Review: "Our Kind of Cruelty," by Araminta Hall

Cue the debate! All right, so right now this one is being given a mid-star rating while I let it digest (with a slight leaning toward the 4th star....Goodreads, give us more stars or half stars already!) I'll get the easy points out of the way. First, the book, although only 273 pages long, could have been reduced to a novella. Perhaps something in the 150-page range. The book is split into 3 parts; I really enjoyed parts 1 and 3. Part 2, however, dragggggged on for me. Part 2 was quite redundant and repetitive, which I suppose is the whole point on the theme of obsessive behaviour. But I found myself skimming through sections of part 2 in the hope that it would get to something a bit more different. What am I talking about? Well, part 1 is the introduction of the characters, the laying down of their personalities and of the atmosphere so that we get to understand where this story is going. Part 3 takes us into the trial (literally a criminal trial) which is very interesting and captivating. Part 2 is very long and drawn out, a fleshing out of the characters' personalities in what I thought was an attempt to set us up for a big ol' fashioned twist. Alas, no twist. Not really. I kind of expected what was coming, because the longer part 2 was drawn out, the more I felt like the author was trying to make a political point than she was trying to tell a story. Which takes me to the more difficult part of the story to analyse, the part which makes this book a worthwhile read, the part which is bound to cause an argument or debate. Ultimately, this book's main theme revolves around the patriarchy and feminism, and how they clash. These themes are really displayed during the trial in part 3 of the book. Just look at how the judge treats the female attorneys, and just look at how Verity's role in the story is examined. I'm going to talk about this briefly without trying to give away too much detail. But the great debate in this one will be about who is the victim in this book. Is it Mike? or is it Verity? I want to preface this by saying that my review should in no way be construed to side with either party. I'm simply going to lay out the point of view from each side of the inevitable argument. Is Mike a victim, or is he the perpetrator? And, is Verity a victim or a perpetrator? If you're on Mike's side, you might say Mike is the victim of a woman who has used her charm and sexuality to seduce him and keep hold of him for what might be seen as selfish reasons. You might argue that Verity had chance after chance to go to the authorities to report Mike if she was threatened by his persistence to be with her. After all, she was never scared for her personal safety, and Mike never threatened that if she told the police he would harm her, so why not go to the police? Her behaviour could easily have been construed by Mike as "leading him on." Should Verity have just gone to the police early on and put an end to it all if she was genuinely done with Mike? Yes. Is it understandable that Mike could see Verity as still being in love with him, still playing the Crave? Yes. But, if you're on Verity's side, Verity is the victim of an obsessive, controlling, arguably mentally ill, person. She has repeatedly told Mike that she has moved on. She has stated that her actions, although appearing to be polite and misleading, were simply used so she wouldn't agitate an already unstable Mike. She didn't want to hurt Mike to the point that he would eventually become violent and hurt her, so for those reasons, her actions are perfectly understandable and justifiable. After all, Mike is someone with a troubled past and a history of violent outbursts. He is strong, quite capable of overpowering her if she put up a fight. Verity was displaying "keep your enemies closer" behaviour in an attempt to keep herself safe. Should Mike have stopped his obsessive behaviour the first time Verity told him she was moving on? Yes. Should Mike not have taken the hint when the woman he once dated got married? Obviously. Such is life that it is rarely black and white. But one lesson that should be taken away from this novel is that all victims (whether male or female) should be encouraged to speak to authorities when they feel they're being psychologically or physically abused. There is no shame in coming forward. So really, this book achieves it's purpose, which for me was to stir a debate and get people talking. It definitely has that going for it. Is it a book with a killer twist that will keep readers talking (read Behind Her Eyes for one of the all-time great endings)? Not really. Would I recommend it? Yes, for the sole purpose that it explores some very important themes worth talking about. Onward.