JOINT REVIEW: Red, White and Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston
D Reviews / DNF Reviewsbisexual hero / campaign / diversity / England / joint review / LGBTQIA+ / m/m / NA / politics / prince / publicity / Washington DC32 Comments
Sirius and I both read accolades for Casey McQuiston’s debut, Red, White and Royal Blue, an m/m New Adult romance. We decided to review it together. – Janine
What happens when America’s First Son falls in love with the Prince of Wales?
When his mother became President, Alex Claremont-Diaz was promptly cast as the American equivalent of a young royal. Handsome, charismatic, genius—his image is pure millennial-marketing gold for the White House. There’s only one problem: Alex has a beef with the actual prince, Henry, across the pond. And when the tabloids get hold of a photo involving an Alex-Henry altercation, U.S./British relations take a turn for the worse.
Heads of family, state, and other handlers devise a plan for damage control: staging a truce between the two rivals. What at first begins as a fake, Instragramable friendship grows deeper, and more dangerous, than either Alex or Henry could have imagined. Soon Alex finds himself hurtling into a secret romance with a surprisingly unstuffy Henry that could derail the campaign and upend two nations and begs the question: Can love save the world after all? Where do we find the courage, and the power, to be the people we are meant to be? And how can we learn to let our true colors shine through? Casey McQuiston’s Red, White & Royal Blue proves: true love isn’t always diplomatic.
Heads of family, state, and other handlers devise a plan for damage control: staging a truce between the two rivals. What at first begins as a fake, Instragramable friendship grows deeper, and more dangerous, than either Alex or Henry could have imagined. Soon Alex finds himself hurtling into a secret romance with a surprisingly unstuffy Henry that could derail the campaign and upend two nations and begs the question: Can love save the world after all? Where do we find the courage, and the power, to be the people we are meant to be? And how can we learn to let our true colors shine through? Casey McQuiston’s Red, White & Royal Blue proves: true love isn’t always diplomatic.Janine: I have to start by confessing that I did not finish this book—it was so frustrating that I reached 42%, which translates to around 180 pages, and then quit. So I can only speak to the section I read, but that was substantial enough that I can make some judgements.
My first question to you is what did you think of the setup and introduction of the conflict?
I felt the setup was engaging at first. Though the story was predictable, at first the impossibility of it all—Alex’s fear for his family’s approval ratings in a campaign year, Henry’s confinement to the life expected of a royal—gave the conflict a lot of potential. I liked both of the guys and wanted them to find a way to be together. But pretty quickly, the lack of depth or nuance weakened it.
Sirius: I agree that conflict had a lot of potential, but for me that potential evaporated pretty quickly. I am very often eager to try the stories which have the vibe of “from enemies to lovers” trope, and this book had a lot of early reviews which sang it accolades, so I said why not. Almost from the very beginning Alex’s age that was announced on page (21) for me did not compute with the way he talked and acted. I would peg him at around fifteen – sixteen tops and that was not a good thing for me.
Janine: Yes, I agree that Alex read much younger than twenty-one. I kept checking and rechecking his age in the beginning because I was thinking of him as eighteen at most!
Sirius: Very early in the story first family goes to Royal wedding. What did you think of what happened between Alex and Henry during the wedding? Did it work for you?
Janine: No. Almost from the beginning, I had problems with the way the first family, and even more so, the royal family, were portrayed, which I’ll get to in more detail later. And the scene where a drunken Alex grabs Henry during an argument and they crash into the wedding cake was pretty absurd, if I think of how likely something like that is to happen. But I strongly believe, as our reviewer Jia used to say, that “Every novel gets one gimme.” I tend to suspend disbelief about the premise of a book and see where that takes me. So I rolled my eyes a bit but decided to continue on and see what happened next.
What did you think of it, Sirius? And also, what did you think of our main characters?
Sirius: Yes I had a lot of problems with how First Family and Royal Family were portrayed. And yes I rolled my eyes and accepted the ridiculousness at the wedding. However when I say accepted I also mean that to me this scene set up a certain tone for the book. I thought that it will be an over the top romp where anything is a fair game because anything can happen. What followed though was so incredibly jarring for me. I felt as if the story could not make up its mind as to what it wants to be and that cohesive narrative just didn’t happen. I was jerked up out of the story just so many times.
I felt like the author really wanted me to like Alex and Henry, but the things she was telling me just didn’t translate into how they behaved on the page especially Alex.
When story told me that Alex wanted to go into politics because he really cared about people, I felt like zero evidence was provided to support that. Yes I saw he cared about June and Nora and of course about himself. Anybody else? Nope.
I had nothing against Henry although some of his comments about monarchy just felt so very clueless.
Janine: The best word I can use to describe Henry and Alex is sweet. Too sugary sweet. Alex is a little clueless about his sexuality at first, hiding the truth of his bisexuality from himself, but he catches on pretty quickly. His confusion over it and his ultimate embracing of it are endearing. Henry is savvier on that score, but his life, lived half in public and half in a carefully-protected fishbowl, gives him a different kind of cluelessness which is equally lovable since he is well-meaning.
But despite the obstacles they faced, the only emotions Alex and Henry seemed to feel, once Alex’s initial annoyance with Henry passed (and this happens pretty quickly), was the euphoria of sex and love. I’m all for that, but I wanted a bit more plot development and a *lot* more character development.
Instead, Alex and Henry seem to exist in a bubble where no complex emotion can interfere with the reader’s joy in their affair. Henry does suffer some sadness over his father’s death and worry for his sister and mother, but even these feelings seem to be in the story mainly to show us that Henry opens up to Alex because he (Henry) is so adorable as well as such a hottie, and aren’t these guys cute together? It felt objectifying of Henry.
And yes, their political views were underdeveloped as well.
Sirius: The story takes place in deeply political settings. Did you think it was successful in dealing with international and US politics ?
Janine: In a word, no. I was willing to buy that crashing into the cake with a royal heir might be offensive to the British, but not beyond that. I didn’t think it would start an international incident much less that a fake friendship would be employed as a PR strategy. That read like a plot contrivance to me.
This is also a good lead in to how I felt about their families–I thought the portrayal of the royal family was unconvincing. For all that Henry and his siblings, Bea and Philip, share their first names with members of the real royal family, they bear little resemblance to real royals. For example, this monarchy seems to have become more conservative and uptight within the last generation. Henry’s mother married a movie star, probably in the eighties or nineties, while Henry’s brother enters his own marriage not for love, but because the bride is “a perfectly respectable daughter of nobility.”
Unless I forgot something, it’s never explained why Henry is in “the spare” in the line of succession when it’s his mother and not his father who is the queen’s offspring. Does his mother have no male siblings? And if so, how was she allowed to marry a movie star and be as rebellious as she was, when her daughter isn’t even permitted to take guitar lessons?
Similarly, I had difficulty buying some of the dynamics in Alex’s family. Did *both* his parents have to be successful politicians? It isn’t enough that his mother is the president, his father has to be a senator too? On top of that Alex is heavily involved in his mother’s campaign for reelection behind the scenes as well as in public appearances, though he’s only twenty-one years old.
Sirius: I agree with everything you wrote, although I think you are giving this book way too much credit in explaining the line of succession in this universe. Yes, this monarchy seems to become more conservative.
I am not the biggest follower and defender of the royals to put it mildly, but didn’t two royal guys get married last year? Granted, it was not shown on American TV or anything like that and it does not mean that monarchy suddenly become super liberal institution but surely that meant that there is change happening and probably Queen was involved in that too? I rolled my eyes at Queen and “deviant behaviors” comment. Somehow I doubt that even if she would deeply object to her grandson coming out publicly that comment like that would have ever left her mouth, but hey what do I know.
Yes I didn’t buy those dynamics in Alex’s family, but once again I just didn’t buy the super genius Alex. He can manipulate and read people? He can make Senators do whatever he wants? Show me that he is exceptionally gifted in politics and otherwise, don’t just tell me.
And I just had issues with wish fulfillment aspect of this book in general. I am all for reading a book where US has a different president, trust me, but the way it was done in this story was so very over the top for me.
Janine: Yes! Agreed on everything, including Alex. And on the topic of the queen, how much more interesting would it be if Henry’s grandmother warned him against a same-sex relationship not solely because she was homophobic, controlling and afraid of bad publicity for the monarchy, but also because she had lived through the trauma of a public scandal in her youth and feared that Henry, whom she loved, would be hurt by a similar experience? The book is never willing to go anywhere as thorny or interesting as this.
The wish fulfillment aspect *was* way over the top. It wasn’t just the president, either, though there was that. So many of the people in the US government were from minority groups that are underrepresented in reality. Did we see a single white guy in the whole American power structure besides the bad guy who ran for president against Alex’s mother?
On another, but related question, did you feel the White House setting was utilized to its full potential? For me, the White House setting had all the potential to be fascinating, but the author didn’t seem truly interested in the inner workings of an actual White House. We don’t see policies discussed at the family’s dinner table, or Alex’s mother grapple with how to serve the entire country to the best of her abilities. Messy political dilemmas don’t come up much in the section I read.
Sirius: HA! No I don’t think we saw a single white guy except Richards you are absolutely right. No, I didn’t think White House setting was utilized to his full potential. On one hand it was supposed to be this fairy tale like house/building where mysterious things happen (“Don’t get caught” comment in the beginning), on another the book drops names of the previous presidential kids and presidents and attempts (but clearly does not follow up) to comment on some serious stuff and it was just all so jarring to me, sorry to repeat myself.
Spoiler: Show
I know it was not specifically about White House setting, but if there was a messy political dilemma, last part of the book was it for me. Where it went? Nowhere – the dilemma part I mean, all it led to is for Harry and Alex to get their happy ending. I could not wait to finish this book.
Janine: You make me glad I didn’t read the second half. You’re a trooper for finishing!
Sirius: Obviously I don’t think you missed much – I mean new things definitely happened but it only became more annoying for me to finish.
Janine: What did you think about the secondary characters and the characterization generally? I found all the side characters simplistic, either wholly good if they root for Alex and Henry (who is himself nothing more interesting than a dreamboat / object of love), or wholly bad if they don’t. Additionally, June, Alex’s twin sister, and Nora, their friend who was also the VP’s daughter, were so similar that for the first 10% or 15% of the book, I kept getting confused between them and had to keep reminding myself that June was the twin and Nora the friend / daughter of the Vice President.
Sirius: I feel like secondary characters existed only to prop the love story either in the good or bad way yes. Why was June in the White House in the first place? She felt a need to support a brother who is supposed to graduate in a year? Did he need a nanny at that age? I am being sarcastic but the main reason why I ask is because the moment comes up where it made clear that June is not really interested in politics journalism is her thing and she is only here for her family. And this is a perfect example how backstories given to the secondary characters are ignored in favor of supporting main plot. She is unhappy? Oh why don’t you write all campaign speeches June and she seemed quite happy.
Why was Nora in White House so often? Isn’t she in MIT? Shouldn’t she be there?
I can’t find much positive about this book.
Janine: Me neither, but I wanted to touch on one positive thing. There’s a lot of diversity; Alex and Nora are bisexual, Henry is gay, as is Rafael Luna, a senator from Colorado Alex campaigned for, and Amy, one of the secret service agents on Alex’s detail, is married to a woman. Alex and June are of mixed race; their dad, Senator Oscar Diaz (incidentally, this is also the name of a real-life boxer who made some news in the 2000s) is Mexican-American and Senator Luna is Latino. Henry’s friend Pez (short for Percy Okonjo) is from Nigeria, so it’s very possible he’s black, though I don’t recall this being stated outright.
On the negative side, the book barely acknowledges the enormous degree of privilege the heroes have, Henry as an heir presumptive to the British monarchy and Alex as a member of America’s first family.
With regard to romantic and sexual tension, between the big obstacles and Alex’s annoyance with Henry, I was shipping these guys for the first 20% of the book. I think this book was only about the shipping, though, and that was the problem.
As for the sex, it got boring fast. In the section I read *all* the sex they had was oral. I’m all for oral sex, but eventually it started to seem like a weird fetish. Was there no other sexual activity these men were interested in? Not only was it dull and repetitive, for two horny guys in their early twenties, it didn’t ring true to me.
The writing itself was bad, too. The 42% I read was narrated in third person present tense from Alex’s POV. This took a little while to get used to, but I was able to do so. The pacing felt off, especially in the middle section. Gradually I started losing patience with almost everything about the book. The novel was underwritten as well. There weren’t any vivid descriptions or startling metaphors, no imagery or recurring motifs. The authorial voice was strong, even if I didn’t like it. I think voice and feels are the main things that account for the raves this book is getting.
Sirius: I am going to give it a D and be done.
Your grade is DNF Janine?
Janine: Yes. I can’t speak to whether there is a message or theme to this book, because I didn’t get far enough to see one. I can’t say that this book made me think about anything except bad writing. In terms of feels, in the first 20% I laughed occasionally and wanted to see Alex and Henry get together. But after they did, all I felt was annoyance.
This is a book that starts out sweet and sexy—if the reader can overlook glaring plot holes, contrivances and inaccuracies –but somewhere around 25% the fluff started to bore me. And there was no substance at all to Red, White and Royal Blue. It was all fluff.
AmazonBNKoboBook DepositoryGoogle
Cancelling the hold I have on this at the library now. I was kind of on the fence about reading it anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
Hi Kim yeah I didn’t enjoy this one at all .
I wasn’t interested in this one—and your review just cements my lack of interest— but it’s amazing how many ecstatic five-star reviews I’ve read for it. I think it’s possible that people are more in love with the IDEA of this book (First Son in love with a Prince!) than the actual book itself.
Discodollyweb I read plenty of ecstatic five star myself and one of them was the reason I wanted to read the book :).
You guys made it farther than I did, and Sirius, I still can’t believe you managed to get all the way to the end. I bailed at 20 percent.
Great joint review, and Janine, I think your points about everything being in service to the romance are exactly right. That’s what made it feel so fanfiction-y to me. There’s all this other stuff going on but none of it is treated with any depth. So the stuff that might just be a misfire in a book that is about more than shipping a central couple, like the “joke” about waterboarding, winds up being massively cringeworthy.
When Alex refers to the UK as a “garbage country” all I could think of was the Orange One’s comment about “shithole countries” and I’m pretty sure that’s not what the author was going for.
@Sunita: It was painful, I just tried to commit myself to finishing it and I did. I was glad when it was over though I won’t lie.
I cringed too at the “waterboarding” comment, definitely.
I actually read this book in two seatings (which is super rare given that I can be a slow reader at times). FWIW, I approached this book with v. low expectations as I tend to end up feeling quite disappointed with highly-recced books. It was a little ridiculous and, to a certain extent, more handwave-y than I would’ve wanted, sure.
However, the sugary aspects were something that I embraced instead of growing irritated with them. This is one of those instances in which my love of the trope-y premise worked in my favor (instead of against it). No one is more surprised than me at how well I reacted to this book. It’s super ridiculous at times but, I didn’t mind the escapism. Go figure.
So many of the people in the US government were from minority groups that are underrepresented in reality. Did we see a single white guy in the whole American power structure besides the bad guy who ran for president against Alex’s mother?
NGL, I LOVED that. L-O-V-E-D I-T!!!
Yes, it’s v. much in the wish fulfillment category but so what? I liked the idea of seeing so many minorities represented in American politics.
I’m well aware that not every book will be for everyone but it read somewhat hollow to complain that there were no white people (aside from the main villain) in a book that’s so diverse. Especially since there are a trillion books out there in which everyone is white except for one (1) character. YMMV, of course.
Hi Ariadna I am glad you enjoyed the book. I cannot speak for Janine but I read her comment ( and agreed with it ) not as a complaint about lack of white guys in the top tier of American politics per se but about another showing of over the top nature of the book.
I love the female US president as an idea for example and hope for that to become a reality one day but for me it was not executed believably .
Yikes! I’m on the other side of the fence here – my mileage took me a long way on this one, but then I didn’t go into it expecting it to be believable. I read it last week when my mother was visiting and I needed all the sugary fluff I could get.
And I can’t pass up my perennial recommendation of Lilah Pace’s His Royal Secret & His Royal Favorite – the gold standard and my all-time favourites.
@Eliza: I keep telling myself I will get to those soon :). I do remember you recommending those books in the past and I have “His Royal Secret.”. One day :).
@Kim W: FWIW a ton of people love this book. But yeah, Sirius and I didn’t enjoy it one bit.
@DiscoDollyDeb: I agree that the high concept is one of the things that account for this book’s popularity. Other factors are the strong voice (by which i don’t mean the writing is good, just that the book has a voice that comes on strong), the diversity (one of the few good things about it), and the feels. I do get the feels thing because I experienced it at first, but it wasn’t enough for me.
@Sunita: Yeah, the waterboarding comment and the “garbage country” had the same jarring and cringeworthy associations for me. But even more frustrating than that was the wasted potential in this book. It’s a great concept and could have been explored in a much more thorough and interesting way.
@Ariadna: Sirius is correct, I have no objection to diversity, I just wished the diversity had been handled differently. Here it was in such contrast to our current reality that I had a difficult time buying in.
For example, the book wants us to believe that Alex and Henry face real obstacles because they are in same-sex relationship, but on the other hand, the fact that almost everyone we meet who is part of the power structure in the US government is a minority suggests that the world they inhabit, and indeed the electorate, is far more understanding than to hold their queerness against them.
Another example: There’s a reference to Alex’s mother having to clear a higher bar because she’s a female president, but (at least in the section I read) we never *see* her facing the obstacles in the form of hate mail or what have you that you can you bet Hillary Clinton would have gotten had she been elected, or being condescended to by white, male, cisgendered world leaders. The book would have been far better if we *saw* her grapple with and ultimately find a real way (by which I don’t mean handwaving, but taking specific actions) to triumph over these kinds of obstacles.
In sum, the writing advice to “show, don’t tell” isn’t heeded in this book at all. We are told one thing but shown the opposite.
@Janine: I think I could have related to this book somewhat differently if it did not attempt to invoke our reality while supposedly creating better more diverse, more fair world you know?
There are plenty of small things which invoke said reality even when changing things ( royal siblings for example grieve for their father instead of their mother who also passed when they were still quite young), but the one that I put under a spoiler cut invokes our reality almost word by word to me. And when the book actually invokes the reality while at the same time attempting to be a wish fulfillment to me it needs to have a better grounding in reality so to speak.
My head begins to hurt again when I think about it.
Also I think that incident under spoiler cut was supposed to be an obstacle for the president, but it also ended up being a massive fail to me and not really an obstacle for her.
@Eliza:
Those were superb Royalty romances for sure! I loved both of them.
@Eliza: I guess it’s hard for me to buy into a book without some nuance and depth. Everyone being a cardboard bad guy or cardboard good guy in accordance with how they felt about Alex and Henry is a good example of what I mean. Some fluff works better for me than other fluff. But I’m so glad the book would helpful to you during a dark time! That has happened to me with other fluffy books a couple of times, and I’m so grateful for it.
@Sirius: I would love to hear what you think of His Royal Secret. I have it in the TBR pile as well.
@Sirius: Yes, you’re right. But I think at least a little depth and nuance would have made a big difference, too.
I’m trying to think of other books I’ve enjoyed that were wish fulfillment books—Courtney Milan’s The Suffragette Scandal comes to mind. The ending is totally out of the realm of anything that happened or could have happened in the real Victorian era. But because the characters were established with strengths, flaws, goals at odds with one another, and because they were shown facing real obstacles (for example the feminist reporter/editor/newspaper owner’s newspaper offices were set fire to) I was able to buy in to a greater degree. I still felt that the ending was completely pie in the sky, but I bought into it and loved it anyhow.
@Janine:
[…]on the other hand, the fact that almost everyone we meet who is part of the power structure in the US government is a minority suggests that the world they inhabit, and indeed the electorate, is far more understanding than to hold their queerness against them.
Although it is true that Alex and Henry’s fears might be a tad exaggerated, I also think that you might be making assumptions about that world’s attitude toward queerness. Even in a mostly diverse society, there will always be people who dislike queer people.
In this case, the book didn’t work for you and that dislike possibly augments all the negatives in it? I dunno.
It is funny, to me, that I ended up having such a blast while reading this book because a lot of the popular M/M novels tend to be low-rated experiences (if not actual!DNF). I agree that there was a ridiculous amount of handwaving and telling instead of showing but, what can I say? Once the book clicked for me, it ended up being v. enjoyable.
FTR, I’m not saying this is a must-read or the best book I’ve read this year. Just one that was entertaining and sweet. I didn’t purchase the book (the price point was way too high for me) but I lucked out because my local library had it available on the day it got published. And I happened to have been the first person in the queue.
Anyhoo, your opinions about this book are valid as are mine. Thanks for expanding a bit on your thoughts.
@Ariadna: You’re absolutely right that even in a diverse society, there will always be people who discriminate against queer people. But by the same token, even in a society that embraces queerness, there will always be some who discriminate against women and POC. And acceptance of gay and bisexual people is actually growing at a faster rate than acceptance of most other groups in our own reality. All these factors are what led me to feel that a society as diverse as the one portrayed here (especially since the one villain was cardboard) didn’t present a real obstacle to Henry ad Alex’s relationship.
I actually started out with affection for the characters and the book, and it only lost me shortly after they got together. What I felt after that wasn’t strong enough to be termed dislike, it’s actually more like boredom and frustration. It was only in the process of writing down my thoughts and starting to analyze what I had read that I became aware of just how many weaknesses it had. The feels and voice are strong enough to mask them to a certain extent. I don’t feel that strong emotion is clouding my judgements, but the frustration and boredom certainly don’t help. The premise has a ton of potential and had the author been even a little interested in political realities, I might have loved it.
Your opinion is as valid as mine, too.
@Ariadna: Another reader chiming in to say that I really enjoyed this book as well (gave it 5 stars on Goodreads, which is rare for me). Sure it was pure wish fulfillment but right now nothing in the real world is fulfilling my wishes (only my nightmares), so what’s wrong with that? Yes, Alex and Harry sometimes sounded like 15 year old boys and sometimes like 40 year old women (I couldn’t believe that men wrote some of those emails), but I was willing to suspend my disbelief and skepticism to buy the whole fantasy. I needed this book as a tonic to the current, f’d up bizarro world we’re currently inhabiting.
I second the recs for the Royal Secret duology as well.
@SusanS: Yes twenty something guys did not write those emails in my opinion as well. See, I find myself unable to give high grade to the book where they sometimes sounded as fifteen year old boys and sometimes forty year old women. I can’t. I found myself wondering whether I would have given it a higher grade if the FEELZ aspect was stronger for me and the answer is still no, I don’t think so.
I am not sure if I confessed it here before, I definitely know I mentioned it elsewhere and more than once . I am addicted to m/m books by the certain writer. However the only and I mean THE ONLY reason I read them is because they make me feel good. There is no other reason – it is repetitive, repetitive, repetitive and often quite hilarious and not in a good way. I stopped reviewing those books long time ago anywhere, because I know it is not fair to the books – I know what I am getting and I am still getting it so I should not be complaining about the writing. In my mind those books are of C/C- variety no higher than that.
Anyway, yes everything grated in this book for me, but I don’t think that lack of emotion is the main reason for the low grade. I can respect the book that is written well even if it did not hit emotional aspect for me, in fact I am likely to give it higher grade .
I have to try “Royal secret”, I do.
FWIW, I’m really enjoying this discussion, and when I re-read this book, as I probably will in a year or two, I’ll keep it in mind and see if it affects my enjoyment.
@Sirius: FWIW, I did get the FEELZ from this book pretty strongly, in the first quarter, but that fizzled after a while because the other flaws were so obvious even so.
I enjoyed this book, but I take the points about showing and not telling, among others, and I can see how the writing may not have worked for everyone.
But saying the book feels “over the top” because of the lack of white people at the upper echelons of the power structures is, quite frankly, ridiculous. In no scenario does the book even pretend to be super-realistic, but yes, it should adequately present a realistic composition of people in power by making more of them white? God forbid people of colour see themselves represented in powerful positions in a *book* that is basically kind of an alternate reality sprouting from the 2016 election.
Also, equating the “garbage country” comment to Trump’s remark on “shithole countries” is false equivalence at its finest. Trump was clearly talking about low-income countries that are mostly home to people of colour. The UK, on the other hand, is at least partly responsible for the situation many of those countries are in today because of its centuries of colonisation and imperialism. And the “garbage” was in reference to *breakfast* in the UK, which literally considers “curry” to be its national cuisine (only because, of course, it colonised India), and is widely perceived and mocked for having bad food–this may or may not be true, but McQuiston was clearly drawing from a popular trend of ridiculing (white) British food.
@MM: I don’t agree with the book not being super realistic. Not sure about the word “super”, but as I mentioned before, I think the book invokes strong allusions with reality, it also copies and pastes pretty much wholesale one of the most horrible points of 2016 election and puts it in the world of the book. Janine already addressed the commentary about lack of white people so I am not going to do it again.
It is also seems a strange assumption to make that Britain’s colonialism and imperialism are not widely known, but ALL that book does IMO is sneering at its food, at its sports, etc, etc. It touches serious themes but it does not analyze anything, be it state of monarchy or state of presidency.
@Sirius: Yes. The book addresses the enormous degree of privilege Henry has only very superficially (in the section I read, there was just one reference to the crown’s ill-gotten gains) and Alex’s privilege isn’t addressed at all. A prince and a first son are about as privileged as two men in their early twenties can be, and I think to a certain extent that undermines the social justice message that the book wants to have.
@MM: Putting aside the “garbage country” comment for a moment, can you say that the joke about waterboarding isn’t invoking recent US history? It’s insensitive to joke about something so horrific that took place in reality, and not even that long ago.
To expound a bit on what I posted above, I don’t see how you can separate the issue of “show, don’t tell” from the absence of almost any white male characters in the US power structure. If white, cisgendered, privileged men are in the margins of power, then how can they present a serious obstacle to Alex and Henry’s relationship, or to the female president’s bid for re-election? If the reader stops to think for one minute, the whole plot falls apart because of their absence. That’s why it reads as over the top—the main conflict the story presents can’t support it.
(All the more so since the two heroes are as privileged as all get out, and were not even elected to have the power they hold.)
I finally got around to reading this book. I enjoyed it though I don’t dispute many of your concerns. I read this after reading the author’s second book, One Last Stop, which I liked even more.
@Kareni: I’ve heard great things about One Last Stop and the concept is marvelous. The author has a gift for them. But the execution of RW&RB was so terrible that I probably won’t try OLS. I’d love to read a good book with that amazing premise but I don’t trust McQuiston to execute it well.
@janine, I can appreciate your reluctance after not liking the first book. I’m not generally an analytical reader, so it’s difficult for me to determine what your thoughts might be.
I ended up reading this because I needed something “happy, sappy, and gay” to wash the taste of As Meat Loves Salt out of my mouth (not in a bad way, just that it was a really jarring read and I needed to get it out of my head). I agree with most of what was said in the review.
My main qualm is with Alex; he’s written to be Practically Perfect, his only flaws being that he just *loves too much* and doesn’t take any time to breathe, which can absolutely be great flaws but end up feeling like the answer to an interview question. None of his struggles take more than a page or two of him throwing a tantrum or getting a motivational speech to solve, and none of the growth he goes through feels organic or significant. He’s completely vain and self obsessed, and gets nothing but rewards for those traits throughout the story. Which I would absolutely be on board for, I love reading about horrible queer people, but the book tries so hard to make him likeable that it just repels me. Henry, on the other hand, was much more interesting and compelling by comparison, but I suspect that might be because we don’t spend 400 pages in his head. Definitely not a royal, but believable as someone who feels trapped in his life and unable to make authentic decisions, even if it does require the queen to be a cartoon villain.
At the end of the day I got something happy, sappy, and gay, which is what I was looking for, but I would have loved if it felt earned. If it had dropped some of the pretense and leaned more into being Gossip Girl set on the global political stage, awful people who know they’re awful doing awful things while the people around them try and stop the world from falling apart, I would have had a lot more fun.
Anyway stream Chromatica
@Tys: Thank you so much for coming back and sharing your impressions. I am glad the book worked at least in part for you.
@Tys: Sorry to reply so late. Those are great points re Alex’s vanity and self-obsession. I didn’t pinpoint it before but you’re so right. And yeah, the book didn’t interrogate his flaws in any way, and that’s disappointing. I find that last to be the case with a lot of books these days, though. A lot of the main characters are near perfect or else the book treats them as if they are.
Great comment, and I’m glad you were able to enjoy the book anyhow.