Scan barcode
A review by mediaevalmuse
How to Be Eaten by Maria Adelmann
3.0
I initially saw this book on a list of fairy tale retellings, so I reserved a copy at my local library. I'm always curious as to how authors will "update" classic tales, and based on the premise, I went in expecting something like The Bloody Chamber or The Refrigerator Monologues. As I read, I could see some interesting things happening, but by the end, I just don't think Adelmann pushed her stories far enough. There wasn't really any commentary or rethinking of the themes of the classic fairy tales, which is a shame because some of the ideas in this book could have been really good.
WRITING: Adelmann's prose was a bit up and down for me. I don't think there was anything "wrong" with it, per se, but I got the impression that it was trying to be descriptive and funny and that didn't mesh for me. I didn't find the atmosphere within each of the stories particularly vivid and some of the humor felt repetitive and flat. Still, there were some turns of phrase I liked and some good one-liners, so maybe this is a matter of personal taste.
I do think that the frame story had a tendency to interrupt the flow of the individual tales and often killed any suspense that Adelmann was building. While I'm not against frame story interruptions in general, I do think Adelmann overused them. Stories would be interrupted three or more times to feature exchanges between the women that, frankly, weren't all that valuable. While some were ok in that they tried to dive more into the psyche of the tale-teller, some of them were just catty arguments that didn't add much and just detracted from any suspense.
PLOT: The plot of this book involved one frame narrative and then a bunch of individual stories. The frame is that 5 women all meet up for a kind of group therapy; having undergone some kind of bizarre trauma, they soon realize what has brought them all together. During the therapy sessions, each woman tells the story of her past, which in themselves are modern-day re-imaginings of classic fairy tales.
There were some interesting elements to these stories. Reimagining Bluebeard as a tech billionaire, for example, with his ex-lovers becoming literal objects was a compelling twist. I also liked how many of the stories complicated the idea of what it meant to be a victim or a survivor and how media played a role in the "aftermath" of their lives.
However, I don't think Adelmann used these opportunities to her full advantage. While each story has individual elements that I liked, they didn't really shed new light on modern phenomena or repackaged the fairy tales in ways that felt purposeful. The stories didn't have anything to say, in the end, about how trauma works or how media attention is also traumatizing or the relationship between gender, violence, and power. It felt more like Adelmann wanted to make the fairy tales modern and gritty - there didn't seem to be much planning beyond that.
On top of that, the frame story didn't feel like it accomplished much. I initially liked the premise and was hoping that the women, who start out somewhat antagonistic towards each other, would forge alliances or come together over time. In fairness, I think we do get some of that, but I don't think it builds up on its own. Adelmann is more concerned, I think, with teasing Will (the therapist/guy in charge) and his ulterior motive, and while that motive also could have been a commentary on how women's trauma is exploited for entertainment, I don't quite think it landed.
Some of the tales themselves also felt to be lacking, and some of that might have to do with the fact that Adelmann doesn't take her time building up to climaxes and then having those climaxes resonate. For example, we don't see exactly how Ashlee became the winner despite all the things the producers on the reality show were doing; we get some behind the scenes looks, but that isn't contrasted with the story that is going on with her dates with Brandon. As a result, it was hard to grasp how she won the contest and what that struggle with the producers created alternate narratives. I think Adelmann was trying to do something with the idea of "you stole my time," but for me, it didn't land. Similarly, I don't think Ruby's story said much about how narratives about child sexual abuse worked (though it could have) and Bernice's story didn't really account for Bluebeard's power that came with his wealth and why he was a tech guy (as opposed to like... a furniture maker). There was just a lot thatndidnt quite add up, which is a shame because the theme of competing narratives was actually very interesting.
Basically, the vibe I got from their stories was: What if we made Bluebeard a tech billionaire but we didn't interrogate how power and tech are connected or how that changes the way we read the classical tales? Interesting premise. Not a good follow-through.
CHARACTERS: The main characters of this book are the 5 women who show up for group therapy (Bernice, Ruby, Ashlee, Gretel, and Raina) and their therapist/session leader, Will.
I honestly liked how different the 5 women felt from one another. They each had their own manner of dressing and speaking, and I think the range of ages was a good idea for thinking about how time heals (or doesn't heal) trauma (along with pre-internet vs post-internet experiences).
Within the stories, however, I think characters could have been a lot more developed. Ruby's story, for example, could have grappled more with the complexities of physical arousal and sexual abuse, while Gretel's story could have delved deeper into the way female victims are treated differently than male victims. Granted, the stories touched on some of these things, but I think Adelmann got distracted by the grittiness of the violence or the setting and left things a bit too open-ended.
Side characters, too, could have been utilized more. No work was done to interrogate Bluebeard's social standing, for example, and Jade's presence didn't feel very purposeful for digging into Gretel's real insecurities.
Will's involvement, in my opinion, was a bit of a distraction. I don't think it was used well - in fact, it felt a little cheap. But in fairness, the potential was there.
TL;DR: How to Be Eaten has a lot of potential but ultimately doesn't go far enough in the exploration of its themes. The modern retellings introduce interesting elements but ultimately don't lead us to look at the present or past classics in any new light.
WRITING: Adelmann's prose was a bit up and down for me. I don't think there was anything "wrong" with it, per se, but I got the impression that it was trying to be descriptive and funny and that didn't mesh for me. I didn't find the atmosphere within each of the stories particularly vivid and some of the humor felt repetitive and flat. Still, there were some turns of phrase I liked and some good one-liners, so maybe this is a matter of personal taste.
I do think that the frame story had a tendency to interrupt the flow of the individual tales and often killed any suspense that Adelmann was building. While I'm not against frame story interruptions in general, I do think Adelmann overused them. Stories would be interrupted three or more times to feature exchanges between the women that, frankly, weren't all that valuable. While some were ok in that they tried to dive more into the psyche of the tale-teller, some of them were just catty arguments that didn't add much and just detracted from any suspense.
PLOT: The plot of this book involved one frame narrative and then a bunch of individual stories. The frame is that 5 women all meet up for a kind of group therapy; having undergone some kind of bizarre trauma, they soon realize what has brought them all together. During the therapy sessions, each woman tells the story of her past, which in themselves are modern-day re-imaginings of classic fairy tales.
There were some interesting elements to these stories. Reimagining Bluebeard as a tech billionaire, for example, with his ex-lovers becoming literal objects was a compelling twist. I also liked how many of the stories complicated the idea of what it meant to be a victim or a survivor and how media played a role in the "aftermath" of their lives.
However, I don't think Adelmann used these opportunities to her full advantage. While each story has individual elements that I liked, they didn't really shed new light on modern phenomena or repackaged the fairy tales in ways that felt purposeful. The stories didn't have anything to say, in the end, about how trauma works or how media attention is also traumatizing or the relationship between gender, violence, and power. It felt more like Adelmann wanted to make the fairy tales modern and gritty - there didn't seem to be much planning beyond that.
On top of that, the frame story didn't feel like it accomplished much. I initially liked the premise and was hoping that the women, who start out somewhat antagonistic towards each other, would forge alliances or come together over time. In fairness, I think we do get some of that, but I don't think it builds up on its own. Adelmann is more concerned, I think, with teasing Will (the therapist/guy in charge) and his ulterior motive, and while that motive also could have been a commentary on how women's trauma is exploited for entertainment, I don't quite think it landed.
Some of the tales themselves also felt to be lacking, and some of that might have to do with the fact that Adelmann doesn't take her time building up to climaxes and then having those climaxes resonate. For example, we don't see exactly how Ashlee became the winner despite all the things the producers on the reality show were doing; we get some behind the scenes looks, but that isn't contrasted with the story that is going on with her dates with Brandon. As a result, it was hard to grasp how she won the contest and what that struggle with the producers created alternate narratives. I think Adelmann was trying to do something with the idea of "you stole my time," but for me, it didn't land. Similarly, I don't think Ruby's story said much about how narratives about child sexual abuse worked (though it could have) and Bernice's story didn't really account for Bluebeard's power that came with his wealth and why he was a tech guy (as opposed to like... a furniture maker). There was just a lot thatndidnt quite add up, which is a shame because the theme of competing narratives was actually very interesting.
Basically, the vibe I got from their stories was: What if we made Bluebeard a tech billionaire but we didn't interrogate how power and tech are connected or how that changes the way we read the classical tales? Interesting premise. Not a good follow-through.
CHARACTERS: The main characters of this book are the 5 women who show up for group therapy (Bernice, Ruby, Ashlee, Gretel, and Raina) and their therapist/session leader, Will.
I honestly liked how different the 5 women felt from one another. They each had their own manner of dressing and speaking, and I think the range of ages was a good idea for thinking about how time heals (or doesn't heal) trauma (along with pre-internet vs post-internet experiences).
Within the stories, however, I think characters could have been a lot more developed. Ruby's story, for example, could have grappled more with the complexities of physical arousal and sexual abuse, while Gretel's story could have delved deeper into the way female victims are treated differently than male victims. Granted, the stories touched on some of these things, but I think Adelmann got distracted by the grittiness of the violence or the setting and left things a bit too open-ended.
Side characters, too, could have been utilized more. No work was done to interrogate Bluebeard's social standing, for example, and Jade's presence didn't feel very purposeful for digging into Gretel's real insecurities.
Will's involvement, in my opinion, was a bit of a distraction. I don't think it was used well - in fact, it felt a little cheap. But in fairness, the potential was there.
TL;DR: How to Be Eaten has a lot of potential but ultimately doesn't go far enough in the exploration of its themes. The modern retellings introduce interesting elements but ultimately don't lead us to look at the present or past classics in any new light.