This book was unfortunately 2.5 stars for me. I believe the book has both objective issues and subjective issues that are specific to my experience reading it.
1. anachronisms: For example, the book takes place in alternate history sort-of England circa 1890, however, the term “head honcho” is used. That phrase originates from American POWs in Japan in World War II, and should have EASILY been caught during editing. As a second example, Nathan refers to “neurons firing” in his POV, but later shows period-typical ignorance of human internal anatomy. Besides, in reality, neurons weren’t even described until the late 1880s and wouldn’t have been widely known by random soldiers until much later.
2. Clunky word choice: Nathan is described as surveying a place with “a clearer degree of clarity”. And later, within a couple paragraphs of one another, two different women’s emotions are described as being “maternal” (alarm and pride, respectively). These among some other examples.
3. The book feels averse to the monstrousness of its own monster characters: while it’s true that the book is peppered with mentions of “predatory” walks/gazes, these come off as performative, since nothing remotely predatory actually happens. Vlad, a vampire, doesn’t drink blood or even crave it throughout the book. When Nathan, a werewolf, takes his wolf form, he behaves like a golden retriever, even demanding to play fetch and accepting pets. In the end, there was very little point in Vlad being a vampire and Nathan being a werewolf. They could have both been human and the plot would not need to change at all, outside some superficial tweaks. This is definitely a personal preference thing. I don’t like the fluffy, silly sterilization of monster creatures.
4. The characters are incurious about the story they are in: Nathan doesn’t seem to care what exactly happened to the previous captain of the guard, even after finding an encrypted journal taped under his desk. He just accepts the explanation “too much absinthe” without question. For a second example, I am VERY surprised that Ursula did not think to pick up a book on botany during her year of checking on ancestral trees. Additionally, once the identity of the fungus is found, she doesn’t so much as muse out loud at how improbable it is that ALL the ancestral trees were poisoned at about the same time. She just says, “It pops up outside the waste for time to time!” Like BRUH.
5. Infuriating depictions of women: the author cherry-picked which things she wished to make period typical, and which not to. So, there is no period typical homophobia or enbyphobia. There is little to no racism (based on skin color). But the women! They get to behave like 19th century caricatures. Generally disinterested in politics, obsessed with dresses and matchmaking and gossip. Worst victims of this treatment: Kitty, Ria, Mrs Collins and Lady M. In our main characters’ POVs the women are regarded as tiresome, demanding, amusing, in need of protection, dramatic, hysterical, cute, and maternal, as needed. The exception: Ursula, who is very literally not like other girls.
6. Vlad’s treatment of Lady M: the way Vlad treats Lady M is astounding to me. Her panic attacks and poor mental health are waved off as being hysteria. “Any excuse to be dramatic” he says about the woman whose only children died tragically before her eyes not too long ago. Additionally, when Nathan asks why Vlad took the blame for Elizabeth’s transformation, Vlad responds “I couldn’t hurt her like that, Lady M.” And describes Lady M as a “silly grieving woman”. “I wasn’t about to take her husband away from her.” So Vlad places HIS OWN DECISION to not hold the Count accountable completely onto Lady M because… her children died? That literally has nothing to do with why the Count transformed Elizabeth anyway. It was a coincidence that Vlad had brought Elizabeth to the castle around that time. For a book that purports to hold an enlightened position on chronic illness and mental health, this is a telling exception, especially since Vlad is never challenged or contradicted in the misogynistic/patronizing way he regards Lady M and other women in his life (including Ria and Mrs Collins).
7. Depiction of Elizabeth: to start, I would like to note that Vlad has an equally patriarchal attitude toward Elizabeth as well. He blames himself for Elizabeth’s transformation because he “put her in the path” of the Count. As if she has no agency of her own and didn’t actively seek the count out and persuade him to transform her into a vampire. Anyway, Elizabeth plays the role of hypocritical bully and jealous manipulator. Awesome. I thought for sure it was going to be revealed that she has plots of her own, but no, aside from manufacturing a blatantly false, biologically impossible rumor about Ria, and being financially irresponsible she just wants to have some mean girl fun. A tidbit I noticed which irked me is that when Elizabeth is being magically uninvited from the castle, the book lingers on the moment when her wig falls off her head, revealing cropped blond hair, and she scrabbles pathetically on the floor to clutch the wig back to her. The humiliation of a woman by removing her wig left a bad taste in my mouth that I have trouble explaining.
8. Instant sexual attraction is boring: Vlad is instantly intimidated and aroused by Nathan. Nathan is instantly attracted to Vlad. Vlad and Nathan are both instantly attracted to Ursula and her lovely butt. They don’t look twice at any other man or woman’s butt for the entire novel. We obviously will only ever be aroused by the hotness of our soul mates and no other hotness. And arousal at hotness will always precede romantic attraction. This is more of a genre issue and one of my personal pet peeves than a unique issue of Hunger Pangs. Vlad and Nathan have no relationship conflict, only harmony and understanding as they learn more about each other. EH. Whatever. Their sex scene was fine, no notes, good communication is a very positive thing. (Although I do wonder how Nathan has never been called “sir” during sex before considering his extensive military experience and apparent concurrent sexual experience).
9. Miscellaneous: There are dozens of cringey, awkward and/or contradictory moments throughout this novel, but one of the best is when Vlad shows Nathan his preserved lower fang in a jar, dated 100 years before Elizabeth’s transformation. Since that fang is needed in order to transform someone into a vampire, Nathan of course instantly deduces that it would be physically impossible for Vlad to be responsible for Elizabeth’s transformation. Vlad praises Nathan for being unusually perceptive, “you know, hundreds of people have seen this, and not one of them ever figured it out”. I cannot emphasize enough what utter contrived nonsense this is. HUNDREDS of people failed to make such an incredibly simple connection? Like if someone were accused of leaving a handwritten ransom note.. but they have no hands. I am DECEASED.
10. Fiddledee: first of all, Nathan does not appreciate Fiddledee. Second of all, the man’s middle name is Humperdink, a fact which instantly elevated the text to crack. I don’t make the rules.
Now, there are plenty of good and intriguing things going on in this book as well. It’s just that 90% of them are unresolved. I am left with many questions: why are the mines so important to the Count? What has he been plotting? Does he have anything to do with the poisoned trees? How long has he been mind-controlling Vlad? Did Nathan’s father have anything to do with the poisoning of their ancestral tree? Does that have anything to do with his sudden downturn in health? What did the previous captain of the guard discover on Eyrie? Why did he disappear? What is the Count plotting with the refugees? Does he just need bodies for some sinister reason? Why does the sentient rose (shown to be a good judge of character) hate Rook so much? Does Elizabeth have any larger plot after all?
I just have to wait for the characters to start asking these questions themselves. And not take *shrug* “too much absinthe” or similar rubbish for an answer.