„The Door That Led to Where“ is an excellent contemporary YA book, but a not so excellent historical novel. This is the first book by Sally Gardner that I read, though I’ve heard (from Ella) that she is pretty well-known as an author of children’s and young adult books, and I can very well believe that; her characters are authentic and realistic, the voice of her main character, AJ, is enjoyable, and the plot of this book is tight and tense, even though it’s not quite as sprawling as a book with this kind of plot could have been. But I guess that’s a problem of the genre more than a problem of this particular book.

THE ELECTRONIC JUNGLE

I really enjoyed the parts of the book that took place in the present. Gardner describes the hopelessness, but also the humanity of Stoke Newington, a well-known working-class part of London, so emphatically that you can’t help but feel for all the inhabitants of this fictional version of Stokey. AJ’s hopeless life in particular left me with a pretty bad heart-ache; I mean, a boy who not only never knew his father, but who grew up with a mum who always blamed him for everything and apparently never even hugged him until he was 17??? That shit is awful, but it makes for great rooting interests. I wanted AJ to succeed, to have a lovely life of his own and to show his mother and bratty little sister that he was worth something after all, that he was not just a waste of space or a moocher living off what little money his mother has.

The mystery in the present was also very engaging, especially because the stakes were pretty high thanks to AJ’s background. Should he go investigating that strange key and file with his name on it, or should he leave it be, because it’s not his property, but that of the people he works for? Why did he even get a job in legal chambers, with no experience whatsoever, and with only one GCSE? Who are the counsellors working there, and why do they seem to know his father? Who is his father, anyway? All of these questions kept me reading, and most of the answers to these questions drew me even deeper into this book.

But then the time travel happened, and with the time travel, the eye rolling started.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

This book suffers from two different sets of errors. The first set of errors is especially annoying, because it is so easily preventable that most other books manage to avoid it. The thing is, the editing of this book is so goddamn bad. Not only are words missing or repeated (on one page, there were three editing mistakes like that), but at the very beginning, when the time travel first happens, the book gives the year they have travelled to as 1930. So imagine my confusion when AJ later says he is in the year 1830. Does the door lead to different time periods? Why are all the same people as in 1930 in 1830 as well? Is this a rebirth type situation?

The answer, of course, was that ‘1930’ had been an editing mistake in the first place. It was meant to mean 1830, and let’s be honest, such a plot-relevant mistake because of nothing but poor editing is just not acceptable. I can overlook the one or other missed ‘to’ or ‘going’, but I can’t overlook a mistake that literally throws me off the plot and makes it impossible for me to understand what’s going on until I figure out that there was a mistake in the book itself. And it’s not like this is a self-published book or anything. It’s not a debut novel either. This is just unacceptable. Though it has to be said that this is not Gardner’s fault, but her publisher’s.

The second set of errors will not surprise anybody who has read any of my reviews on historical novels: The historic alpart of this book was just not right. There are some things I can forgive, and some things that other authors usually get wrong which Gardner got right – for example, half-black Leon and Turkish Slim have no problems whatsoever in 1830 London, which is honestly as it should be. However, it is surprising coming from an author who apparently nailed the Tudor era in ‘I, Coriander’, one of Ella’s favorites, that Gardner gets the role of women in 1830 England so. wrong.

At one point in the book, AJ reads a set of etiquette books, one for men and one for women. I’m going to quote here, and I’m pretty sure you’ll quickly notice why I got pissed off when I read it.

The second book was on social rules for ladies. It was shocking. As far as he could make out, ladies weren’t allowed to read books or go to the theatre. Even Shakespeare was thought to be too much for their frail constitutions to bear. When he reached the part about how a lady must always be corseted he wondered why there hadn’t been a mass rebellion.

Just… Everything about this is wrong. Everything. First of all, can we stop harping on those poor corsets??? They just did the same job as bras do today. They were not unpleasant. They did not restrict breathing. MEN wore corsets as well, especially in the 1830s. Nobody ever talks about the fact that a lot of men liked a smooth silhouette as much as women did, but whenever we talk about corsets, they are these torture instruments of patriarchal doom. Just… Bullshit. Stop that. It’s just so extra stupid in this context, because the middle-aged generation in 1830 would have been in their youth during the Regency period, when – gasp – corsets were not in fashion! Why would they force their daughters to wear corsets if their own wives did not do so? And 1830 corsets weren’t even really used to reduce your waist! 1830 is not interchangeable with 1850, and even then nobody forced people to wear a corset. It was just good tone, in most circumstances, like wearing a bra is today.

And then we come to the books. The way reading is portrayed in Jane Austen novels, which take place a mere decade before this book’s past-part, is a good indication for how reading women were viewed at that time: There were books that were considered appropriate for women to read (the bible, treatises on virtues, educational novels, generally books that jived with the moral understanding of the time), and books that were not considered appropriate (books with immoral subjects, basically). Women were not forbidden to read books. You’re thinking of the puritans, not 1830 London.

Same with theatre. Theatre just was not forbidden for women. It was not. It was a major source of entertainment for the upper and middle classes. Same as books. Why would a wealthy young lady stoop to sewing when she could instead read French books and become sophisticated and an interesting conversationalist?

Also, the whole ‘frail constitution’ thing? Also not a thing in the 1830s. That’s a Victorian thing. 1830 is not Victorian. I repeat, 1830 is NOT interchangeable with 1850. I expect more from an author writing a time travel novel, really. Sally Gardner is teaching young people things about history that just are not true. She is perpetuating the insulting falsehood that women in the past had awful lives and were treated horribly by men and were not allowed to have any fun. We have enough of that in YA already, really.

WHEN RECKLESS YOUNG ADULT FICTION BECOMES DANGEROUS

Now we come to my last point, and the reason why I don’t feel comfortable giving this book more than 2 points. You remember AJs mum? The woman who never hugged him until he was 17, who either ignored him entirely or told him he was a useless piece of shit and that she regretted having him? Who told him her boyfriend would beat him up if he didn’t do what she said?

That woman got a redemption.

Yep, you heard that right. Once the secret about AJ’s dad is revealed, she suddenly starts to be nice to her child. Her child who she mentally and emotionally abused and (as is implied) beat for 17 years. Suddenly she started being nice to him, hugging him, being worried about him. And the book condones her behaviour. We are basically asked to just forget the fact that this woman is an abuser who tortured a child for nearly two decades. Suddenly, AJ gets along with her again. She gets rid of her boyfriend (who was definitely not the reason for her behaviour, since he apparently was only with her for a few years), and suddenly she wants AJ to forgive her and to have a new start. And AJ does – which, to be fair, is realistic, since he would likely have been hungering for his mother’s approval all his life, and he never had the chance to build up the kind of self-esteem and resilience to withstand an abuser who tries to make you ‘forgive’ them.

But it’s a horrible, horrible message, especially for a young adult novel. A child should never feel obligated to forgive an abusive parent, and that is exactly what this book tells its young readers – that everything can be good again, that your mum or dad who have been hitting you and making you feel like shit since you were a toddler might one day just turn around and be nice again, that they might have a reason to be so awful and when certain things happen, they will stop being awful. (And the reason AJ’s mum had wasn’t even good. Tons of women are left with children by men who tell them they want to marry them. That is not a reason, or an excuse, to abuse your child. Nothing, ever, could excuse the kind of abuse AJ’s mum heaps on her son. Nothing.)

A lot of this novel’s theme was reconnecting with your past, learning about your background, and making decisions for your future. However, some parts of your past need to be excised, not reconnected with. An abusive parent should not be portrayed as a sympathetic person who just needs to get over a loss and learn how to love her son. She robbed her child of a childhood. She hurt her own child just because she was angry his father left her.

Parental abuse is a common theme in this book, actually – AJ’s mum is abusive, Leon’s mum was a drug-addict and neglected him and his brother, and Slim’s parents just plain ignored him. But other with Leon’s mother, where his dealing with her sickness is portrayed pretty well, and with Slim’s parents, who are never quite addressed, the portrayal of AJ’s mum is dangerous for young readers of this book, and it might be dangerous for other survivors of parental abuse. There are Young Adult books out there that actually treat parental abuse and its effects on the abused child very well, like Caraval did for example, but “The Door That Led to Where” treats the topic of parental abuse in a reckless and irresponsible way, which is the final reason why I cannot give this book more than 2 points.


Want to read more of my reviews? Visit me on The Bookabelles Blog or follow me here on Goodreads :) ( )

This was a recommendation from a 7th grader whose taste I share, and she was not wrong. (Note to self: next time she needs a book, foist Gardner's [b:Maggot Moon|15798757|Maggot Moon|Sally Gardner|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1351213402s/15798757.jpg|19697088] upon her -- it's a weird-ass book that I can never get anyone to read, but I kind of love it and the author connection may work, even though story-wise it's a much stranger sell than than this one. Anyway.)

I loved its straight-up Britishness: you really feel you are in another country; it's not "translated" for American audiences the way Harry Potter is, and even I with my longtime Anglophilia stumbled over bits of slang or cultural expectations. I maintain that it's good for kids to feel the tiniest bit confused by a book's language or emotional plotting, and this seems on just the right level for American 7th-10th grade mind-opening confusion.

I am always pleased to find a slightly odd, thought-provoking book that nevertheless has an easy pitch: "A kid finds a secret door that leads to London of 100 years ago, and uses it to figure out mysteries about his family's past!" I know the kids who'll be all over that, and you do, too.

I found it really interesting that the "correct ending" was to close the door (with an opening for a sequel), but with some characters on the "wrong" side of it. Screw you, 19th century, I'm wearing jeans and having a career, said the young woman -- and screw you, 21st century, I'm staying in the place where I can make money and have a future, said the young man from a cold and impoverished family. I wouldn't have bought it had they chosen otherwise, though I suspect that's the more typical ending of a story like this. ( )

Did not finish. Sadly disappointed. There was a great story lost in there somewhere. I so enjoyed I, Coriander, but this didn't work for me. But I am old...

Literary Merit: Good
Characterization: Good
Recommended: Recommended
Level: 8th - 12th Grade

High school failure AJ believes he is destined to make nothing of his life as does his overbearing, violent mother and stepfather. His mother sets him up with an interview at a prestigious law firm in London where AJ thinks he’d never even hope to get a job. Amazingly, AJ is offered a job and discovers a bit of information regarding his long lost father (whom his mother refuses to talk about). After beginning his work as a clerk at the law firm he notices there are strange things occurring. AJ discovers a large, old-fashioned door key with his name attached to it in one of the files he is working on. Through a tip from an eccentric old man, AJ discovers the door the key goes to and decides to go through it. He is suddenly transported to London in the 1830s where he learns that his father also traveled. He now has to decide whether he is going to give up the key and close the door forever to remain in the future or if he will keep the door open and continue his father's work, which will take him back and forth between the past and the present. While, the book begins a bit slowly once you get a few chapters in the pace picks up and you will not want to put it down. The characters feel very real and you get invested in what happens to AJ and his two best friends that join him on his time traveling journey. This novel will keep readers guessing until the very end so it is definitely recommended for those that enjoy mysteries. I would recommend this be purchased for any teen collection. ( )

A.J. has grown up with a missing father and an angry mother. With no future in England’s post secondary education due to failing exams, he takes on work as a clerk at a local law firm. There he discovers a strange key with his name on it and, through a series of circumstances, finds it belongs to a door that takes him into the past.

London of 1830 gets much getting used to, with A.J. soon involved in a series of mysterious deaths – including that of his own father. Discovering his father was also a time traveler leads to more mysteries that set the course for A.J.’s past, present and future.

I enjoyed seeing 1830’s London brought to detailed life, and also liked the title. It’s word play for a door that goes “where” rather than “nowhere” is quite clever.

I was not fond of the open ending which usually leads to a series, as I am not fond of books in a series. I also think the author should have had a glossary. Slang British words were used throughout the book, and a glossary would have been very helpful.

I also had problems with a couple of other things which, combined with the above, is why “The door that led to where” received 3 instead of 4 stars. Since my complaints are spoilers, I’ll separate them from this review so your reading is not ruined.

Recommended for ages 14 and older.

**********************************************************************

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

Mrs. Meacock was the picture of health, ready to institutionalize Esme. Yet, two days later, she was rendered practically unrecognizable, just a few short steps from death. I find it hard to believe she had become crazy so quickly after being relatively sane for so many years.

I also thought the author should have unveiled the professor’s identity in a little more detail. I know he was a time traveler, but he knew a lot about A.J.’s history. Why did he know so much?

Book review link: https://shouldireaditornot.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/the-door-that-led-to-where-s... ( )