The first 'The School for Good and Evil' book remains one of my favourites. It's subversive, clever, touching and beautiful. It should have remained a standalone. The rest of the series completely undoes the subversiveness and becomes a typical, conservative fairy tale story, with minimal parody stuff thrown in. This book in particular is anti-feminist to the core, and any hope of a powerful and groundbreaking female friendship between the two leads, Sophie and Agatha, possibly leading to something more for a children's book, is dead and gone. It is heartbreaking.
By the time 'The Last Ever After' comes along, it gets fucking ridiculous and insulting. That fucking plot twist at the end isn't even worth elaborating on. It is the final Fuck-you nail in the coffin to anyone who loved the first book. It is nine-year-old fanfiction writer level of WTF-ery. Kill it with fire.
I could go on all day about everything wrong with the boring, non-chemistry, non-buildup, dysfunctional, rape culture vibes, hetero "romance" between Agatha and Dipshit--I mean Tedros, as well. Because sure, that's what subversive fairy tales in the 21st century aimed at children should be about: abusive romances. Not unique female friendships. Not female friendships that could be read as queer. So was the LBGTQ element of the first book just queerbaiting? A giant fucking tease? I'm leaving this topic before I say something I might regret.
Just... fuck queerbaiting.
All I have left to say is: Tedros needs to burn in hell. I hate that entitled, chauvinistic prick with the violent negativity of a thousand Patchs' from 'Hush, Hush'.
I am going to pretend that 'The School for Good and Evil' is a standalone from now on. Sophie and Agatha deserve so much better than the sequels.
First, a brief mention of 'The School for Good and Evil', the predecessor. It is one of the most unique takes on the Disney-fied fairy tale genre I have ever had the fortune to come across in my lifetime. It is a subversion of the usual cliches, such as finding true love with someone you don't really know, beauty equals good and ugly equals evil, the negative connotations of female relationships, and how Happily Ever AfterTM is not always happily ever after because real life isn't that simple. Before Disney did something to a similar effect with its 2013 winter hit 'Frozen', Soman Chainani's 'The School for Good and Evil' worked these subversive elements and reached a heartbreaking, beautiful and stunning denouement.
It's dramatic, violent, bizarre, scary, and it asks its readers to think about what fairy tales are really telling us and how they shape our lives. Back in May 2013, in terms of narrative it was something new to behold; something we had never seen before. And it's a book supposedly for middle schoolers.
So after a thrilling twist to its climax that signifies its messages perfectly, what else is there to tell? Shouldn't the storybook have ended? What else could possibly be told about Sophie and Agatha, when their adventure and well-deserved happy ending is done and they now have what they had both needed all along? I was indeed skeptical about 'The School for Good and Evil' becoming a series; I'd thought the first book was great as a stand alone and so there was no need to potentially ruin what it set out to be by having sequels that drag it out for no reason other than modern children's and YA consumerism.
I was inevitably cautious when I picked up 'A World Without Princes'. But as it turned out, I'd vastly underestimated Soman Chainani as a writer. Because holy heaven can he write. Along with a great first novel he also managed to create a worthy sequel that doesn't feel like a cash-grab.
It begins with Sophie and Agatha. They were the kidnapped Readers who are now back in their hometown of Gavaldon after their Happily Ever After kiss ended their fairy tale in the horrific world of the School for Good and Evil. About nine months have passed. Sophie is unhappy about not getting attention from townspeople or her family. Her father Stefan is marrying her late mother's best friend Honora. These may seem like the typical selfish character traits seen in the Sophie from the previous book (she even has a statue of her made, WTF). But since more focus is given to her relationship with her dead mother Vanessa this time round, upon reflection Sophie definitely earns her share of sympathy points. She's just lonely, is all. And it's not like she hasn't learned anything from last time. On the contrary she spends the whole book trying to convince everyone she is not a witch or an Evil person. The only thing she is happy about in Gavaldon is her faith in her best friend Agatha, who will always be by her side. For neither girl needs a boy to make her life worth living.
However, Agatha - the true princess of this fairy tale - finds herself longing for a prince. Specifically, the prince from her previous adventure, Tedros, son of the doomed King Arthur. Even after everything that's happened, even though she had initially despised the pompous and chauvinistic prince back in 'The School for Good and Evil', she is missing him. Agatha is still happy with having a best friend - something the graveyard dweller needed from the start - but is that enough for her?
Could she be possibly - subconsciously - wishing for a different Happily Ever After? Even one without Sophie?
Poor, poor Sophie.
Both girls end up making their own wishes. And from those wishes leads them to another adventure in the School for Good and Evil. That's right, they return to where they've sworn never to cross the threshold of again. But it is not the same as before. It has turned into the School for Boys and Girls, and a war is brewing. Since Sophie and Agatha's kiss of friendship in the previous book, girls have become fiercely independent and banished boys and princes from their fairy tales; hence the sequel's title, 'A World Without Princes' (kinda catchy, I'd say).
The fairy tale world is out of balance, with disastrous results. Once dashing and heroic princes have become savages from feeling useless, and they want Sophie and Agatha dead because of this. The girls couldn't be happier though; no more passivity and worrying about their looks and beauty. One girl even shaves her head. But not everything is as it seems.
A mysterious dean by the name of Evelyn Sader - with her blue butterflies - is pulling the strings of each of the characters. The authoritative female teachers from the first book - the ones who haven't vanished - are frightened of her. Sader wants the girls and boys to remain separated, and for the girls to become free and independent heroes in their own story (basically the dean runs the place exactly how you'd imagine a Hollywood Straw Feminist would: the lessons are about how Evil men are and why they all deserve to die). But are the girls free, really? Does Sader wish that for Sophie and Agatha? Why is this cryptic, snake-like, Dolores Umbridge-type tyrant so interested in the two Readers?
Who is the real villain in this fairy tale?
Will Agatha - a smart girl with a good relationship with her mother and with other female characters - continue to choose her best friend over her prince? (For what works in her story, both choices could be equally destructive.) From all her trying and hard work, will Sophie - who does not want to end up betrayed, alone and unloved like her mother - truly be Good, despite her destined role as a manipulative witch? And will Tedros get over his serious issues with women and discover what he truly wants and needs?
The answers may shock you. They certainly did me, at least in the final chapter.
Oh why couldn't the fairy tale have ended in 'The School for Good and Evil' 1?
But 'A World Without Princes' further deconstructs themes of friendship and love. Like its previous installment, it also revolves around whether human beings can be free from the traditions and restraints of their own story; in this case told through a mixture of a magic pen and past quarrels. The relationship between Sophie and Agatha does indeed have potential for more insight and development. Trust, courage and finding your true self are major factors in the book. The writing is as great and dramatic as the last time: the narrative brutally shows the reader how selfishness, lying and betrayal are bad and lead to devastating consequences.
There is also the theme of deconstructing gender stereotypes, and how "niceness" and friendship should apply to both girls and boys. I can't say anything more due to huge plot twists which are too good to spoil, but suffice to say 'The World Without Princes', like 'The School for Good and Evil' 1, knows what it's talking about in regards to this theme.
In this particularly sensitive and indecisive twisty-turny fairy tale, friendship and romance are not to be taken lightly. The fate of innocent people may depend on the choice between wanting male or female companionship. Which is the right choice? I for one am rooting for a fairy tale which focuses on friendship over princes (sadly, there is no lesbian subtext in this installment). It's different and interesting; a positive message for modern young girls - it's what made 'The School for Good and Evil' what it is. However, the theory is put to the test in its continuation, 'A World Without Princes'.
Is there a right choice? Is where Sophie and Agatha "rightly belong" meant to be? Can they say "Fuck the prophecy"? Can friendship conquer all, or will it all have been in vain?
It's not all tragedy and doom and gloom, however. There are outrageously funny scenes in 'A World Without Princes', especially concerning Sophie and her obliviousness and Agatha literally banging her head on walls because of this. And Agatha is most certainly not just thinking about Tedros throughout the book (thank Goodness) - her growing friendship with the witches Hester, Anadil and Dot (the only girls who are unhappy with the new school regime and with Sader's control) is a significant addition to the message about positive female relationships in 'The School for Good and Evil' series. It's dynamic, and an excellent balance to Agatha's otherwise rocky and doubt-filled friendship with Sophie.
The fairy tale world of the School has creative and complex mythology as well. In the narrative it is the "Once Upon a Time" and "The End" of the series' theme of what is good and evil, and serves as a backdrop to the villains' origins and motivations.
Although as exciting and twisty and turny 'A World Without Princes' is, I still have a few problems with it, mostly with it being a sequel to a book I love with dedicated passion. It came dangerously close to discarding the friendship-over-a-boy message of that book, making it pretty pointless. Romance might be in all fairy tales, but surely it doesn't have to be essential. While 'A World Without Princes' didn't end up breaking my heart - due to its great writing and suspense - it still bothered me that Agatha would even think about putting Sophie aside for bloody Tedros. Even when she thought she was saving her friend's life, she still should have considered the possibility that she's being manipulated. Just because she's a princess in a fairy tale doesn't mean she has to be dependent on a prince and drop several IQ points along the way.
Well, at least this is lampshaded where appropriate.
Sophie herself has her faults too, of course, but they are more understandable. You sympathise with her reasons for doing what she does. She is trying not to be selfish when in fact her actions might say otherwise. But again, this is understandable. Unbeknownst to her, she could be Evil, but she is merely lonely. Sophie's grief for her mother is one of the most beautiful and poignant aspects of the book.
What isn't so understandable is the romance. I don't believe for one second that Agatha and Tedros are truly in love. There is no solid reason for them to love each other besides their good looks, which is very superficial; Agatha thinks about the prince's handsomeness quite frequently. They barely know each other. There are barely enough scenes where they're together, much less where they actually talk to each other.
Tedros is responsible for most of the warmongering and harm in the book; without giving too much away he has become (more so) the very opposite of what a prince should be after the end of 'The School for Good and Evil'. The way I interpret it, he is convinced that his manhood was taken away from him by the two Readers. He feels emasculated, and thus he becomes deeply insecure, possessive, needy and sociopathic (again, more so than he was before). Freud would call him the king of closet misogynists. For a big chunk of the book he even wishes both Sophie and Agatha dead. By his own hands. What a charmer!
Tedros does get some development in 'A World Without Princes' though. We see him suffer from the harmful stereotyping which comes with being a boy - in that he has to be aggressive and hide his real feelings all the time, with no friend to talk to about his problems. He faces serious consequences for his actions. And his backstory involving his parents is further explored and highlights the reason behind his bitterness towards girls.
But to me this isn't enough to redeem him, or make me say with honesty that Agatha has good reason to suddenly love him and want to live with him and no-one else. She and Tedros are in love because the plot says so.
Could this be intentional, I wonder...
Plus there's a new character, Yara the bird girl, who doesn't appear often or serve much of a purpose until the very end. But there's another new character, Aric, who I really like. He's a badass hunter with a malicious streak, the very reflection of what decent boys shouldn't be. He could corrupt and lead Tedros even further down the wrong path...
Well, that's about it for this review. In spite of my previous reservations of the existence of the sequel, I really enjoyed it. I can believe it to be canon with 'The School for Good and Evil,' and as already stated Mr Chainani's writing is as strong as ever.
Dramatic, heartbreaking, gut-punching, ravishingly poignant and exceedingly cruel, I can't wait for the final book in the (apparent) trilogy. I knew that ending had to be a cliffhanger.
What is Happily Ever AfterTM anyway? Where and when can we find it? In ourselves and not in anyone or anything else?
For Happily Ever AfterTM and The End are two entirely different things...
Final Score: 4/5
P.S. I think I've figured out the significance of Evelyn Sader's magical blue butterflies (or at least in part). They are a symbol of maturity, transformation and growing up. They start off as innocent caterpillars, soon to transform gradually into adult butterflies and fly away, leaving childhood fancies behind. This is fitting to the story of 'A World Without Princes', and in keeping with the series' themes. Although friendship is important, no matter what age you are.
No comments:
Post a Comment