I never, ever thought I'd come back to Jacqueline Wilson again. I swore I wouldn't; that I was officially done after reading the crime against humanity, the abominable 'Opal Plumstead'. But I was suddenly transfixed by the cover of 'Project Fairy' in the book section of a shop one day. It was by JW, but I couldn't resist. It was too adorable - Rachael Dean is a fine, lovely illustrator for this type of children's lit - and I was in the mood for some lighthearted, harmless escapism (at least I hoped it would be harmless), maybe some fairy fantasy, and nostalgia.
Also, I didn't want to carry hate in my heart forever, and not for an author's long bibliography (not the author herself, to be clear) and works that had been a part of my childhood, and of my start in my reading life.I decided to give her one last chance, with one final and new book. I wanted to see if she had improved some things, some issues, in her writing. Who knows? Besides, I have to give JW huge props for writing still, for doing what she loves for decades, even though a majority of her books do follow a familiar, tired formula, and use the same stock characters for the same roles and functions - the silly little brother, the absent, deadbeat father, OTT catty mean girls at school, the ex-best friend who joins the bully girls, the new best friend who's a boy, a climax involving the protagonist running away or just briefly going somewhere far away from it all, etc.
'Project Fairy' ended up being no different. But on the whole, it is a harmless little light fantasy read.
Fairies are real! Or is it the little girl protag Mab's imagination, born out of sadness and desperation? You can come to your own conclusion after finishing it. I think the fairies, who are not so sweet and saccharine like you see in other children's media, are intended to be real in 'Project Fairy'.
There's nothing really toxic here. At least there is no sign of any abusive parent apologist BS that unfortunately plagues quite a lot of JW's books - 'The Illustrated Mum', 'Lily Alone', 'Secrets', 'The Diamond Girls', 'Love Lessons', 'The Suitcase Kid', 'Best Friends', 'The Bed and Breakfast Star', 'Little Darlings', and of course 'Opal Plumstead' (I'm still seething) - which I'm sure is unintentional, it's just something I've noticed. There's no fat-shaming and fat-hatred either, but that might be because no one is described as being fat in 'Project Fairy'. Except maybe for Mab's teacher Mrs Horsely, who is only described as old, but the illustration of her is plump and bulky, too. Mab actually mentions fat-shaming once in calling another character out, which feels tacked on, unnatural and not something a young girl of indiscernible age, even in modern times, would say.
She calls a boy out on making a sexist remark, too. Is she an avatar, a proxy, of JW trying to be feminist and sensitive nowadays after all? I can only tell when a character is not white by the illustrations. Did JW have a hand in that?
How old is Mab supposed to be, anyway? I was confused. She acts mature, and then immature depending on which way the story wants her to go. She sucks her thumb once, she doesn't know what some "big" words mean (but a few times she uses other difficult words in her POV narrative), when she's supposedly a good and bright student (mostly told and not shown, typically), it is explicitly stated at one point that her school year doesn't do homework (what?), and it is also said in passing that she's a Junior. I'm British and I'm not sure what that means in terms of school years in the UK. Is it a new term? Is it before British primary school years, which are for children who are about nine to twelve years old? To add more to the confusion, an illustration of Mab's birthday cake has ten candles! In the end, I had Mab, a bundle of childhood hardships and innocence, pegged as seven or eight years old. Surely even her silly and indulgent mother wouldn't give her a pink fairy dress on her birthday and make her wear it to school if she were ten?
Woohoo, segue! Onto the mum now. Who I actually like, surprise of all surprises.
In spite of the typical girl-on-girl hate with the school bullies, and with other girls, and Mab moving on to being friends with a boy, Micky, because, and I quote, "[...] the boys in my class still talked to me. The girls were all under Cathy's influence and ignored me completely, apart from holding their noses." (page 15), there are good adult female figures in Mab's life. Like the lovable teacher Mrs Horsely, and her mum. Unlike too many JW mums, she isn't nasty, abusive or outright neglectful. She loves and adores her kids and tries her best. She's just depressed.
Before the start of the book, she had a breakdown after Mab's dad left them, and it caused Mab and her little brother Robin to be put into care, and a foster home for a bit. Since then Mum has been trying to get better in raising her kids, so she doesn't lose them again. Her obsession with fairies, and believing they are real to an extent, are in fact harmless quirks. It's her hobby, and part of who she is. Fairies and fairy paraphernalia make her happy. Mab, who initially wasn't interested in pink and "girly" things like fairies and was embarrassed by her mother's love of them, comes to see this, and appreciate her mum more later on. She never wanted her to be depressed again, that's for sure.
I kind of wish there was a mention, like a suggestion, of whether Mum was taking any kind of medication, any antidepressants, however. What about therapy? Asking for help when dealing with mental health problems big enough that you had to be institutionalised and separated from your children for a while is a good thing to represent in children's lit! Was it a good thing for Mum to deal with her depression mostly on her own? I'm not sure. It depends on the context. What I am certain and adamant about is that Mab shouldn't have to act like an adult and take care of her out of anxiety.
Something that's not important to mention but I feel I want to because it's personal and relatable: Mab's mum works in a supermarket (grocery store to my US readers), and at first she is scared of her new boss because he appears cold and distant to her, and acts like he wants to fire her. But later on, he is kind and sweet to her; it's only the adjustment period that had stressed him out, and made him distant and seemingly scary. Yeah, I totally relate to that, in my own work in retail.
Additional note: Mab is shown to be good at playing football once - brought on by her new best boy-friend, Micky, because feminism - but it never comes up again.
Mabs like rats and snakes and jungles and other cool "boy" things. Why is this not also expanded upon?
The ending is kind of rushed, too, but perhaps an open ending, where we don't know most of the characters' fates, is realistic? In a story about fairies?
JW has shown she's not afraid to include LBGTQ characters in her kids' books before (though in my opinion, 'Rent a Bridesmaid' contains her one true positive rep), and in 'Project Fairy', there is only the slight implication of queer content. When we first see Robin's group of five-year-old friends, a girl and a boy want him for a boyfriend. He agrees to be a boyfriend to both. Of course, this could be viewed as merely toddlers being cute (Mum is like, "Awe bless 'em!") and not understanding how relationships work. Plus the girl and boy aren't named and they don't appear again afterwards. Mab mentions her neighbours Michael and Lee twice or three times, and they might be a gay couple, but we never meet them, so am I reaching?
The reveal later down the line that Mab's parents were never married is an offhanded, whatever remark. Cool.
It seems that older writers can just reference Twitter once in order to convey that their story definitely takes place in the current age.
Overuse of exclamation points! are! unnecessary!!!
In conclusion, as predictable as 'Project Fairy' is - to me, who is well versed in JW's formulas - and as silly and nonsensical as the kids' book is, I'm pleased I gave it a chance, and gave Jacqueline Wilson a second chance. I am well aware I am around two decades past her predominant target audience now (OW, that is depressing), and I shouldn't judge too harshly. Likely I'll never read any other new novels by her, unless Rachael Dean's pretty and colourful covers can strike my childlike whimsy heart again, but it was worth a shot. Nothing lost, nothing wasted.
Final Score: 3/5
No comments:
Post a Comment