Book Club #1: Caroline's Heart by Austin Chant



My pick for our first book club is Caroline’s Heart by Austin Chant. I’m going to say a bit here about what I thought about the book then open things up to Selina and Karen (and anyone else) to give their thoughts.
I picked this book because I adored Chant’s novel, Peter Darling. What made Peter Darling so startlingly good for me, I think, was that it felt as though Chant had finally unearthed the beating heart of the Peter Pan story. Although there were elements of Peter Pan I’ve always liked, it had never really felt like a fully successful, satisfying story to me. Peter Darling transformed that. For the first time, Pan’s combined fierceness and somewhat incomprehensible vulnerability made complete sense to me.
So, does Caroline’s Heart live up to that remarkable debut?
I think it does  - I greatly enjoyed Caroline’s Heart, devouring it two sittings (with a testy day of work in between). I adored the first two-thirds of the book. The last part is good too with a satisfying ending, but for me, it was the first two-thirds that really sang. (Now that I’ve typed that sentence, it bothers me that it sounds like a criticism of the last third, when it’s intended more as a compliment to the first two-thirds…)
Our MCs are Cecily, a witch, who has been weaving a complex resurrection spell for the last five years to bring her lover back from the dead, and Roy, a gentle cowboy looking for a place for himself in an uncaring world.  The setting is an alternate, magical Wild West with witchcraft and gun-slingers existing side by side. Chant paints this world with deft and vivid strokes. Take the scene where Cecily first enters—opening a magic door into the stable in which Roy is working. It’s beautifully done and wonderfully atmospheric.
Roy first notices straw stirring, then: 
A coil of soft heat, like a cat’s tail, brushes the back of his neck.
This small oddness intensifies:

…the air pushes around him like a hot bath…
And intensifies, becoming thicker, hotter, till it’s “dizzying, past intolerable”: 

Then the door cracks inward, and the pressure goes all at once. The air left behind is cold and thin and smells of flowers.

Roy sags against the wall, shivering and staring, as the witch steps through.

She moves like a deer, dainty and aloof…
Chant’s style is a wonderful combination of lyrical and economical. No over-writing here. The descriptions of Cecily’s spell-making are particularly wonderful. 

Cecily’s grief is powerful in the first part of the book, and if I have any criticism at all, it feels perhaps a little too easily resolved – but was I unsatisfied by the resolution? No, I was well-pleased; a happy reader.

This is a very different story from Peter Darling, but there are similar themes and motifs.  Once again we have two outsider, lonely MCs who find unexpected happiness together. Once again, there is a sense of almost intolerably high prices paid for the happiness that is ultimately won. Death is faced down; grievous wounds borne.

Since this is meant to be a discussion rather than a monologue, I’ll stop hogging now and open up to comments.

Karen, Selina: what did you think?

SK: Well, Jo, you summed it up so beautifully! As ever, a tough act to follow. ;) 

I actually did not enjoy Peter Darling as much as everyone else did. Which is not to say I disliked it--I enjoyed it a lot. But reading even just your description, Jo, I know I didn't feel that kind of passion for and connection to the book that so many other readers did. I almost wonder if it was a case of too-high expectations. I did love Chant's first book, Coffee Boy, a heck of a lot, though, so it was with mixed feelings that I dove into Caroline's Heart.

And I think I have a new favorite. Something about Roy was so pure and so easy. His wasn't a story of survival against all odds or a complicated background. There are dramatic elements to his past, but he doesn't wear them like some characters do. I think it's a great lesson for us writers, that sometimes a character can just be. Roy has ambitions, but he's not out to conquer the world. I loved his simplicity; it reminded me of the protagonist of J.L. Merrow's Muscling Through. Not exactly the same kind of character, but there's a commonality.

I also loved Cecily's... I'm struggling to find the perfect word for it, but let's just say aloofness towards Roy for much of the book. Yes, she was still grieving, but it was more than that, as we saw towards the end. She chose to retreat from the world, or not see it as it was, which I think so many of us do. I think her harshness, while exactly what the story needed, was a risk, because that kind of thing can turn some romance readers off. But Chant handled it beautifully--as he did pretty much every element in the book. 

The writing, as you say, was expertly balanced. I had a bit of author envy, have to say. And the rules of the magic in this world--something I always pay close attention to--made sense and served the story. I don't think it was too easily resolved, but I will say, if I have one criticism, is that I wanted a little more to the romance. I can't go into why to avoid spoilers, but I would have liked to live with them as a couple for a while longer, whether before the climax or after it.

But, really, a very minor issue. Better to leave us wanting more, as they say. Chant is on fire, and I hope everyone picks up all three of his books. 

Comments

  1. Selina, Cecily was by far my favourite character. I saw that 'something' about her you mention, at least in the first half of the book, as something more uncanny than mere aloofness. In that first scene I quoted from, Chant compares the way she looks at Roy to the way a cat looks at an insect. I slightly craved for her stay that way..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, she did have that almost mad scientist thing going on. Very rare for a female character to have that kind of trait, which I loved.

      Delete
    2. I really found Roy my favourite, his struggle to be himself not completely over, as seen by his not talking, being as inconspicuous as possible. Cecily was much more 'traditional' for me, perhaps becaause I read a lot of fantasy ?

      Delete
    3. You see, I am not (traditionally) a fantasy reader. (Funnily enough, my husband and I were talking about this idea this morning, of what's fresh to one reader not being to another who's familiar with other books that may have inspired the author). Interestingly, I note the book is dedicated to Diana Wynne Jones (a shameful gap in my reading).

      I found the whole dynamic between Roy and Cecily fascinating. There's a number of ideas - or perhaps more accurately, questions posed - around how we think of gender in terms of domesticity/work and dominance/passivity that hugely chimed with me.

      Delete
    4. Oh yes , i found that the very traditional western setting, drenched in gender stereotypes was perfect for exploring this as well, I did feel that this was subtly done as well, by having most of the interaction between Roy and Cicely

      Delete
  2. Question: what do you think of the present tense narration?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't bother me. One of the rare instances where it was handled so well I barely noticed until I caught a verb and realized. And that's saying a lot about how immersive the world was and how strong the author's voice, because I usually twig to these things right away. You?

      Delete
    2. I don't mind present tense as a style (my co written contemporary if present tense) though I know a lot of people complain about it - it has become very ubiquitous as a style. Like you, though, I didn't find it stood out too obviously here. Maybe we should have a chat about how tense style affects reader experience at some point...

      Delete
    3. That would be fascinating! Although I do feel that it's a bit personal preference, to a point.

      Delete
    4. There's definitely an immediacy to it. I do find the sheer ubiquity of it irritating but I think it's an effective option and it irritates me when people write it off (or first person POV or anything stylistic really) without thought. I think there's a trade off though; something you lose around...this is difficult to articulate...permanence? A story told? Maybe the authority of the text. A final sense of "this is what happened". There's a mutability and a subjectiveness to present tense, perhaps. Also, I'm thinking, is it too much 'easy sweeties' for readers? I certainly think there's something in the immediacy that's oddly gratifying and that ties into romance as a primarily emotion-driven genre. Having said all of that, I don't think Chant's present tense choice here struck me in that way. I'd be kind of interested to know what drove the stylistic choice.

      Delete
    5. I really liked it, I know a lot of people get irked, and some quite precious about present tense, but when done well you feel like you ARE part of the book, and that's how it was here for me

      Delete
    6. I like that sense of presence and immediacy that you get with (certain) present tense stories too, though strangely, I didn't feel that was a major consideration here. In a way, I think the quality of Chant's writing made it less noticeable to me than it sometimes is. And now I've been banging on about this aspect of the book long enough; tl;dr: I don't think he needed to write it present tense, but it worked.

      Delete
    7. Hmm. Do some books need to be written a certain way? Interesting idea... Can you elaborate on your "easy sweeties" comment?

      Delete
    8. It's kind of difficult to articulate, but I think there's an immediate gratification element to reading in present tense. It's an easy to way to pull the reader in, you know? They're *there*. It's confers a paciness, or at least an immediate sense of pace. But I do think there's a trade off with it, that a lot of books suffer from, as I alluded to before. At this point in the discussion, I'd really like to hear from someone who dislikes present tense as to what they don't like about it, because I'm okay with it and I don't really get why some people have such a strong objection to it.

      Delete
  3. I have to say I really love Chant's writing, and like you Jo I thought Peter Darling was stunning (plus what a cover !) for me, as I said in my comment about present tense I found it very immersive.
    I found Caroline's Heart very beautiful, and I do agree with Jo that the first 60% was very good, the characters, the AU, as I said previously I found Roy fascinating, endearing and more than a little sad.
    I had quite a large issue with two things, the ending was quite sudden, the build up read like a much longer book. And also I felt Cecily's abrupt change of heart was too contrived

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was ok with the ending, though I agree that Cecily's change of heart felt a little abrupt, possibly because she was SO hostile (at least outwardly) to Roy at the beginning. But I definitely don't agree it felt like it should be a much longer book. I felt like the major plot threads - the heart itself and how it came to be used and then the climactic scene - all felt fully developed to me, and I can't think of anything I'd have wanted more on, on that front. A little more, maybe, softening Cecily, but that's very much a quibble for me, rather than a big issue. My main feeling about length was being impressed by what Chant managed to fit into the story and the complex resolution he was able to bring about in a novella form. I do wonder how much is to do with expectation. I went into this book with a very clear idea of how long it was to begin with so I didn't feel surprised by it wrapping up more quickly. Also, I'm quite a fan of the shorter form. Sometimes, I search out stories I know I can finish in one sitting.

      Delete
    2. I also agree about Cecily. I guess that's what I was getting at in terms of wanting a bit more development on the romance front. I don't know that I thought the book should be much longer... but another chapter of two might have made it feel more complete. I think what's interesting there is this idea of expectation that Jo brings up. I do think Chant went against reader expectation for these kinds of stories with the length, especially in fantasy where, let's face it, many authors have a tendency to overdo things in the name of establishing the world. I really appreciated Chant's economy here, especially since I do remember feeling a bit "get on with it" while reading Peter Darling. I would love for him to pull an Angela Carter and do a book of short trans fairy tales.

      Delete
    3. It feels somewhat shallow to say this, but I get quite bored with longwinded books full of worldbuilding. I do prefer a more economical style.

      Delete
    4. I totally agree. That's why I gave up on the Wheel of Time series and also the Nightrunner books. Though I do hope to get back to those eventually.

      Delete
    5. Interesting, I think that because of the build up, and some world building I needed more at the end , my investment was such that I wanted to know how Ceciley and Roy went forward , not because I needed the white picket fence , but because it felt incomplete for me

      Delete

Post a Comment