A book, some ponderings and a little fantasy meta
Catherynne M. Valente : The Orphan’s Tales: In the night garden , Vol. I
I recently read Valente’s book, and first let me say I truly enjoyed it. I might even love it a little. So I wanted to write a little about the book, but since I’m apparently incapable of writing about a book without skittering in all directions I also ended up writing about female characters and some pondering on if this is a collection of fairytales or fantasy literature. You are here by warned. ;) Also - there are a few tiny spoilers in here, but nothing major and nothing you wouldn't find on the dust cover.
The main frame of The Orphan’s Tales takes place at night when whispered stories are weaved into a wonderful tapestry. The storyteller is a strange young girl who has stories inked on her eyelids, like a swirling black mask. She is the orphan of the title, and these are her tales.
The second part of the title In the Night Garden is particularly apt for Valente likes the shadow and dusk side of things. She seems so side with the witches and the monsters of the fairytales, and desires to show that what might look ugly doesn’t necessarily act ugly. Foul is fair and fair is foul indeed.
Valente’s world is drawn from quite lot of cultures. There are traces of Arabian Nights, of Russian fairytales, of Inuit stories and African tales - and her brilliance lies with her ability to weave this all together and make a coherent, fantastical world. There are several protagonists, and some really scary villains. And all of it is described in a very poetic language that manages to thread the fine line between descriptive and fascinating, and flowery, purple prose.
Most of the stories have a feministic tilt, with the exploration of the witch character being a red thread. Why did she become a witch? How did she become one? And what does being a witch mean? It feels like Valente wishes to lift the veil a little and let us see what is behind the traditional fairytale witch. You know - the one in the cottage who is ugly and cranky. I would say her exploration of the witch character is very successful and fascinating, and might be enough in itself to recommend the book.
One of the things I really like about Valente’s stories is that the female protagonists are allowed to be female and womanly. They are not just masculine ideals with tits. Now that might sound like a very strange way of putting it, but what I mean is the trend that strong female characters are given all the classic male characteristics of the strong hero - like talking tough and witty, fighting hard and being generally kickass. In fact their femininity is usually downplayed to show that they are just like one of the guys. They play pool, chug back beers and have a witty riposte for everything. Now this is fine and fun and I really like those characters - but lately it seems that all strong female characters embody this same ideal. And that to me is just as annoying as all female characters being damsels in distress.
Very rarely is there a female character that is strong, without being a fighter or a tough talker. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for strong female characters - in fact I would love more strong, female characters - but I would just like a little variation in the ways they are portrayed. A person can for instance be strong, quiet and a mother. After all quite a lot of women are mothers, but very rarely is a main character a mother. And that just strikes me as odd.
I think this is one of the reasons why Eowyn from Lord of The Rings is still one of my favourite heroines. For yes, she rides into battle, she kills the Lord of the Nazgûl, and then she hangs up her sword. The first times I read the book this last action disappointed me, but now it is one of the things that I truly love about Eowyn. For by hanging up the sword she in no way renounces or diminishes the glory of her action. Instead she shows how flexible and strong she is as a character. If the house and family is one sphere and the field of battle is another - then Eowyn is one of the few characters in the book that moves between these spheres, and she does so without relinquishing any parts of her character. In fact the masters them both!
To get back to Valente’s book - one of the things I truly liked about her book was that she had this variation in the female characters (and in her male characters too). They had all manner of positions, roles and ranges - and that made for a lovely reading experience. And yes, quite a lot of them were mothers.
Fantasy or fairytale?
- A story within a story within a story.
Valenta has based her book on fairytales, and especially Arabian Nights with a storyteller at its centre, and its weave of stories. The fairytale legacy is also evident in many of the characters and events that take place in the stories. There are Princes on Quests, scary Wizards and fantastic Beasts.
A great deal of the stories are centred around metamorphosis; from monster to human, human to monster, shy girl to witch ad unwanted child to fox.
Valente’s description of metamorphosis is always one of pain, blood and fluids. It’s messy and disgusting, and not very fairytale like. There is no cloud pink smoke that goes “Puff!” and changes everything. In Valente’s world changes hurt! In many ways this clashes with the classical fairytale where murder and foul deeds are usually given a rather straight forward description; “And then he chopped the troll’s three heads off!” In The Orphan’s tales it would be described a lot more graphic and gory. This gives the impression that even if her stories are based on fairytales, the fairytale legacy is more of a framework.
In addition, and unlike fairytales, all Valente’s stories are in a way connected and linked. Most of the characters are recurring or referred to by others at least once, and the general feeling is more of pieces that together form the complete puzzle, than standalone stories. This is why, despite the fairytale format, I would say Valente’s book is more fantasy than modern day fairytales.
Another thing that for me tilts the book in the direction of fantasy is the presence of the quest-structure. This I feel is one of the classic templates of a lot of fantasy literature. There are heroes, and they are on a quest for something. For instance in Tolkien the main structure is the ring-quest. (Now Tolkien was one, if not the first, to use the quest structure - so no quarrel with him. It’s just an example.) This quest motive is also present in for example Feist’s Midkemia series, Robin Hobb’s series, Peter Beagles The Last Unicorn etc. This same quest-structure is visible also in Valente’s book.
But she gives it a twist that is truly interesting - she operates with several quests and she sometimes she pokes a little fun at them. As for instance this passage from "The prince and the Goose"
“And so the Prince left her, having found a Quest after all. He chased its tail into the high mountains tipped with snow like wise men’s beards, and laid before him smooth like as a dress. He did not mind the difficulty of the terrain, being, after all, a soldier, though it was more tedious than he thought a Quest would be.
For instance, he had not guessed how much of the body of a Quest was simply walking. He walked until three pairs of shoes were ruined, cursing his lack of a horse.”
True, the quest-structure is present in quite a lot of fairytales as well, but it sometimes seems such a dominate steeple of modern fantasy that if there is a quest structure I automatically get fantasy associations. (This might be just me though. My brain is sometimes programmed strangely.)
All in all I enjoyed this book immensely, and I’m very much looking forward to Volume II that will be released this fall.
Catherynne M. Valente has a web site here. It contains some info about her, the books and also links to her net-published material