Deal With The Devil by Kit Rocha

A couple of weeks ago, I had the BEST news from NetGalley--approval for an ARC for a book that I was CRAVING.

In 6 B.C-19*, I wrote my first review of a Kit Rocha story.  You can read it here.  It's fair to say I'm a straight-up Kit Rocha Fan Girl.  So you can imagine my response when I found out that I'd been approved for an ARC of the first book of the new Kit Rocha series, Deal With The Devil, in exchange for a review.

It was VERY dignified. *cough* Very.

Deal With The Devil is a Mercenary Librarians novel, and it's set in the same post-apocalyptic timeline that the O'Kane books are set, but the location is different.  So far, there are no character connections, but everyone is dealing with the same "how do we live now that everything is broken" situation.  (There was a nice Easter egg mention of the whisky from Sector Four from their last series, though.)

The Mercenary Librarians are actually quite more benevolent than their name sounds.  They're not hoarding knowledge and texts (remind me to review Rachel Caine's Great Library series soon, would ya?), but they do need to support themselves and help a few neighbors while they're at it.  So when the leader, Nina, gets an offer to go after a rogue Library of Congress bunker, she gathers up her team and heads out with The Silver Devils--a team of elite soldiers formally employed by the local tech giant--despite the possibility that this offer is too good to be true. She wants to save all the knowledge that's been lost and find a way to make is accessible to the people around her.

Garrett, the leader of the Silver Devils, doesn't have quite that altruistic of a goal in mind.  He's actually setting a trap for Nina; he's desperate to trade Nina for another woman who can stop the Silver Devils from dying. Their former tech giant employer has been augmenting its soldiers for years, and once the Silver Devils left the company they were cut off from the upgrades and necessary maintenance to keep their hearts and brains functioning correctly.

So the two teams set off toward the rogue bunker, and have some adventures, and get to know each other better.  And Garrett is in a bind.  He likes Nina, and, oh, man, does he want Nina, but he's about to betray Nina.  So there's interpersonal tension to go along with the post-apocalyptic danger, and there's just a lot of really compelling stuff going on.

Which I liked and will probably love on the re-read.

Why didn't I love it the first time through?

Because I HATE hate hate hate books where the inevitable betrayal is baked into the plot.  While I was all *Kermit arms* about getting the ARC, I also speed read the whole thing like this: 

I mean, I trust Kit Rocha to make everything work out in the end, but Garrett was taking TOO LONG to tell Nina what was going on.  And then there was this TWIST that I did not see coming, and, oh, yeah, Garrett was screwed.  It was also pretty unclear how it was going to all work out in the end.

Because, as I said, there was a lot of really compelling stuff going on.

So, if you want to know how it works out for Nina and Garrett, and you're more comfortable with sturm und drang than I am, you should definitely read Deal With The Devil.  Even if you're wimp like I am, you should read it.  It's good, and finishing it just made me greedy for the next one.

*Six year before COVID-19, or 2014.

The Turn of the Screw by Henry James

Doesn't look scary at
all.  Or does it?!

Yesterday I was home sick with the stomach flu.  It wasn't pretty.  When I wasn't sleeping or getting sick, I was watching some old Dr. Who episodes.  I'm a latecomer to this BBC version, but I like it quite a bit.  It's the right combination of sci-fi and creepy and witty banter to make me happy.  Yesterday I saw two episodes that reminded me (in different ways) of The Turn of the Screw.  The first was a Christmas episode featuring Charles Dickens and some spirits living in the gas pipes of funeral home and the other featured an "empty child" in 1941 London.  The "empty child" episode gave me goosebumps (might have been the fever, but I don't think so) and the Dickens episode made me wonder if Carrie's head exploded when she watched it.  You may have noticed that she's not a fan of Charles Dickens.  Anyway they're both good episodes, it's a good series, and it's available on Netflix should you ever find yourself stricken with the stomach flu.  But don't watch them until you've read this novella, cause it's pretty great itself.....in a creepy way.

It starts out in London on Christmas Eve with a group of friends gathered around a fireplace exchanging ghost stories (this is the part that the Dickens Dr. Who brought to mind).  One gentleman says he has a written account of a governess, no longer living, who was convinced she and her wards were plagued by ghosts.  The governess was informed that she was not to communicate with the children's uncle (their guardian) and would be in a country estate with a maid, Mrs. Grose, and the children, Miles and Flora.  The governess meets Flora first, as Miles is on his way home for the summer from boarding school.  The governess is charmed by the children and begins to feel at ease around the house and with her new job.  However, things quickly go sideways.  Suddenly there are sightings of a strange man, and later a woman, around the estate.  The governess goes to the maid about these strangers on the grounds and Mrs. Grose offers that they might be the old governess and former valet.  That wouldn't be that unusual except Mr. Quint and Miss Jessel and both deceased.  And the new governess appears to the be the only one that sees them.

As the days progress, the situation around the house grows ever more odd.  The children seem to always be in odd places whenever the ghosts appear.  Mrs. Grose finally relents to the governess that Mr. Quint and Miss Jessel were entirely "too free" with one another and the children.  What that means exactly is up for interpretation.  The children refuse to discuss the ghosts even though the governess is convinced that the apparitions are in some way controlling the children.  Eventually, Flora demands to go away from the governess.  Miles takes the opportunity to play some soothing music until the governess realizes that Flora has left the house and her whereabouts are unknown.  After searching the house with no success, they find her in a clearing in the woods.  The governess sees the ghost of Miss Jessel there as well.  Soon Flora takes ill and it's decided she'll go to London to be with the uncle.  Later  that evening, the governess spies Mr. Quint in the window watching Miles.  The governess places herself between Miles and the ghost and informs Mr. Quint that he no longer has any hold on the boy.  Mr. Quint leaves but at the same time Miles drops into the governess's arms; dead.

The best part about this story is that it is so ambiguous.  Are there really ghosts?  Or is the governess off her rocker?  Are the children just vacant vessels being manipulated by former house staff who had too much freedom with them (this is the part that was similar to the "empty child" episode)? Or are the children just being children?  Is the governess the only sane person who is trying to fend off maleficent spirits?  Or is she slightly mad herself?  Is there something wrong with the estate or something wrong with the governess?  It's wonderfully written so that the reader must make their own inferences.   While the story is told on Christmas Eve, I recommend you read it now in the season of Halloween.  Nothing quite like a psychological thriller to make all those trick-or-treaters seem a wee bit scary!  Has anyone else read and loved this one? Let me know!

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

I'm clearly slacking in my old age.

The American Library Association keeps track of the most commonly challenged books and happily sorts them by decade.  Of the top 100 books that "concerned citizens" tried to restrict from library shelves in the 1990s, almost 30 of them found their way into my hands.  Of the top 100 books most commonly challenged in the 2000s, only 20 made my reading list.

(Using the same evidence, I could also claim that I'm becoming more conservative.  I'm a kind soul, though, and don't want to force any of you into a spit-take.  I'll stick to my slacker claim.)

It probably helps that many of the books from the '90s list I actually read in the '80s.  Those would be the Judy Blumes and Stephen Kings.  Those would be my middle school and high school years.  That's actually when I read 1984 and The Color Purple, too.  Apparently, I'm a rebel from WAY back in the day.

Heh. I crack myself up.

ANYWAY, in looking for a book to review that fulfills both the decision to review "scary" books in October and my desire to promote awareness of book censorship during Banned Book Week, I settled on The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.

The main character, Offred, is actually only one of many handmaidens.  She lives in a world where war, technology and chemicals have left everyone all but infertile.  The social and military leaders take drastic action to try and assure the continued existence of their people.  Offred was once actually a wife, a mother, and a gainfully-employed and fully-contributing citizen.  Now she's a handmaiden, living in the household of a Commander, assigned to menial tasks and assigned to help the Commander breed.  She remembers the time before when she had access to information, to books, and her own opinions.  First, she lost her possessions, then her family and her freedom.  Now, you see, handmaidens are forbidden from learning.  Offred's place in the Commander's house is dependent upon the fact that she once conceived and might again.  Her value is entirely in her womb.

The Handmaid's Tale isn't scary like the frequently banned Stephen King books I've read.  It has more in common with George Orwell's 1984.  It's frequently called a dystopian novel which is a smarty-pants way of saying that the society depicted in the story is the opposite of a utopia, the opposite of a perfect society. The online Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines a dystopia as a society characterized by human misery and oppression.  It's in this view of the world that the story becomes quickly, easily scary.  Nothing goes bump in the night, and there's no on-stage slaughter.  But the things this book makes you think?  The "what if?" and the "could they?" and the "could WE?"  Those are scary thoughts indeed.  It's also those questions and the oppression and the mandatory sex meant to eke out whatever viable reproduction is left in this society that lands this tale on the frequently challenged list.

It's not a comfortable read, and it's not fun.  It is, however, well-written and thought-provoking.  It's MEANT to make us uncomfortable, to make us question our actions, and our acceptance of the actions of others.  It shouldn't be banned.  It should be discussed.  The thoughts it raises shouldn't be avoided--just any social movement that could lead us to that dystopian reality.  That kind of reality is the very worst kind of bogey-man.

It was also made into a movie with an A-list cast.  The trailer is below.  It's doesn't shy away from the breeding efforts, so watch with caution.