The House in the Cerulean Sea - Review on itās Gender problems
#3 book in 2022, Re-read
Intersectional Book Review on Sexism, Diversity & Ace-Representation
Caseworker Linus Baker getās an assignment classified level 4. It sends him on a journey all the way to the countryside, to an house in the Cerualean Sea.
Linus has seen a lot of unusual kids as a caseworker for the Department in Charge of Magical Youth (DICOMY), but nothing prepared him for living a whole month with 6 kids, that might be the strangest of them all.
This is another book about Magical kids living together in some kind of school / home. But also itās not. First of all: The perspective is very unusual- the story is told by an outsider, by someone who works for the ministry and lives by a book called āRules and Regulationsā. This takes some time getting used to it, especially in the beginnig. But as the story unfoldes we get to be part of a children story told for adults. We get to read a story thatās a very smart comment on Discrimination.
Let me tell you before we start: I am conflicted by this book. I adore it. Deeply. But I also had a hard time reading it, because it is very much a male narrative that has little space for other genders. Which was really sad to me, because otherwise it would be pretty perfect!
The gender part contains mild spoilers. Mild meaning that reading this section will take some surprise moments in the beginning of the book away from you, but it wonāt tell you important story aspects.
Below there will be heavy spoilers. Whenever they occure it is noted.
What I liked: The atmosphere and topics of this book reminded me so much on the world children live in, but it still felt relevant as an adult book. I think that is not easy to accomplish! I liked how the change of Linus Baker gave me hope for change in adult life. I really liked the characters (apart from the issues mentioned below) and the setting was beautiful.
The names of certain things in this book are really great. Like āExtremly Upper Managmentā.
On Heteronormativity This book only features gay couples, as such it defeates Heteronormativiy (there are, overall, only three relationships featured). Apart from that the book mostly does not adress queer questions. It has no discussion of queer identity whatssoever. Which can be viewed as progressiv, I think, since the queerness of characters simply is and does not need adressing.
On gender issues this is a very Heteronormative book, more below.
On Gender:Ā This part contains mild spoilers.
Six kids are featured in the book: 2 girls, 2 boys and 2 non human species who identify as male. I have several points of critique here. First of all: Including non-human species gives the opportunity to set different rules for the specie. Why do those species have to have gender? Why do they operate on a two-gender-spectrum? It would not have to be like this. They could have other genders, more genders, no gender. Gender could be irrelevant to them or a lot more complicated.
Second: If those totally non-human species operate on the gender-binary- fine. But WHY do BOTH of them identify as male? The narrative does not give any reason for this, except for gender stereotypes: Both are kinda scary and dangerous.
Gender stereotypes are such a strong issue in this book, that I will give them their own category.
On Gender Stereotypes: Ā This part contains spoilers that are plot relevant.
We have six kids:
Talia. She is special because she is female. Literally. The reason why she is a special case is, because she is a female gnome. Now, this could be fun. There could be a reason for female gnomes to be special: Special set of skills. Specially strong discrimination, because she is female and has a beard.
Well, let me tell you: The book gives you NO reason. Here, being female is used to make her more exotic. It annoys me, because the book already has a very bad female:male ratio. If there were as much females as males in this book, I would not mind this at all. But females are already exotic in this book, because there are very little of them. Talias being special as a female puts even more emphasis on women not being the usual.
Also there is some fond use of the āteenage girlsā stereotype. I think it kinda fits this book and character, I liked it. But I was also annoyed, because we have literally 2 girls here and one is a stereotype.
Phee. Whenever she is described there is heavy emphazis on how fragil she looks and how distant and powerful she is.
She has a tragic backstory, which holds no influence at all in the presence. There are no issues that arise from it. Actually we only get to know about it in the end of the book- not for the character, but for making a point about hoe someone else treated her.
She has very little screen time compared to the others. Again: it fits her character and narrative wise I think her being all mysterious and not that present was fine. Looking on gender it was frustrating, We now have two girls: One of them is a gender stereotype, the other is mostly absent.
Both girls do not undergo change in this book. They donāt have a character arc. Talias storyline is how her relationship towards Linus Baker changes. Phee has no story line at all. When she appears, she teaches Linus something about the world he lives in.
Again, we are back to stereotypes: Both girl storylines are focussed on relationships and taking care of another person.
Its a very different story for the boys!
Lucifer / Lucy is perceveid as very dangerous creature first. His is terrifing, but in the course of the book more and more we learn to see him as a little boy. Lucy too has a arc that is mostly defined through his relation towards Linus. Compared to Talia though, he actually changes. A lot. In the beginning he will have several lines about destruction and death whenever he appears. Later on this rarely happens anymore and if it does, it reads very different. In the beginning he presents as powerful and almighty. Later he gets moments of being vulnerable and being cared for.
Lucy is neither falling into typical male tropes, nor does he defy them.
Sal has a real change arc in himself: Allowing himself to view the island as his home. How much he has changed is even explicitly stated in the Epilogue.
Sal is actually a character defying male stereotypes: He is very big and strong, but silent and sensitive. He changes into a small dog, which puts emphasis onto the point of a big male person being some who can take care of others, but also needs to be taken care of.
Theodore. Listen. There is no indication of his gender ever. There is no reason he is male, except for his name. Why? Why does he have to have a gendered name? He is a wyvern, he could have a made up name with no gender attached to it. Theodore also does not have a story arc himself. He is mostly a support character for Linus development.
Chauncey- he is not a human, but referred to as he. He also has a scene in which he exclaims āIām a boy! - I think?ā Chauncey has a strong character arc. He has a big dream and from the very beginning it seems very unlikly that his dream comes true. His life prospects change in this book, he is the only kid that does not exist narrative wise for the support of Linus development. He is the part of the story, that shows the discrimination the kids face.
Conclusion: So, we have 2 girls: One of them is framed as a stereotype/exotic because of her gender, one is without her own story.
We have 4 boys: two of them undergo strong change, two of them have a character arc, one of them activly defies stereotypes. None of them is a male stereotype. One of them is a support character.
But- letās also look at the adults!
Zoe- Zoe is a sprite, she is ancient, the island is hers, they can only live there, because she allows it.
Somehow she never does mysterious things. She does all the little organizing things that must be done: Driving Linus around. Shopping. She is in charge of the kitchen. She teaches.She does not have any story in this book, apart from changing her mind about Linus, which happens very quickly. She has no hobbies, no duties for herself, no special interest, expect for children and the safety of her island. She dresses beautifully and always looks nice.
Arthur- he is very mysterious. We know little about him. His tragic story is a very important part of the overall story. He dresses strangely, which gives him character. He obviously loves books, which is visible in the whole house and also in the life of the children, who try to be like him. He likes to have philoshophical conversations. He always knows whats going on. He is a love interest/lovely. He has anger issues. He was hurt in the past and it shows. He has a very distinct past, which gets told. We know quite a lot about him, when finishing the book.
On Sexism: Contains heavy spoilers.
Letās wrap up the Gender Stereotypes here, starting with: The female:male ratio with main characters is 3:6. Including sidecharacters its 8:18, counting everyone who has lines in the book.
Screentime wise Iād say itās probably 1:4 / 1:5.
In the end of the book we learn that Linus and Arthur are going to adopt the children. Sorry but: Am I the only person being really pissed about this? What about Zoe?! Zoe, who has given her place, her privacy (which was one of her most treasured things, as we learn!) and her love to those children. She has been there a lot longer than Linus.
The children see Arthur as their father- great! Amazing! He does a good job, truely! But why do they not see Zoe as their mother? Why is Zoe excluded from this?!
Here the story changes, quite suddenly, into a heteronormative narrative in which 2 adults + children build a family. Zoe can stay as some sort of nanny, but she is not really relevant to their plans of being a family.
And this is the overall issue of this book: The females are not relevant. They exist to support the story, to support the male characters. They love to garden and to cook and to take care, but they donāt have any other features of their own. They are either already perfect or they donāt want anything or they are simply not relevant, while the boys have issues and dreams to overcome, they have pasts that still influence them. They have struggles and quirks, that exist for themself and themself alone.
One scene, that infuriates me the most, takes place in the ice cream parlor. Helen, the most interesting female character in this book (who also has nothing else to do, but support other peoples plans all day long) has just fought for the children to get ice cream. Under her breath she says āWhat a draft little bitchā to the guy who has discriminated against the children. They LOVE her using swear words. It is followed by Talia saying āI want to be just like you when I grow up.ā Phee is noding in agreement. None of the boys comment on this. So- because Helen is a woman, OF COURSE only the girls want to be like her! She has just fought for them and is now serving them ice cream, but silly me thinking that a woman could also be a role model for boys. Here I was thinking the only display of a female person being an interesting character could be interesting for boys too. How foolish of me.
This book contains so many little unconfortable moments:
When children have free time: Zoe cooks dinner, while Arthur has philosophical conversations with Lucy about Kant.
The ferry guy always tells Zoe to āTell Arthur the fee has doubledā. Liked- she is a care taker too? Why not just tell it to her? Is Arthur her boss and in charge?
On Diversity: All the relationships are queer. Genderwise no diversity.
Regarding POC Iād actually like to know how an OwnVoice would comment on the quality of the representation. The book has two black characters, but I could not figure out how I felt about them being black. It kinda did not matter at all and I was not sure how to think about that. The character of Zoe also felt slighlty uncomfortable trope wise.
It does this thing, where skin colour is only really mentioned with black people.
What I learned: Well. First of all I learned that I find gay books that discriminate against women very tiring.
Apart from that I really liked how discrimination was adressed in this book. I think the metapher used worked really well. I liked how this book gave an outlook on systemic change- it made me realize how I did not expect a approach on this at all. It also made me realize how much I dislike my job.
If this book would have been more aware about gender, it would have had so much potential! Chauncey as a girl would have been amazing: He could keep all his traits that make him a bellhope (which are coded male) but identify as a girl. That would have been a character defying female stereotypes.
Theodore could have been not-gendered. Talia could have had some special powers (favorable male coded) that caused something at some point (similar to Lucys nightmare or very different), having another moment of distress in the book. Having a male sprite would actually have been pretty interesting, since they are so heavily female coded (etheral and lightly). Lucy as daughter of the devil? That would have been even more creative!
My point is: Playing with gender, in my opinion, adds to the narrative. Characters that are different than we expect them to be, are more interesting than them being stereotypes or tropes that we have read a thousand times already.
This is a book about defying stereotypes and seing beyond the obvious. Sadly the book does not manage to do so regarding gender.
I love the story, but I would never gift this book to a person growing up. It shows a gendered world I donāt care for. It shows a gendered world, that I wish to overcome.
Iāll end this here- and do some gender-stereotypes-defying things.
