Charlotte Kersten's Reviews > Poison Study
Poison Study (Study, #1)
by
by

Charlotte Kersten's review
bookshelves: wnbsff
Apr 14, 2017
bookshelves: wnbsff
Read 2 times. Last read February 2, 2019 to February 7, 2019.
** spoiler alert **
“Everyone makes choices in life. Some bad, some good. It's called living, and if you want to bow out, then go right ahead. But don't do it halfway. Don't linger in whiner's limbo.�
Spoilers and a discussion of sexual violence and transphobia will follow.
So What's It About?
Sentenced to death for the murder of a General's son, Yelena narrowly escapes her grisly fate thanks to a precipitous offer: in exchange for her life she will become the Commander of Ixia's food taster. Her new role throws Yelena into a world of intrigue and danger that she will have to use every ounce of determination to survive.
What I Thought
I should probably make it clear from the very start of this review that this book did not click for me. I always worry about writing negative reviews, but I'll endeavor to plow onwards as best I can. There are a few reasons I think Poison Study didn't gel for me, and they are as follows:
1) The setting
My fundamental question is as follows: is Ixia supposed to be a dystopia or not? Given the world-building that is presented throughout the course of the book I feel strongly that it should be, but I don't think Snyder has entirely made up her mind. Ixia is a land led by a military commander who holds a massive amount of power and seized it through a coup. All religions are forbidden, arts and culture languish, and - most importantly- the Commander has enacted a policy of total annihilation against people who have magic:
"Magicians had been treated like disease-riddled mosquitoes. They were hunted, trapped and exterminated. Any hint or suggestion that someone had magic was a death sentence. The only chance to live was to escape to Sitia."
Quite simply, this is a genocide. Yelena spends the entire book living in terror that her magic will be exposed. What's more is that there are ample proofs of further human rights violations: dissenters are killed or disabled and the law is unyielding in the extreme. Yelena killed a man because he had been abusing her for years, but she was sentenced to death for it, and even after she saves the Commander's life and overthrows a plot to take control of Ixia she is sentenced to death again. There's a lot of sugar-coating about Yelena's position in the castle, but she is a slave: a prisoner-turned-worker doing a dangerous and menial job with no pay and the only other option being death. Then there are the tiny things, like what the Commander says to her when extenuating circumstances (that she has no control over) cause her to taste his food late one day:
“Yelena, if I have to eat cold food again, I’ll have you whipped. Understand?�
This does not paint a pretty picture of Ixia, does it? But the strange thing is that Yelena repeatedly comments that Commander Ambrose has improved the land considerably and treats everyone fairly and equally. By the end of the book we are clearly supposed to see him and his spymaster (and right hand man) Valek in a very positive light; Valek is the story's love interest. There's a baffling discrepancy between what the reader is supposed to feel and what is actually written on the page.
2) The trauma
Yelena murders the General's son after years of horrific abuse, culminating in sexual assault. In addition, she is attacked and threatened with rape on a couple of other occasions throughout the book. She is taunted by Reyad's ghost on several occasions and has one flashback to the sexual assault but other than that she is perfectly well-adjusted despite the fact that she is currently a slave who confronts death on a daily basis, was previously imprisoned for months and before that was a tortured orphan. On the occasion of the most intense confrontation with the ghost and the flashback to the rape, she suddenly snaps back into the present moment and basically just thinks to herself "Oh welp I missed breakfast! Darn it!"
In addition, you could almost make the argument that the sexual violence is all perpetrated by members of the military and this demonstrates the cruelty and devaluation of human rights that is inherent to Ixia's militaristic society. But Ixia is an equal society, and the Commander makes sure everyone is treated fairly, remember?
3) The romance
"Valek snatched a gray rock from his desk and hurled it toward me."
Ahhhhhh, love. Listen, folks, I love me a broody Murder Boy as much as the next girl, but not a single thing about this particular broody Murder Boy worked for me at all. First of all, we've established that Yelena is a slave, right? Well, Valek is in control of virtually every aspect of her existence. He controls whether she lives or dies, whether she lives in his rooms or the dungeon, whether she gets the antidote that saves her from agonizing pain on a daily basis. There is no possibility of a healthy romance stemming from this context and no amount of carved butterflies can change that. Did I mention he throws a rock at her head?
4) The transphobia
There is a dramatic reveal about Commander Ambrose at the end of the book, and it is as follows:
"He was a she, but with the utter conviction that she should have been born a man."
While I think it's pretty cool that Snyder chose to include a trans character in a fantasy world so long ago, I think it's possible that this phrasing has just aged poorly so that it doesn't stand up to gender-affirming language in the present day; this phrasing implies that a transgender man is in fact just a woman (a "she") who really, really feels (has an "utter conviction") like she is a man (a "he").
Yelena does switch back to referring to Ambrose as a man, but there is then another revelation that bothers me more than anything else about this book: Yelena realizes that the reason the Commander is committing a genocide against magicians is because they might be able to discover that he's transgender. Ah!!
Spoilers and a discussion of sexual violence and transphobia will follow.
So What's It About?
Sentenced to death for the murder of a General's son, Yelena narrowly escapes her grisly fate thanks to a precipitous offer: in exchange for her life she will become the Commander of Ixia's food taster. Her new role throws Yelena into a world of intrigue and danger that she will have to use every ounce of determination to survive.
What I Thought
I should probably make it clear from the very start of this review that this book did not click for me. I always worry about writing negative reviews, but I'll endeavor to plow onwards as best I can. There are a few reasons I think Poison Study didn't gel for me, and they are as follows:
1) The setting
My fundamental question is as follows: is Ixia supposed to be a dystopia or not? Given the world-building that is presented throughout the course of the book I feel strongly that it should be, but I don't think Snyder has entirely made up her mind. Ixia is a land led by a military commander who holds a massive amount of power and seized it through a coup. All religions are forbidden, arts and culture languish, and - most importantly- the Commander has enacted a policy of total annihilation against people who have magic:
"Magicians had been treated like disease-riddled mosquitoes. They were hunted, trapped and exterminated. Any hint or suggestion that someone had magic was a death sentence. The only chance to live was to escape to Sitia."
Quite simply, this is a genocide. Yelena spends the entire book living in terror that her magic will be exposed. What's more is that there are ample proofs of further human rights violations: dissenters are killed or disabled and the law is unyielding in the extreme. Yelena killed a man because he had been abusing her for years, but she was sentenced to death for it, and even after she saves the Commander's life and overthrows a plot to take control of Ixia she is sentenced to death again. There's a lot of sugar-coating about Yelena's position in the castle, but she is a slave: a prisoner-turned-worker doing a dangerous and menial job with no pay and the only other option being death. Then there are the tiny things, like what the Commander says to her when extenuating circumstances (that she has no control over) cause her to taste his food late one day:
“Yelena, if I have to eat cold food again, I’ll have you whipped. Understand?�
This does not paint a pretty picture of Ixia, does it? But the strange thing is that Yelena repeatedly comments that Commander Ambrose has improved the land considerably and treats everyone fairly and equally. By the end of the book we are clearly supposed to see him and his spymaster (and right hand man) Valek in a very positive light; Valek is the story's love interest. There's a baffling discrepancy between what the reader is supposed to feel and what is actually written on the page.
2) The trauma
Yelena murders the General's son after years of horrific abuse, culminating in sexual assault. In addition, she is attacked and threatened with rape on a couple of other occasions throughout the book. She is taunted by Reyad's ghost on several occasions and has one flashback to the sexual assault but other than that she is perfectly well-adjusted despite the fact that she is currently a slave who confronts death on a daily basis, was previously imprisoned for months and before that was a tortured orphan. On the occasion of the most intense confrontation with the ghost and the flashback to the rape, she suddenly snaps back into the present moment and basically just thinks to herself "Oh welp I missed breakfast! Darn it!"
In addition, you could almost make the argument that the sexual violence is all perpetrated by members of the military and this demonstrates the cruelty and devaluation of human rights that is inherent to Ixia's militaristic society. But Ixia is an equal society, and the Commander makes sure everyone is treated fairly, remember?
3) The romance
"Valek snatched a gray rock from his desk and hurled it toward me."
Ahhhhhh, love. Listen, folks, I love me a broody Murder Boy as much as the next girl, but not a single thing about this particular broody Murder Boy worked for me at all. First of all, we've established that Yelena is a slave, right? Well, Valek is in control of virtually every aspect of her existence. He controls whether she lives or dies, whether she lives in his rooms or the dungeon, whether she gets the antidote that saves her from agonizing pain on a daily basis. There is no possibility of a healthy romance stemming from this context and no amount of carved butterflies can change that. Did I mention he throws a rock at her head?
4) The transphobia
There is a dramatic reveal about Commander Ambrose at the end of the book, and it is as follows:
"He was a she, but with the utter conviction that she should have been born a man."
While I think it's pretty cool that Snyder chose to include a trans character in a fantasy world so long ago, I think it's possible that this phrasing has just aged poorly so that it doesn't stand up to gender-affirming language in the present day; this phrasing implies that a transgender man is in fact just a woman (a "she") who really, really feels (has an "utter conviction") like she is a man (a "he").
Yelena does switch back to referring to Ambrose as a man, but there is then another revelation that bothers me more than anything else about this book: Yelena realizes that the reason the Commander is committing a genocide against magicians is because they might be able to discover that he's transgender. Ah!!
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Poison Study.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
May 20, 2016
– Shelved
May 20, 2016
– Shelved as:
to-read
December 19, 2018
– Shelved as:
wnbsff
February 2, 2019
–
Started Reading
February 3, 2019
–
23.0%
February 3, 2019
–
25.0%
"No offense but Valek just threw a rock at Yelena's head and also he poisons her on a daily basis and exerts control over every single aspect of her being. Who writes this and then thinks "ah yes, the natural progression from here is that they Fall in Love""
February 4, 2019
–
53.0%
"Super gratuitous flashback to moment of horrifying trauma and now Yelena's all "grr I'm late for breakfast!!" Haha what"
February 4, 2019
–
54.0%
"Not to belabor the point but Valek killed Rand's mother and disabled him in order to break his spirit and force to work for the Commander!! And Yelena's like "well, it's a bit harsh but he had to stand up for the Commander, that seems reasonable to me" lol what"
February 7, 2019
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-33 of 33 (33 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
wishforagiraffe
(new)
Jun 11, 2019 03:42PM

reply
|
flag


I read it when I was a lot younger too and I remember feeling kind of "ehhh" about it overall as well!

That's a great question! The way I see it, the language is very subtly invalidating - for example, if she was talking about a cisgender person, would she say "Ambrose FEELS like he is a man"? Probably not- she'd probably say "Amrbose is a man." When all you say that a trans person feels like they are a certain gender, it kind of makes it sound like it's all in their head as opposed to being the reality of who they are just like it is for a cis person. At least that's how I see it :)



That's why in my comment above I mention being squicked about their relationship. Definitely an age/power imbalance there.

I feel like we kind of put authors of fantasy in a no-win situation when it comes to LGBT representation though, unless the author’s world is actually supposed to be paradise on that front. Either they don’t include them at all, and possibly get called out as heteronormative but at any rate have a less diverse world, or if they include them they’re expected to have their characters be “woke� about it by our own 21st century standards. Having the transgender character be a mass murderer is obviously unfortunate and avoidable, but wouldn’t someone who is not familiar with transgender issues in the way modern social justice advocates are describe the situation exactly like the passage above? This doesn’t mean it isn’t invalidating for readers, so maybe they should leave these characters out if they can’t be empowering, I don’t know.

First, I think there is already a certain level of suspension of disbelief involved in writing fantasy, and I think that it's okay for that suspension of disbelief to extend past the fantastical magical elements to the world's social mores too. Why, in Game of Thrones, for instance, are we able to suspend disbelief regarding dragons and white walkers but not the prospect of a world where women are not constantly abused? To me it's an arbitrary demarcation and if you're able to make up whatever you want regarding magic systems and creatures that imagination can also extend to writing a world where women, people of color and LGBT people are regarded/ treated in a way that doesn't match historical trends.
The other option is to write a world where there groups do face marginalization and othering, but to engage with that oppression meaningfully and thoughtfully. Maybe, in this case, Yelena could have talked to Ambrose and he could have had the opportunity to correct her regarding her misconceptions - he could have explained to her that no, he isn't a woman with some kind of complex, he really is a man. Of course in that case you have the issue of a marginalized person having to explain their oppression to a privileged one, but at least in this case Yelena's assumptions would be corrected, the reader might have something to think about and Ambrose would be given a voice about his identity instead of having it all be filtered through the mind of someone who invalidates his identity.
So I think there are ways to navigate this for sure! Sorry for the rant haha, this is one of my pet topics!

I definitely agree with you on authors not defaulting to oppression mindlessly. But I also think there are good reasons for portraying oppression. Game of Thrones for instance is actually supposed to be set in a brutal, awful, violent world. Reading it feels slightly icky and claustrophobic, which I think is exactly as intended: all these characters are trapped in awful situations in an awful world and there's no way out but through and no guarantee they won't die horribly. Sexual and gendered violence are part of that, but so is tons of casual murder and non-sexual violence, torture, slow deaths from festering wounds, etc., etc. I take issue with the way some of Martin's imitators seem to toss in rape for "gritty flavor" without seeming to understand what it means. Martin himself is borderline to me but I tend to come down on the side of: he does understand what it means, and he wants his world to be as brutal as he can realistically get away with because that's the kind of story he is trying to tell. If you want dragons but sexual equality and lack of violence, it isn't your series, but I don't think that means he was wrong to do it. (Now, if he said he had to do it for accuracy, the way some fans do, I agree that would be bullshit.)
From not having read this book, it sounds like the transgender element is a relatively small piece of it, but I can certainly see a situation where engaging with it on that level isn't consistent with the author's goals for the story. If the author's purpose is to inspire readers by portraying a society in which distinctions that cause discrimination in our world don't matter, that's great and there should always be books like that. But if the author's purpose is, say, to create a world based on some historical society, in which awareness of transgender issues is non-existent, I don't think the characters in it - even the trans ones - would really have the tools to say something like "it isn't that I feel like a man, I actually am a man." I'm not sure many people in our society had the tools to make that distinction 20, or even 10 years ago.
Maybe that one just sticks out to me more because it's more of a "cutting edge" social justice issue in my own society. Historically, probably tons of women actually believed that they were biologically programmed to be less intelligent than men, but no one (other than maybe neckbeards) expects that of female characters in historical settings. So I don't know. It just.... doesn't seem great to expect that any author who includes a trans character must also include social justice content, even if they don't feel they actually have anything to say on that point. But I'm sure my thoughts on this will continue to evolve.

But yeah, some of my favorite fantasy books are books that address oppression head on. I've been seeking these out for a long time, especially stories that have to do with sexual assault because of how much they mean to me personally. Basically the difference between oppressive world-building that I like and oppressive world-building that I dislike is the following:
1) Does the author meaningfully address the psychological and emotional complexity and pain of what it's like to live with oppression? So in the case of rape, do they depict what it's like to live through trauma? Or does a character get raped and then have no real response to that whatsoever and just continue on like it never happened? Do we even get to see what it means to them and how they respond?
2) Does the author meaningfully address the complex mechanisms by which that oppression operates? I'm not personally very interested in stories about the rape of women where the message is simply that "eh the world is shitty and horrible for women." I'm interested examinations of how rape culture forms and interacts with constructions of masculinity, femininity, heterosexuality, the power dynamics associated with victim blaming and letting perpetrators off the hook.
I'm definitely not saying that an author 100% has to do all of those things whenever they write about rape, but if you don't at least try to at least consider a few of those things then why are you really including it in your story? For shock value? Insta-grit in your world-building? Both of those feel a little exploitative of real world suffering to me.

That makes total sense! Books are read by real people, after all, and it's hard to argue that some sort of artistic expression is more important than not hurting readers.
I think where I'm struggling with this, specifically on the trans issue, is that it feels like there's no middle ground between advancing social justice and being oppressive. Does that make sense? Whereas, say, with female characters, there are a lot of books out there that are regressive and misogynistic, there are a lot of books out there that are feminist and progressive in various ways, but then there are many - probably most of them - that aren't really either. They have women in them, they don't really have anything new to say about being a woman, they don't push the envelope, but they also don't have any particularly troubling content. Which makes sense, because most authors aren't actively trying to advance feminism, they're trying to tell a story and they will almost always have women in it. Especially with male authors, if they can just make their women three-dimensional, believable characters and avoid nasty faux pas, that's cool with me.
So what I'm wondering is, where is that middle ground for trans characters? If an author thinks a character should be trans, either for a plot point or because it seems right for the character or because it's a large world and they want to reflect real human variety in it, but they don't personally have anything to say about trans issues and feel that cutting-edge activism would be out of place in their story, is there a way to do this?




Amelia thank you for the comment! I absolutely agree that it's all too common for us to feel like we have to keep the peace and placate. I've definitely gotten more comfortable writing negative reviews since I wrote this one but I still only really feel comfortable writing negative review of books that are massively popular already, where I know one bad review won't absolutely destroy the author if they're on ŷ, you know? Ah well, it's a work in progress!


Yeah, you're totally right! Thanks, Myth, I needed that!!!

I'm glad you enjoyed the book and thanks for the input!
As far as the issue of trans representation goes, I don't think I really explained it well in my initial review but I always struggle with this debate in fantasy. But usually I feel that real world dynamics of oppression don't necessarily have to transfer to a fantasy world even if they are set in a "past" world because there are all kinds of other differences between the fantasy world and the real world - so why not a difference in how trans people or women etc are treated? Anything is possible!
I definitely don't always feel this way though, because some of my favorite fantasy books are all about oppression - but the difference is that these issues are interrogated in a really thorough way in those books, which I didn't feel was the case here. You're probably right that the topic is explored further in the next books, so I guess I'll just have to see for myself.
As for Valek and Yelena my main concern was definitely the power imbalance given that she was basically a slave, I don't remember off the top of my head how old she was but i remember feeling like the gap contributed to the overall icky dynamic between the two.

Plus, a book just has a lot more credibility when it has some negative reviews (this is especially the case for lesser-known books) - nothing is perfect and nothing works for everybody, so if I see a book with only positive reviews, all that tells me is that no one has yet come along to point out its negative aspects. Which means I'm taking more of a gamble by reading it. If I can weigh the positives and negatives I feel more confident knowing I'll like something.
I'd like to think most authors don't read GR reviews, or if they choose to do so, it's because they can take it. But when people are specific about what worked and didn't, they can at least use that information to decide whether there's something they need to work on to improve future books, or if what's being criticized is just a baked-in part of their style, they can better pinpoint who's really part of their intended audience and who is not.

Emma thanks for such a thoughtful comment. I truly had never thought about it from that perspective before, but what you're saying makes so much sense. I get worried thinking about how I might hurt an author's feelings but I never thought about how a constructive negative review might be a good thing.


It's not for me but a lot of people on here really liked it, so it might still be worth a read!


Yeah, I can think of many other romances I've read that resonated so much more. I didn't really care about this one at all.


Yeah, agreed. Sorry you felt you wasted your time!

Great minds and all that!

