made you angry, not you for not controlling your temper. Also, in some ways it was saying "Vengeance only hurts you in the end--unless you call it justice. Then it does great things for your complexion and debonaire appeal."
Lastly, I think that, even though she was trying to say that level-headedness is a desirable quality, she fell into the trap that many YA writers do--that it is always best to be rash when something wrong is being done. At one point, a character criticizes Benvolio for not intervening on a murder that he and Romeo saw--and the author clearly agrees that he should be very damned for it. However, Romeo wanted to stop the murder, but Benvolio stops him for logical reasons. As Benvolio explains it, if they rush in, they are outnumbered and will probably achieve nothing but be murdered as well. The Montagues do not forget offenses like that. Especially if they killed Lord Montague's heir (Romeo) and the spare heir (Benvolio). So, not only would they fail to stop one murder, but they would create so many others as well. That's logical. And sometimes, you can't stop terrible things from happening, and the best thing to do is to think and address the issue in logical ways.
A lot of things to talk about, and think about. If anyone else reads it, let me know, because I'd love to have a discussion about it. Very well done book when it comes down to it, though.
4 Stars for Prince of Shadows.
(Several times when reading this book, I found quotes that I thought, "That's it. That's our quote." But I need to write them down, because I can't find them now. And that has happened with other books...you think I'd learn my lesson).
I know I still have a stack of reviews to write, and this one is not first in line, because I just finished in yesterday. However, I wanted to write its review while it was still fresh in my mind, because it had lots of thoughts and feels to it.
We all know the story of Romeo and Juliet. Or do we? We just know a part of it. This is a Romeo and Juliet retelling from the perspective of Benvolio. And really, Romeo and Juliet had no clue what was going on.
Oh the mixed feelings on this one. I was skeptical. Because, a lot of times, retellings are just someone telling the same story in a different format and, usually, with less skill. But I found that that wasn't actually the case. The writer actually did a fantastic job of mimicking Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in the dialogue (and that's really impressive for someone whose other writing credits include a teenage series called "The Morganville Vampires"). True, Romeo and Juliet was probably Shakespeare's weakest, and this is probably Rachel Caine's greatest (though I haven't read anything else from her, so I could be wrong about that), but I do have to give credit where credit is due. And Benvolio was a fantastic choice of retelling protagonist. I've always kind of liked Benvolio. As shmoop.com explained, "Benvolio, whose name literally means "good will," is a classic nice guy: stuck playing the straight man to Mercutio and the non-romantic-idiot to Romeo, constantly telling everyone else to chill and stop fighting and "keep the peace" (I.1.61), and being asked to spy on his friends. What? That's right: Romeo's parents (his aunt and uncle) turn to him when their son is acting weird, and the Prince always asks him to explain what went down in the most recent street fight."
Benvolio, in the play, is Romeo's barely older cousin. In the novel, they make them 16 and 17, but it's also kind of implied (and you can see it in the play as well), that Benvolio was just kind of born older.
Rachel Caine takes Benvolio to the next level. He is the one who thinks before he acts, who has, as Mercutio says in the novel, has "cold milk instead of blood." But that doesn't mean he doesn't care, and that doesn't mean that has no feelings. He just considers consequences before he does things. In this retelling, he also happens to be in love with Rosaline. However, both of them don't run off and do stupid things about it. And they actually make a lovely foil couple to Romeo and Juliet.
In the end, Rachel Caine takes a Shakespearean Tragedy to a Shakespearean Comedy (complete with all its earmarks of magic/supernatural powers toying with people), but does it very well, I have to admit.
Some things to advise for the parents of young readers:
1) This keeps the Shakespearean sexual innuendos. If you get the references, you go, "Oh that's bawdy." If you don't, goes straight over your head and doesn't even phase you. Very much the same level of Shakespearean sexual innuendos that littered his plays (but middle schools read them anyways).
2) There are many Shakespearean scholars who believe that Mercutio was homosexual. That is played straight (I swear, no pun intended) and actually becomes a huge plot point. I was kind of like, "That's just that movement of seeing gay where it's not," but actually after knowing that people have seen that, and lines from the play that the author used in their original contexts, I thought, "Holy cow, I think he is supposed to be a homosexual." Taunts from Capulets to Mercutio. Jokes between Romeo and Mercutio. I think it's supposed to be there. In the portrayal of his homosexuality, it is never explicit, and does deal with it in the way it would be dealt with in the era--which could be upsetting to children. We all know what they did with homosexuals in the Renaissance. However, you get the whole array of individual reactions, and the loving response of "love the sinner hate the sin" that Friar Lawrence takes has a lot of good to talk about. There is also a lot to talk about in the not-so-loving responses that are given. However, if you give this to a child, know that there are some conversations that need to be had. I was not personally offended by it any way shape or form, but it is there.
Also some nice feminism, which, is welcome to Renaissance Italy. As Rosaline tells it when Benvolio tells her to go home where she is, as a woman, safe, "Safe? You know nothing about us, Benvolio Montague. We live our lives in terror, not in safety - terror of our fathers, who may beat or kill us with any reason or none at all. Terror of the men we will wed, having scarce set eyes upon them before that moment and yet expected to submit to all they may ask. Give me a sword and I will make my own safety." However, Rosaline (the biggest feminist) has respect for herself, and Benvolio is a virgin (unlike some of his cohorts) because he respects women. I do have to say, though, that at the end, they started to take it a bit far. I have no problem with Rosaline liking reading and defying the role of women of her age, but I'm sorry, Rosaline. Benvolio has been training in swordplay since a very young age, and is used to defending himself from Capulets every day he walks out of his house. He even takes down assassins while in confession without even blinking. So, no, I don't think you're as adept as him, and no, I don't think that you are every bit as capable as he is.
My mixed feelings come from this: Some of the moral-of-the-stories are a bit altered. The original moral of the story was mostly "Young love is stupid and don't be an idiot." And this is somewhat there, but the prevailing moral seems to turn to "Hell hath no fury like a gay man betrayed." It actually has a lot of morals in terms of "Vengeance only hurts you in the end," and "Just because you're not dramatic doesn't mean you don't care," and "Don't make Satanic deals," etc. I like it, but there are some conflicts of agreement sometimes. I don't necessarily agree with one line of reasoning which kind of implies that if you do something in anger, even if you were wronged, it's the fault of the person who made you angry, not you for not controlling your temper. Also, in some ways it was saying "Vengeance only hurts you in the end--unless you call it justice. Then it does great things for your complexion and debonaire appeal."
Lastly, I think that, even though she was trying to say that level-headedness is a desirable quality, she fell into the trap that many YA writers do--that it is always best to be rash when something wrong is being done. At one point, a character criticizes Benvolio for not intervening on a murder that he and Romeo saw--and the author clearly agrees that he should be very damned for it. However, Romeo wanted to stop the murder, but Benvolio stops him for logical reasons. As Benvolio explains it, if they rush in, they are outnumbered and will probably achieve nothing but be murdered as well. The Montagues do not forget offenses like that. Especially if they killed Lord Montague's heir (Romeo) and the spare heir (Benvolio). So, not only would they fail to stop one murder, but they would create so many others as well. That's logical. And sometimes, you can't stop terrible things from happening, and the best thing to do is to think and address the issue in logical ways.
A lot of things to talk about, and think about. If anyone else reads it, let me know, because I'd love to have a discussion about it. Very well done book when it comes down to it, though.
4 Stars for Prince of Shadows.
Comments