I want to outright state that I don’t hate this novel. There are books that are bigger hypocrites, books that made me far angrier, books that are just worse. Notes on an Execution still is disappointing, it still doesn’t fully deliver when it comes to its themes, but it’s at least a 2.75/5 for me. So, in the “okayyyy” range with regards to how I felt!
But I sure have a lot I’d love to discuss…
Undermining it’s own central plot and themes
I understand that Ansel is the focus here. However, the central premise of the book is to be something that “de-centers the serial killer,” and that’s just blatantly not showcased. It wants to be this feminist reframing of a genre, and it doesn’t fail at that in EVERY way, but that goal is for sure constantly undercut by the actual structure and narrative.
Ansel remains the center of the novel. He is at the forefront of all of these women’s lives. He is one of (if not THE) primary thoughts in their heads. Every woman in this novel is defined by him. Lavender’s life is his prelude, Jenny’s life is a reaction, Saffy’s life is consumed by him, etc. We are told that they all have their own lives, but when do we really ever see that beyond being told about the twins’ childhood? I think they were perhaps the only characters to receive at least an attempt at a life that doesn’t revolve around Ansel (at least, out of the POV characters), but is that good enough?
The philosophical core of the novel
I can show some leniency here because we are meant to sort of roll our eyes at Ansel’s thesis and his manifesto. But we’re also meant to take it to heart since it ends up being one of the central themes. I’m reminded of the concept of “timshel” in East of Eden. “Thou mayest.” We all have a choice. Sin lives within all of us, but it’s up to us to decide how to act. I’m not sure how I feel about the narrative acting as though Ansel’s thesis is a revelation. Does the text genuinely believe that this idea is his own unique invention? Are we meant to roll our eyes at him? Surely we are meant to believe to some extent that it is a new concept, otherwise how would he have been able to even pursue it academically to that extent? Would the other characters not have heard of this broad concept? It is not inherently poor writing for Ansel to feel this way and believe it is unique, but its delivery in the novel feels a little naive.
I think also that particular theme isn’t even explored well here. We are told again and again that Ansel chose his path, but I can’t help but feel that his agency is severely undermined. The women in this novel constantly reflect on their own choices and how they shaped Ansel. Yes, that’s only natural. Yes, our environments impacts us and the choices we make. However, the book primarily has the women ask “what if scenarios?” about how Ansel would have changed based on their actions. In a way, it feels like the book is blaming these women. What if I hadn’t exposed him, what if I hadn’t abandoned him, what if I had reached out sooner… Again, natural questions to ask. Especially when delving into the psyche of a killer. BUT ! This is meant to be a feminist take that focuses on the male serial killer’s own actions. So why does it almost suggest that the women are to blame? After all, other characters who had similar childhoods turned out great! (I’m being sarcastic). Ansel enjoys asking the what if questions too, but it’s usually never regarding his own actions. It’s more so just imagining a different world, so in a sense it feels like he’s partially absolved of responsibility.
Side note about environments
I think this book does not discuss the importance of setting enough. Setting in a novel is another character; it’s another factor that impacts and shapes characters deeply. Maybe I’m just biased from having recently read books like East of Eden, Grotesque and Wuthering Heights where this is a concept that is key, but I can’t help but feel like surely the setting is important too? What was Ansel’s environment? Beyond his parental situation. How did that impact him, how did it impact other characters? The purpose of Notes on an Execution is in part to go into the inner psyche of the killer and the women in his life. Why not touch more upon their physical environments? They are mentioned, but it feels like just as minor set dressing. Not as something that impacts the characters.
Problematic Gender Politics
Moving on, for a feminist novel, this sure relies on bio-essentialism and problematic gender politics. It could be worse. But yikes.
Saffy comments on how women have “an ask for suffering. It was the scariest thing about being a woman. It was hard wired.” Hard wired?? I could see this book making the argument that it is only “hard wired” into women to be submissive and desire suffering due to society and the patriarchy. But that’s not really the context of this quote at all. It seems to imply that it’s a desire from birth. I recently read Grotesque by Natsuo Kirino, and that book follows many similar concepts of women having been murdered, following the POV of the sister of one of them, the POV of the killer, and of some other characters. I find that novel to be far more effective, especially in its feminist themes. It too looks at the way in which women may have internal beliefs about themselves and their worth that are harmful. It does so without relying on “this is just how women all are meant to be,” instead it delves into the society that made a woman this way. A society we don’t learn much about in Notes on an Execution (perhaps only touched upon by the misogyny Saffy faces at her job, or the abuse Lavender experiences…but these are never shown in a light that relates them to this quote.).
Regarding other weird bio-essentialism takes, this quote stands out: “there was nothing like the love you had for your own child. It was biological. Evolutionary.” It feels odd for a novel in which so many characters were in foster care to suggest that the love a parent feels for a child they bore is stronger than the love they may feel for one they adopted. Is that a lesser love according to this novel? Is DNA the end all be all? A lot in this book seems to suggest that DNA is the strongest bond, something even evidenced by Blue. It’s a bit of a narrow take in a story that wants to explore complex human connections.
Miscellaneous
I have some other minor issues too, mainly regarding the overwriting. There are too many flowery metaphors for my taste, ones that often do not improve my reading experience. It sort of contributes to the performative feeling in general.
I also don’t really enjoy the graphicness of the sex scenes. Of course, they aren’t full on “smut book” levels, but we don’t need the details of Ansel grabbing the breasts of the woman he’s with and how they feel. This feels less like an exploration of power and more like stepping into the voyeurism that the book aims to critique. It wasn’t a massive part of the book, but it was enough to make me raise my eyebrows.
I’ll end my review with just a moment of irony. Perhaps this was meant to be ironic in some way, perhaps not. There’s a moment in which a character cites her vote for Obama as evidence of her inherent goodness. Even though I understand why this was mentioned, it still made me laugh. It’s almost like a gesture toward moral complexity that the book isn’t actually interested in exploring. It is a gesture of self-congratulatory morality. “I made the better vote, therefore I’m a good person.” The more complicated realities are ignored. Maybe it was the “better vote,” but it’s almost like performative virtue signaling in a book that itself is performing depth that it cannot maintain.
by sayayori