Reviews and Comments

One of the things I'm noticing as differences between the books and the TV series is the number of women. WPC Jones features in at least two books, and she's removed entirely from the show; Mrs Butler comes with Mr Butler as a set in the books, but she's written out of the show. Sasha's sister (in the first book) is written out and collapsed into being their dead mother (so the mother's story is kept but it's his sister instead).

That latter one, with the sister, is peculiar because it actually includes a queer-ish storyline that is more interesting! Even if Phryne is still very straight in preference of Sasha, there is no admonishment of his sister being interested in Phryne (and even Phryne admitting that she's quite an attractive woman)... Which is still awkwardly refreshing because most books do this weird heavy-handed thing around someone being interested rather than just... it being a thing that happens and everything is fine?

And while I can understand why (somewhat), I do find that collapsing actually undermines some of the interest that Phryne could've had. Like, you sort of see it, but it's less present and less visible... And it's even more weird when you start recognising precisely what was collapsed and how it presented characters in the show.

This is probably not a good book for anyone who struggles with any form of second-hand embarrassment, regardless of age. It's also the kind of book that I think simultaneously has a lesson I enjoy (encouraging children to engage in creativity) but also a lesson that I find frustrating (using all of something that others might want to use in their own creativity and also causing a range of inconveniences for others). The latter lesson is, admittedly, not the focus, but it is something that I know reading it with kids would often prompt them to respond to it over the encouragement for being creative.

I think it's also worth recognising that these kinds of stories usually feature boys taking the protagonist role and behaving in what appears to be reckless manners (and being praised for it), while girls and women typically are shown to be looking on in degrees of disgust to horror or are downright shown as being incapable of doing much (with the teacher in the story hyperventilating). We should also be asking a question of how this story would be handled or treated should the protagonist be anyone other than a boy, even if we believe the story itself to be innocuous.

I already quite enjoyed the show Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries, so when I started seeing some of the books that it was based on being sold in the secondhand shop, I had to get them and see how different they are.

In terms of differences, while I understand why certain changes were made within the TV adaptation, I absolutely loved how certain characters were presented within the book over their show counterparts. I really like both presentations, but the book actually lets us get to know Mac a lot more (and she was always one of my favourite side characters in the show). I also feel like, while the show isn't totally disrespectful to them (other than the understandable antagonism between the police and the communists), Bert and Cec's role in the book is more clear and they don't get sidelined nearly as much.

Something I really like in the book regarding those character changes is that, by virtue of being a targeted communist and activist (striker), Bert does get away with being able to point out the ineptitude of the police. Because he's there, it actually makes it a little easier to tolerate the existence of the police.

Another thing that was in the book is that there was actually a singular woman police officer, and she was basically removed from the whole plot of the show. And while I'm not a fan of the attempts to kind of girl boss her a bit, I do think that she could provide another necessary foil for the police being inept. As in, she's on the force at a time when women were being underpaid and underrecognised and couldn't go any higher than a "woman police officer," enabling the force to be able to "deal with" women and children. For her character, this allows her to kind of highlight how absolutely backwards cops are, even from an inside perspective... which she does a little, but it's very minimal (and doing it more could've provided a bit more space to explore those themes, which do lead back to the intentional inability of police to handle certain problems).

Perhaps that kind of low-key theme in Miss Fisher has been why it's captivated me for so long, which is something that a lot of mystery books often struggle with more. The books still have the frustrating aspect of relying on the police (to do the jobs they never really do well), but it's actually handled a bit differently because almost everyone (Phryne, Bert, Cec, and Mac) tends to start off trying to handle the problems themselves and then go "Well, I guess if we have to... get the cops." And while it's still not perfect, that does actually provide space for better commentary (even if by accident).

Oh, and I like that the book doesn't do one of the things the show does, which is the "will they, won't they" romance of Phryne and Jack (the detective-inspector). So far, there has been zero romantic tension between the two. There is the friendly banter where Phryne is frequently trying to get him to let her participate in investigations, but there hasn't been a suggestion of romance. I didn't really like this because I often found that it took away from other relationships in the show in order to focus on these two; it also often took away from the mystery itself.

The concept of this book is at least interesting (a boy whose birthday it is 'hijacks' a story about a birthday bunny, changing it to a story of a battle bunny), but that's about it.

In terms of legibility, this book is way too hard to follow. Because it's written with scratching out lines (and still seeing them), it makes it very distracting and hard to know where you're supposed to look. The whole book is written in the style of a kid writing on top of an already published children's story. That's kind of cool, but the messiness makes it confusing; as an adult with dyslexia, I occasionally got lost figuring out which line to focus on. I can only imagine how a child with a reading disorder (or even a new reader) might get confused. (I do like the style, but I think it needs to be revamped to be clearer.)

I'm also kind of bored by the constant narrative of "boys will imagine war." Why? Why can't boys imagine something other than fighting and dropping bombs on people? I don't really think this is a necessary stereotype to perpetuate, especially in the current climate. Granted, I also would've said the same thing when it was published in 2013. The stories for and about boys are so limiting that it feels uncomfortable, and we really should be discouraging a positive interest in war.

I am going to preface this with a few things: I'm not a fan of the weird pro-police and pro-justice sentiment toward the end (particularly with the inclusion of a dirty cop as one of the antagonists); I feel like the stance on drugs is a bit archaic and fails to really reckon with something one of the characters mentions (recreation vs. addiction, among other aspects like how some people will prey on the poor); and I sort of have this mixed feeling on the presentation of the teenagers in the story (for the record, I know it's not super uncommon for teenagers to live alone and near their schools, especially for those who are older and have to travel long distances; it's more just... their behaviour in this situation because it felt like they didn't need to be teenagers).

That said, I don't think it's bad. I think there are areas where it spends a lot of time conflicting with itself; in some cases, that works (the framing of "Lumikki never asks for help" actually works well in this manner), but there are others where it feels like the contradictions are the result of an external worldview that definitely doesn't gel with mine and is one that I commonly find myself questioning.

As for the resolution of the story, I feel like it also contradicts with itself. There is this feeling of quasi-relief, where some people are "where they belong" while others aren't. And it's just peculiar. But that contradiction is probably what enables this to be a series.

It's been a while since I really found a book that I just gelled with. Like, really gelled with because of its sense of humour (when it's called for), structure, style, and characters. It's also a bit more distant from the police (though they still exist), including some actual critique of the police and how connections corrupt. It's still pretty minimal, but it's so much nicer in that regard than a lot of other mystery/detective fiction where they highlight how police do so little and then are promptly running to the cops to fix things, while this is more of a tenuous situation of people both using the tools they have (individual cops) and recognising that the whole thing sucks.

Again, it's not full-on anti-police, but it at least recognises aspects that other detective fiction often glosses over... And I appreciate that.

It also indicated that there'd be a romance within it, and I was very... whew. I was hopeful at the beginning that that wouldn't be the focus or shift into the focus, and it doesn't. It's very cute and sweet, but it's not displacing the mystery. I was afraid it would, but I was pleasantly surprised that it didn't.

There are two things that I'm not liking about this book.

First, I hate how many clauses within clauses Said uses. It makes it really hard to follow a sentence and understand what it's trying to say, which is already difficult as a dyslexic reader. For him being the "accessible" option to learning about Orientalism, it makes me wonder how inaccessible other works are seen to be. Even upon re-reading sentences, I often find myself lost in trying to figure out what is even meant by it. This is more than likely a me-thing, but it's just frustrating (and this is coming from someone who often gets accused of not being straightforward enough in English and using clauses within clauses).

Second, there is a ridiculous amount of untranslated text. For a book written in English, I never thought I'd need to be proficient in either German (which I'm okay with) and French (which I'm not okay with). Especially the latter. With few exceptions, there are whole chunks of untranslated references, which decreases clarity of the examples given.

I am not opposed to doing the work to understand something on its own terms, but I do find myself getting gradually annoyed because I can't figure out how to read sentences to make them comprehensible (either because of punctuation choices or because of language decisions).

If anything, and perhaps this is what enables me to be more forgiving of these two frustrating things, the exhaustion of trying to read about Orientalism is only a glimmer of the exhaustion of living the realities of Orientalism.

There are two things that I'm not liking about this book, though one is something that I can find roughly forgivable even if it's infuriating.

First, I hate how many clauses within clauses Said uses. It makes it really hard to follow a sentence and understand what it's trying to say, which is already difficult as a dyslexic user. For him being the "accessible" option to learning about Orientalism, it makes me wonder how inaccessible other works seen to be. Even upon re-reading sentences, I often find myself lost in trying to figure out what is even meant by it. This is more than likely a me-thing, but it's just frustrating (and this is coming from someone who often gets accused of not being straightforward enough in English and using clauses within clauses).

Second, there is a ridiculous amount of untranslated text. For a book written in English, I never thought I'd need to be proficient in either German (which I'm okay with) and French (which I'm not okay with). Especially the latter. With few exceptions, there are whole chunks of untranslated references, which decreases clarity of the examples given.