Review & Giveaway: Otherwise by Jennifer B. White
Otherwise tells the story of Delilah Gray, returning to her hometown of Green Lake to take over the house she inherited from her grandmother, Meema, when she passed away. Meema was a compulsive hoarder who raised Delilah as lovingly as she could among piles of festering trash. Now that Delilah is reluctantly back in Green Lake, she is determined to clear out the years of junk and start fresh in Meema’s old home… but it seems that she isn’t the only one who has returned.
What begins as an ordinary homecoming-turned-romance story quickly becomes something entirely… otherwise.
(See what I did there?)
Otherwise is a quick, enjoyable read. The main characters are well developed, with flaws and personality quirks that make them feel tangible. Flaws are, in fact, one of two things about the book that I would like to discuss:
As I mentioned early on in the life of this blog, I have a serious aversion to what I’ve dubbed MPS (Miss Perfect Syndrome), in which an impeccably beautiful female protagonist’s only flaws are that she is too feisty, too strong, too independent… you get the idea. It’s a kind of female wish fulfillment that isn’t inherently wrong, but it’s really not my cup of tea and when I encounter it I immediately check out. I had my concerns, as I usually do when starting a new novel by an author I haven’t heard of, but fortunately my introduction to Delilah was thus:
Delivered like a witch from a Victorian fairy tale, Delilah arrived on Hermit Meddler’s Way on gusty winds. If she was a witch- or something preternatural- she must be wicked, she thought, because a scorching hot anger seethed inside her like hot coals.
So we’re off to a good start! I was very pleased with the introduction, and it softened the blow of the subsequent description of beautiful, slender Delilah, with her porcelain skin and long chestnut locks. She’s got a quick temper and a foul mouth which I deeply appreciated because it made her real. I can much more easily believe in- and root for- a female character when I can see a full picture of who she is in her darkest moments. What does it take to make the sweet little waif utter nasty curse words? Because like it or not, we all have a little something nasty inside of us, and I like to see glimpses of that even in the most virtuous of female protagonists, the better to appreciate their good qualities and admirable decisions. Delilah was a female character I could root for, almost as much as Winnie, a wise local woman who takes Delilah under her wing, in a manner of speaking.
The other matter that needs discussing was one that disappointed me, and that is regarding a character with a minor disability. [Warning, one very vague spoiler ahead!]
Geoffrey is one of the town’s mail carriers, and he’s got a pleasant relationship with Winnie (who owns a local flower/antique shop), almost reminiscent of Mr. Rogers and Mr. McFeely, but with a lot more one-sided sexual tension. Geoffrey is a sweet older man with a speech impediment (he stutters) stuck in an unhappy marriage with an overbearing wife. [START SPOILER] Late in the book it is revealed that Geoffrey performed some very unsavory (and criminal) acts in his earlier days, the motivation for which came about in part from his desperate unrequited desire to be loved in spite of his disability. While I appreciated that a believable motivation was provided and while on some vague level Geoffrey still remained a sympathetic character, I couldn’t help but feel a bit uneasy with the fact that the only disabled character, no matter how mildly so, was villainized. It certainly served to make the revelation shocking, but it felt almost like something straight out of an old fairy tale in which the good characters are beautiful and the bad characters have hunchbacks. This isn’t to say that all characters with disabilities should be virtuous heroes by default, but because he was the only one in the book and because a stutter is very effectively and impact-fully portrayed in dialogue, the singling out felt amplified. [END SPOILER]
This element of the plot did not ruin the book for me or distract too heavily from the resolution of the plot, but it was enough of a disappointment to me that I felt the need to mention it.
Otherwise quickly delves into the realm of the paranormal, but resists being placed into any one genre, interweaving elements of romance (which I didn’t mind, surprisingly), paranormal, and even some good old fashioned whodunit-style mystery which unravels in a delightful denouement that was a pleasure to read. The book has a lovely pace, slowly introducing questions and mysteries so that by the time a resolution is reached, the reader feels as if they have joined the characters alongside their journeys, although plenty of foreshadowing offers the opportunity to guess at several key twists. I appreciated this as a nod to the intelligence of the reader- there was no pandering. Multiple interweaving plot lines are drawn to a satisfying close like a tightly-pulled drawstring.
I recommend Otherwise if you enjoy: mysteries, Victorian novels, paranormal romance (but don’t let that turn you off either).
GIVEAWAY:
To enter the giveaway to win a gently-read copy of the book, just leave a comment below answering at least one of the following questions: have you read any “paranormal” novels that you can recommend to someone who might usually balk at the genre? What do you make of disorders and disabilities in fiction- do you feel bothered if those characters are villainized, or do you have no problem separating your fiction from your reality? Have you ever known a hoarder, and what were your impressions of the way their behavior affected those around them?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
As well as penning novels, Jennifer is a screenwriter and Hollywood tagline writer. She lives and writes in Boston, Massachusetts, when she’s not in Los Angeles, California working on movies. She holds a BA in communication and an M.Ed in psychology. She has three boys—all were born in late October, the youngest on Halloween.
You can follow her on Twitter @nakedhollywood where she exchanges pithy comments with the celebrities that follow her. She’s also on Facebook because she enjoys seeing what people are eating for lunch. Jennifer responds personally to all her emails and tweets. It’s just the way she was raised. Go figure.
Be My Friend!
| | | |
Email Subscription
Blogroll
- Call Me Bookish
- Eclipse Star
- Frabjous Flamingo
- GeekeryDo
- Media Sandwich
- No Right Answer
- Novel Publicity
- Too Much Awesome
Recent Posts
- Weekly Bookmarks
- Review: Brooklyn Bites by Scott Stabile
- Tooting Tidbits: YA Series for Fantasy Lovers
- Literary Blog Hop
- Tutoring is Teaching, Too
I enjoy a good “paranormal” story every now and then. I’ve read several, many of which have a plot twist at the end in which the “paranormal” activity turns out to be an actual mental disability, such as schizophrenia. I suppose many paranormal novels also crossover into the “thriller” genre. I can’t think of any that I’ve read
that don’t.
“House” by Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti comes to mind, although it may actually be more “horror” than thriller. Still, a suspenseful and entertaining read, with lots of “paranormal” thrown in.
If angels and demons qualify as paranormal, my all time favorites would be “This Present Darkness” and “Piercing the Darkness” both by Frank Peretti.
I’m quite sure I’ll think of more throughout the day that may be more appropriate. But right this second, my brain is locked.
I feel the same way about people with disabilities in fictional stories. Too often the bad guy is immediately unlikable because he (or she) is ugly or has something seriously wrong, socially. What I also don’t like, and am thinking is probably more common, is when bad guys are portrayed with some sort of disability in the past that is supposed to direct the reader at giving them sympathy, and therefore also gives them a kind of excuse for committing evil. I think what’s most disturbing about this, though, is that in our search for trying to explain the behavior of bad guys in real life, we discover that there is often something slightly rational from either nurture or nature that might explain their erratic behaviors. What’s wrong with portraying that in fiction, like you said, is that it often narrows down the only person who is somehow disabled as bad. It’s like casting a group of Caucasians in a story, with the addition of one African American character that has big lips, a wide nose, and a loud/strong voice, or one Asian female character that is quiet, subservient, and short with tiny feet. Some African Americans have those traits, and some Asian women have those traits, respectively, and maybe the majority of them do. But whenever these stereotypes are used, they simply reinforce the stereotype and distract from other possibly more important points that probably would have been just as strong or stronger without the distractions. In the same way, history shows that people with disabilities psychologically handle things “different” than “normal” people do, largely because we have tried to define what is “normal.” Because of this psychological dynamic, the truth is that some people with disabilities do commit crimes (judged by society) or act villainous (judged by society), but that doesn’t mean by any means that they all do, or that even a large majority of them do. That also means that representing that skewed stereotype wildly distracts from the story and in a way makes it about that person. If that stereotyped person is not the point of the story, there needs to be a balance of characters that break the same problematic stereotype, or the matter needs to be excluded entirely.
That’s what I think, anyway.
You said it in a much more concise manner than I could. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I agree completely- there ARE evil people in the world who also have disabilities, but they are still too underrepresented in literature for it to come across fairly, at least in my limited experience.