Book Review: The Tulip Touch
Dec. 17th, 2009 09:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerThird: I read a really awesome children's book at the library yesterday: Anne Fine's The Tulip Touch, which is a beautifully written, loosely plotted meditation about the nature of evil.
...especially a children's book, because children's books with messages are not renowned for their subtlety, and any halfway readable discussion of evil needs a lot of nuance.
(I'm about to spoiler the book profusely.)
The Tulip Touch has that nuance. The narrator is Tulip's best friend, Natalie, a basically decent girl from a decent family who willingly follows Tulip through a series of ever more vicious games. They play "Smelly Mackeral," which involves looking at a passerby and pretending he smells. They wrap up some dried dog poop and give it to a classmate as a "Christmas present." They put roadkill in people's rabbit hutches...and so forth, until finally Natalie feels they've gone to far, and abandons Tulip.
But not without cost. Her friendship with Tulip hasn't been completely given over to evil; they played lots of lovely games too, like "Watch the Sky"; they have a lovely time together every Christmas; and the book, and this is rare, especially in a children's book, really captures the perverse pleasures of being nasty and vicious and cruel. It hurts everyone else, but it binds Natalie and Tulip together; and, after all, it's not like other people have feelings really.
Or they do, rather - Natalie knows they do, because Tulip hurts her feelings on a regular basis - but it doesn't seem to matter as much as having Tulip for a best friend.
The really striking thing about the book is that, for all this villainy on Tulip's part, it keeps Tulip balanced uneasily between "mistreated and misunderstood child" and "total psychopath." She emotionally and physically (and probably sexually, although it's only implied) abused, but some of her behavior is so awful that even abuse can't explain it all. Or can it? We find out, for instance, that she drowns kittens. But, she says, if she didn't drown them, her father would - and he doesn't drown them as quickly and mercifully as she does.
Although she could be lying - Tulip, as Natalie tells us, lies as she breathes, and she's a good liar. She throws in that little touch (the "Tulip Touch") that makes even the most ridiculous lies believable.
But even if her father does drown kittens - and it's certainly in character - doesn't it indicate some degree of pathology that she can drown kittens so effectively? She shows all three signs of the sociopathic triad: animal cruelty, fire-setting, and bed-wetting. So maybe she is a psychopath. But then, look at her home life; she clearly learned cruelty there, and such stress would drive anyone to bed-wetting. But what about the fires...?
But Natalie enjoys the fires too. Although Natalie finally backs out after she and Tulip burn down a shed - she's realized just how destructive and dangerous their games have gotten - it's not without some regret. She notes that she dreamed of the fire (and not nightmares; horrible but beautiful dreams) for a long time afterward.
Natalie, although she's very much effaced by Tulip - even though Natalie is narrating, Tulip has a much stronger presence - is the character who really makes the book possible. Tulip invents their games, but Natalie follows cheerfully along for almost all of them. Natalie is the banality of evil: the average person who follows her leader straight down into Hell.
And even after Natalie abandons Tulip, she remains uneasily aware that she's just left Tulip down there to be miserable, and burn. But Tulip brought it on herself! - but Tulip couldn't help it; but she's so mean to everyone, how could you expect anyone to help her? - but still, Natalie should have done something...but what? She was no good at curbing Tulip's behavior. No one is any good at curbing Tulip's behavior. Maybe if they'd gotten her away from her parents sooner...? But she's been drowning kittens ever since that first time Natalie saw her. Maybe she's unsalvageable? But no one even tried.
This tangle is obviously unanswerable, and the book leaves Natalie entangled. It's one of the best fictional explorations of evil I've ever seen - and operating under the length and content restrictions of a children's novel, nonetheless - with beautifully drawn characters, who are both despicable and sympathetic, simple but graceful language, and an episodic plot that is nonetheless totally absorbing. It's a brilliant book and I would recommend it unreservedly to adults.
To kids? ...well, that would depend on the kid. It's marketed for sixth to eighth graders; sensitive kids might find Tulip and Natalie off-putting, and insensitive kids might think some of their milder games sound awfully fun. (Did I mention that this book does a really, really good job showing the seductive qualities of cruelty? Tulip is clearly a terrible friend, but it's nonetheless perfectly clear why Natalie continues to hang out with her for so long: being mean is so fun.)
But it would be worth putting in front of any voracious reader. It will make certainly make her think; it has me thinking still.
****
ETA: In other news....IT'S SNOWING!
Yes, of course I'm going to go get hot chocolate. Why do you even ask?
...especially a children's book, because children's books with messages are not renowned for their subtlety, and any halfway readable discussion of evil needs a lot of nuance.
(I'm about to spoiler the book profusely.)
The Tulip Touch has that nuance. The narrator is Tulip's best friend, Natalie, a basically decent girl from a decent family who willingly follows Tulip through a series of ever more vicious games. They play "Smelly Mackeral," which involves looking at a passerby and pretending he smells. They wrap up some dried dog poop and give it to a classmate as a "Christmas present." They put roadkill in people's rabbit hutches...and so forth, until finally Natalie feels they've gone to far, and abandons Tulip.
But not without cost. Her friendship with Tulip hasn't been completely given over to evil; they played lots of lovely games too, like "Watch the Sky"; they have a lovely time together every Christmas; and the book, and this is rare, especially in a children's book, really captures the perverse pleasures of being nasty and vicious and cruel. It hurts everyone else, but it binds Natalie and Tulip together; and, after all, it's not like other people have feelings really.
Or they do, rather - Natalie knows they do, because Tulip hurts her feelings on a regular basis - but it doesn't seem to matter as much as having Tulip for a best friend.
The really striking thing about the book is that, for all this villainy on Tulip's part, it keeps Tulip balanced uneasily between "mistreated and misunderstood child" and "total psychopath." She emotionally and physically (and probably sexually, although it's only implied) abused, but some of her behavior is so awful that even abuse can't explain it all. Or can it? We find out, for instance, that she drowns kittens. But, she says, if she didn't drown them, her father would - and he doesn't drown them as quickly and mercifully as she does.
Although she could be lying - Tulip, as Natalie tells us, lies as she breathes, and she's a good liar. She throws in that little touch (the "Tulip Touch") that makes even the most ridiculous lies believable.
But even if her father does drown kittens - and it's certainly in character - doesn't it indicate some degree of pathology that she can drown kittens so effectively? She shows all three signs of the sociopathic triad: animal cruelty, fire-setting, and bed-wetting. So maybe she is a psychopath. But then, look at her home life; she clearly learned cruelty there, and such stress would drive anyone to bed-wetting. But what about the fires...?
But Natalie enjoys the fires too. Although Natalie finally backs out after she and Tulip burn down a shed - she's realized just how destructive and dangerous their games have gotten - it's not without some regret. She notes that she dreamed of the fire (and not nightmares; horrible but beautiful dreams) for a long time afterward.
Natalie, although she's very much effaced by Tulip - even though Natalie is narrating, Tulip has a much stronger presence - is the character who really makes the book possible. Tulip invents their games, but Natalie follows cheerfully along for almost all of them. Natalie is the banality of evil: the average person who follows her leader straight down into Hell.
And even after Natalie abandons Tulip, she remains uneasily aware that she's just left Tulip down there to be miserable, and burn. But Tulip brought it on herself! - but Tulip couldn't help it; but she's so mean to everyone, how could you expect anyone to help her? - but still, Natalie should have done something...but what? She was no good at curbing Tulip's behavior. No one is any good at curbing Tulip's behavior. Maybe if they'd gotten her away from her parents sooner...? But she's been drowning kittens ever since that first time Natalie saw her. Maybe she's unsalvageable? But no one even tried.
This tangle is obviously unanswerable, and the book leaves Natalie entangled. It's one of the best fictional explorations of evil I've ever seen - and operating under the length and content restrictions of a children's novel, nonetheless - with beautifully drawn characters, who are both despicable and sympathetic, simple but graceful language, and an episodic plot that is nonetheless totally absorbing. It's a brilliant book and I would recommend it unreservedly to adults.
To kids? ...well, that would depend on the kid. It's marketed for sixth to eighth graders; sensitive kids might find Tulip and Natalie off-putting, and insensitive kids might think some of their milder games sound awfully fun. (Did I mention that this book does a really, really good job showing the seductive qualities of cruelty? Tulip is clearly a terrible friend, but it's nonetheless perfectly clear why Natalie continues to hang out with her for so long: being mean is so fun.)
But it would be worth putting in front of any voracious reader. It will make certainly make her think; it has me thinking still.
****
ETA: In other news....IT'S SNOWING!
Yes, of course I'm going to go get hot chocolate. Why do you even ask?
