I just finished Ash by Malinda Lo. It's a lesbian retelling of Cinderella. Which is a cool concept. But it's a bit of surprise!lesbianism, which is something I don't really enjoy. I'm not a fan of any sort of surprise!relationship in a book, no matter where on the spectrum of sexuality it falls. It doesn't matter who's falling in love with whom, I need to know WHY these people are falling in love.
And in this book, I don't understand why Ash (the Cinderella character) loves Kaisa (who is basically the prince here). Quite literally, the moment of falling happens in one sentence. Ash doesn't even THINK about Kaisa that way until someone plants the idea in her head. The relationship between Ash and Sidhean (the fairy godfather in this story) is far better developed. It happens in a distanced, fairy tale sort of way, but you understand their attraction to one another. And the writing implies that the attraction is mutual.
The one thing this book had going for it was its views on sexuality. In this society, homosexuality was normalized--that is, nobody made a big deal if you liked people of the same gender. It was just another option. And it's implied (though somewhat unconsciously; it doesn't seem to be a very developed idea, as if Lo herself didn't know what she was talking about) that sexuality is a spectrum, not an either/or choice. It's quite clear that Ash has feelings for both Sidhean and Kaisa. Which is something that happens in real life.
However, Lo seems to completely ignore these ideas. Instead of recognizing that sexuality is not black and white; that you can have feelings for multiple genders, and that there are other definitions of sexuality between gay/straight/bi, Lo goes with a standard definition. Ash is a lesbian. That's all there is to it. That's how Lo views it. But the thing is, the text doesn't support that characterization. It's like Lo was trying to fit Ash into a box, and the fact of the matter is, she doesn't. And that's the way a lot of sexuality works: it doesn't fit neatly into a box. It's okay to have radical ideas about gender and sexuality. Just because it's a lesbian retelling doesn't automatically make it revolutionary or insightful. If the idea here is to normalize homosexuality (which I'm all for), then we should judge the book and the relationship itself on how well it is constructed. Which in this case is not good.
Without proper character development, this lesbian storyline comes off as a cheap trick. And what's more irritating is that Ash is completely helpless. Just because the main character is a lesbian doesn't mean the story is progressively feminist. What I mean is that Ash is saved by someone else, both a man and a woman. It doesn't matter that the twist is that she's saved from poverty by a woman; she still has to be saved. She still needs to be protected. How is that challenging prevailing ideologies about gender?
One thing we talked about a lot in my Teen Library Materials class (which is where I read this book) is the need for quality books about LGBT issues. Serving LGBT youth is considered one of the critical needs of YA librarianship. And that's why I had such high hopes for <i>Ash</i>. It seemed like a book that had a higher level of understanding of the concepts of gender and sexuality. But instead of going outside the box, Lo forces the story into a standard format, and the story completely falls apart. The lesbian aspect of this story comes off as a cheap trick, and I don't think anybody takes too kindly to a writer using a hook like that to draw in readers, especially when it can be such a touchy issue.
