Tall Dark and Dead and the Question of Strong Female Characters - A review
I picked up Tall Dark and Dead by Tate Hallaway on an impulse. I was visiting the fiction floor of the main branch of the Chicago Public Library when I saw it on the book stand labeled something along the lines of "Interesting Books That You Aren't Reading." A goth girl on the cover, drawn in a cartoony style? A summary promising romance and vampires in Madsion, Wisconsin? Sometimes, I'm all too easy to intrigue.
What I got was a story of Garnet Lacy, a witch who fled her native Minneapolis after an order of Vatican witch hunters slaughtered her entire coven. She is possessed by the goddess Lilith (for somewhat spoilery reasons). As the book opens, Garnet is working at an occult bookstore and plays up every goth witch wannabe cliche in hopes that Vatican would never suspect someone so obvious.
One day, Garnet runs into Sebastian, an ancient, secretly wealthy and (naturally) very hot vampire witch. That's right - a vampire witch. Like John Polidori's Lord Ruthven and many other early 19th century vampires, Sebastian was turned into vampire thanks to alchemy (the other vampires that appeared in the story are closer to current popular culture conception of vampires). Sebastian's unusual origin proves to be a plot point as Vatican witch hunters try to find his formula. Garnet, who, naturally, becomes involved with him, find herself trying to keep Vatican agents off Sebastian's trail, even as he tries to stay off the radar herself. To further complicate matters, Parrish, Garnet's more pop-culturally vampiric ex-boyfriend chooses that movement to reenter her life and Garnet's mortal friends and co-workers find themselves getting a bit too close to all the supernatural shenanigans for anyone's comfort.
Even before I finished reading, I wasn't sure what to make of it. There are things to like here - with a few exceptions, the characterizations are decent, and even the more cliched character types are allowed to have more dimensions than they tend to be accorded in lesser works. It's always nice to see a protagonist who doesn't take the supernatural completely seriously and is allowed to mock some of the more melodramatic elements. Think of Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden - though she's really closer to randirogue's Constance in terms of balancing the serious and the ridiculous. I also like that the normal characters are allowed to react to supernatural going-ons in what I think is a pretty realistic way - they have enough exposure to popular culture not to go into complete denial, yet finding out about supernatural still unsettles them. Hallaway must have at least done some homework on Madison, because her depiction of the city makes it feel like a distinct, unique place with its own character, and that character does affect the plot.
And yet...
Tall, Dark and Dead doesn't end so much as just sort of stop. To avoid spoilers as much as possible, I will say that, when one thinks about it, most of the conflicts raised in the book were never actually resolved. Like, overwhelming majority of them. Story arcs were simply left hanging in the air. Now, I get that this was always meant to be the first book in the series, so not everything has to be resolved in one go, but not to this extent. Even phoenix_anew, who splits Hinges of Destiny into "volumes" as opposed to individual books, tends to actually resolve the main conflict of each particular volume in that particular volume. And when she doesn't, it still does the "tune in next volume to see the resolution of this exciting cliffhanger" thing. With Hallaway, it was more like "that important plot point was resolved.. somehow. Trust me."
Again - trying very hard not to actually spoil anything.
The other major issue I had was with Garnet's relationship with her love interests. Here is the thing. People tend to assume that a strong female character has to always be pro-active and fiercely independent. I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. Female characters can be strong and defer to their love interests, but (and this is an important distinction) they do need to be willing to think critically of what her love interest says. She has to be willing and able to say "no" if necessary.
Most of the novel, Garnet is a strong character who speaks her own mind. And yet, at several important points within the novel, she is entirely too willing to put her (very much warranted) reservations about Sebastian and Parrish aside and just accept what the have to say.
Or, to put it another way, the novel has several scenes that go something like this:
Garnet: My love interest did something dangerous/underhanded/reprehensible. I should do something about it.
Love interest: Hi. I'm very sorry and very hot. Did I mention hot?
Garnet: Oh, I'm sorry, what was I saying? Let's have sexytimes
If this was some kind of a plot point about vampires' ability to override judgement, I would be fine with it. But the way it's presented, I don't think Hallaway intended it this way at all.
And while we're on the topic, Garnet seems entirely too willing to devote himself to Sebastian after knowing him for several days. I don't mind that their relationship went from "flirting at a coffee shop" to "sex and breakfast" within a span of 24 hours - they got to know each other first, and Hallaway shows them having chemistry. But toward the end, Garnet starts talking about their relationship like they were long-time lovers, which was just.. weird.
Ultimately, I would say that I enjoyed Tall, Dark and Dead overall. I don't regret reading it, but I'm not sure I would be interested in reading more. And, after I finished, I kept thinking about Hallaway's take on gender issues, feminism and the question of agency. As I mentioned on Twitter at the time, would really love to see ceilidh_ann do a detailed analysis of all the book's relationship issues (including the ones I haven't touched on), because, as the Sparkle Project shows, she can do it far more insightfully than I ever could.
Make of that what you will
What I got was a story of Garnet Lacy, a witch who fled her native Minneapolis after an order of Vatican witch hunters slaughtered her entire coven. She is possessed by the goddess Lilith (for somewhat spoilery reasons). As the book opens, Garnet is working at an occult bookstore and plays up every goth witch wannabe cliche in hopes that Vatican would never suspect someone so obvious.
One day, Garnet runs into Sebastian, an ancient, secretly wealthy and (naturally) very hot vampire witch. That's right - a vampire witch. Like John Polidori's Lord Ruthven and many other early 19th century vampires, Sebastian was turned into vampire thanks to alchemy (the other vampires that appeared in the story are closer to current popular culture conception of vampires). Sebastian's unusual origin proves to be a plot point as Vatican witch hunters try to find his formula. Garnet, who, naturally, becomes involved with him, find herself trying to keep Vatican agents off Sebastian's trail, even as he tries to stay off the radar herself. To further complicate matters, Parrish, Garnet's more pop-culturally vampiric ex-boyfriend chooses that movement to reenter her life and Garnet's mortal friends and co-workers find themselves getting a bit too close to all the supernatural shenanigans for anyone's comfort.
Even before I finished reading, I wasn't sure what to make of it. There are things to like here - with a few exceptions, the characterizations are decent, and even the more cliched character types are allowed to have more dimensions than they tend to be accorded in lesser works. It's always nice to see a protagonist who doesn't take the supernatural completely seriously and is allowed to mock some of the more melodramatic elements. Think of Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden - though she's really closer to randirogue's Constance in terms of balancing the serious and the ridiculous. I also like that the normal characters are allowed to react to supernatural going-ons in what I think is a pretty realistic way - they have enough exposure to popular culture not to go into complete denial, yet finding out about supernatural still unsettles them. Hallaway must have at least done some homework on Madison, because her depiction of the city makes it feel like a distinct, unique place with its own character, and that character does affect the plot.
And yet...
Tall, Dark and Dead doesn't end so much as just sort of stop. To avoid spoilers as much as possible, I will say that, when one thinks about it, most of the conflicts raised in the book were never actually resolved. Like, overwhelming majority of them. Story arcs were simply left hanging in the air. Now, I get that this was always meant to be the first book in the series, so not everything has to be resolved in one go, but not to this extent. Even phoenix_anew, who splits Hinges of Destiny into "volumes" as opposed to individual books, tends to actually resolve the main conflict of each particular volume in that particular volume. And when she doesn't, it still does the "tune in next volume to see the resolution of this exciting cliffhanger" thing. With Hallaway, it was more like "that important plot point was resolved.. somehow. Trust me."
Again - trying very hard not to actually spoil anything.
The other major issue I had was with Garnet's relationship with her love interests. Here is the thing. People tend to assume that a strong female character has to always be pro-active and fiercely independent. I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. Female characters can be strong and defer to their love interests, but (and this is an important distinction) they do need to be willing to think critically of what her love interest says. She has to be willing and able to say "no" if necessary.
Most of the novel, Garnet is a strong character who speaks her own mind. And yet, at several important points within the novel, she is entirely too willing to put her (very much warranted) reservations about Sebastian and Parrish aside and just accept what the have to say.
Or, to put it another way, the novel has several scenes that go something like this:
Garnet: My love interest did something dangerous/underhanded/reprehensible. I should do something about it.
Love interest: Hi. I'm very sorry and very hot. Did I mention hot?
Garnet: Oh, I'm sorry, what was I saying? Let's have sexytimes
If this was some kind of a plot point about vampires' ability to override judgement, I would be fine with it. But the way it's presented, I don't think Hallaway intended it this way at all.
And while we're on the topic, Garnet seems entirely too willing to devote himself to Sebastian after knowing him for several days. I don't mind that their relationship went from "flirting at a coffee shop" to "sex and breakfast" within a span of 24 hours - they got to know each other first, and Hallaway shows them having chemistry. But toward the end, Garnet starts talking about their relationship like they were long-time lovers, which was just.. weird.
Ultimately, I would say that I enjoyed Tall, Dark and Dead overall. I don't regret reading it, but I'm not sure I would be interested in reading more. And, after I finished, I kept thinking about Hallaway's take on gender issues, feminism and the question of agency. As I mentioned on Twitter at the time, would really love to see ceilidh_ann do a detailed analysis of all the book's relationship issues (including the ones I haven't touched on), because, as the Sparkle Project shows, she can do it far more insightfully than I ever could.
Make of that what you will