The Following Reviews and Discussions are from Hope House Farm, the independent on-line DANNY Message Board
SPOILER ALERT!
Do NOT Read This Section If You Have Not Read DANNY Volume 1
Jennifer Caputo - California, USA
So, coincidentally, just a few weeks before reading DANNY I finally finished Wuthering Heights. Superficially the novels are, of course, nothing alike, but I got to thinking about comparing the two yesterday and was surprised at all the parallels I could draw. I wonder if Ms. Stone did this purposely or if it was something quaint she noticed much later -- does anyone know? Seems like the latter would be likely, but it's quite the fascinating coincidence. I love how things like that can happen.
Anyway, for fun, a few of the connections I made:
John and Danny as Heathcliff and Catherine the first, respectively and obviously. They're obsessed with and desperate for one another, especially Heathcliff for Catherine. Everyone acknowledges that Heathcliff is a dark and "bad" child, then man, though handsome and somehow charming. Catherine is quite beautiful and has a heart as wild and corrupted as Heathcliff but is determined to act more socially acceptable. In some ways, just like Danny, Catherine tries to escape her obsession with Heathcliff and own quintessential darkness, via her marriage to Linton -- but Heathcliff is content to wallow in these things, unafraid. Catherine and Heathcliff were also raised as siblings.
Ian's creepy lurking keeps reminding me of Joseph (that's the male housekeeper's name, isn't it?). The ever-watchful opportunist.
Conley an Edgar Linton, a gentleman determined to save Catherine from herself and Heathcliff. However, Linton never really understood who Catherine was, unlike Conley, who isn't nearly as naive about Danny.
I haven't really thought through details beyond these, but over all, the books truly are parallel. They're both about the twisted relationships of families isolated in the English countryside, and how hatred, obsession, and intensity defines their interactions. A huge difference (well, one of many) seems to be the abuse theme though -- Wuthering Heights doesn't have much of one. Their lives are dark, puritanical, and surely full of psychological anguish, but it doesn't seem the same to me as the sexual and emotional abuse that happens in the Jackson Moore house.
I can't help but wonder if the next three volumes will have any further Wuthering Heights-esque elements. I mean, are we going to get a second generation re-enactment of John and Danny? I can't see how that would happen, but it would be interesting.
Jodie Rhodes - Sheffield, England
I must admit I too have seen similarities between the two books. For a start the fact that Wuthering Heights was my favourite before I read DANNY. I think the books do have similarities. Some of the themes in Danny run through Wuthering Heights - sex and aggression are there, I think. It is hinted that Heathcliff beats his wife and although it wasn't written I get the feeling he wasn't exactly gentle with Catherine either. I don't think he could have been, taking into account his jealous, obsessive and aggressive nature. Also I think that the book was already dark for its time and to add obvious sex to it would have made it unacceptable, but the hints are there. I do think the sexual and abusive aspects of Wuthering Heights can be seen.
I agree that the core relationship is also similar, the fact that Catherine spent all her life trying to escape belonging to Heathcliff, and finding out that she is as dark as him. This parallels Danny trying to escape belonging to John, not by leaving, as Danny always comes back, but by always putting someone else in the way of him and John being together. I think the main difference in the two relationships is that Catherine didn't want to belong to Heathcliff because of the way others would see her once she had fallen completely into the darkness the two of them made as a pair, whereas Danny didn't want to belong to John because he wanted John to belong to him. However I think in both stories it didn't actually matter because each of them already belonged to the other no matter how much they squirmed.
I think DANNY is the Wuthering Heights Bronte would wish she could have written. I think this because Bronte's novel was racy and shocking for its time (her sister even asked why she had to write 'something like that') but now it is bland when compared to today's idea of risky. However DANNY is not, DANNY is shocking, shocking at a time where everyone thought they couldn't be shocked anymore. I think it will remain one of the most risky pieces of writing for a long time and I think the similarity between the books is that both the authors dared to write them, in their corresponding times. If Bronte could have gone further she probably would have, but the originality of her novel did not last long as Bronte stayed somewhat within what is socially acceptable. Stone went beyond a socially acceptable place and that means that for me she will remain an original.
As I have said DANNY is an original story. However, parallels can be drawn with Wuthering Heights, but what I have found with DANNY is - and this might just be my crazy mind - that once its in your head you see things through DANNY tinted glasses. You can relate the relationships in it to any group of people, fictional or not. Obviously they will not directly relate as you don't usually see raping murderers wandering around your living room, but the core of the characters and their interactions with each other can be seen everywhere, within a lot of relationships. The obsessive husband, the promiscuous wife and the husband's sneaky friend who is trying to split them up is the basis of a lot of fiction, look at Othello. You can also see it in the relationship between friends, a best friend scared of being left, the other, flighty, who wants to be friends with everyone and the one who wants them to fall out so fills their heads with lies and stirs everything up, look at any film for teenage girls.
Once you've read DANNY you kind of see it every where to some degree, or is that me going insane?
Jennifer Caputo
The relationships in [DANNY] are really archetypal. I mean, a cursory examination would say, "three brothers, a cousin, and a cop all sodomizing one another, and probably a sheep or two?!" and of course THAT isn't remotely an element of, well, pretty much anything else! Okay, I suppose it could be in Appalachia or for other unfortunates, but it's nothing I've ever personally encountered in literature or elsewhere. :) But the real inky pith of these relationships, their motivations, etc., are extremely, intimately familiar to anyone with even the slightest knack for human behavior. I guess what makes DANNY good as a novel and not just shocking pornography (which I really like too but couldn't have made it work alone, haha) is that it's an astoundingly unique creative manifestation of these things, the Wuthering Heights-es, the Othellos, and even further, the Zeuses and Heras. I mean, what a conniving slut, that Zeus!
Ian is absolutely necessary to the book, but unsurprisingly, I've no lost love for him. But John, John... John's the kind of man that in real life women hate because they want him and men hate because they want to be him. Or maybe everyone both wants him and wants to be him. Actually, Danny's that kind too, isn't he? But it's less embarrassing and easier to admit because he's not the inescapable, undeniable monster that John is.
Jodie Rhodes
I always thought of John as one of those men that men can't be friends with because they're jealous of them, but constantly talk about how much they hate them to everyone, and women claim to hate but never turn them down, for obvious reasons. Also, throughout the book it is evident that all the characters think of Danny in the shadow of John. Henderson wanted John but found him unattainable so went for the easier to reach Danny, as did Henderson's sister. Which most people, when you think about it, would find strange as Danny is meant to be the beautiful one who no one can resist, but in the book no one even tries to resist Danny because there is nothing to resist. It doesn't really effect any of the characters to sleep with Danny because there are no barriers, they don't try to pretend they hate him, whereas with John almost all the characters are pretending not to like him. We only find out Henderson really wanted him through his diary. Rab only ever gets with John within the pretence of 'fine I will take my clothes off, what you gonna do now' as does Henderson's sister. Which I think is a load of shit, because you wouldn't even go along with the dare in the slightest if you didn't actually want what you knew was going to happen. What happens can't actually be a shock, it must be pretence. John is the more sought after because he is not good looking, but he is attractive, his attitude of not caring about anyone else is attractive, and the fact that when he wants someone he will do anything to get them makes the other characters want it to be them.
The only one to actually realize and voice this concept in the book is Danny. Danny knows that even if he pledged to be faithful to one of the characters, if John offered them something they would take it, e.g. Steven. There was hardly any hints that Steven liked John, but John's pull on people soon became evident in him. Danny says this in regards to Henderson seeing John in the car first and wanting him but not daring to have him, and in regards to Henderson's sister Danny says that she will come back for Danny because John is too much hard work, Danny is the easier attainable John.
Jodie Rhodes
I used to change my mind a lot about who I liked and who I wasn't as fond of in DANNY. When I first read the book I didn't like Ian, whereas now I do, in a strange way. Although he is repulsive as a person, and has done terrible things, and makes the rest of them uncomfortable, I find that I respect his character, and I didn't used to know why, but now I think its because he tells the truth (sometimes, when he's not trying to achieve something through a lie). Also the more I read the book the more I see that he is the one in charge. I think Ian is the only one who could effect the others actions.
My basic opinion towards John has never changed - he is my favourite. Danny is constantly changing in my opinion, but I get the impression that that is the point with Danny, you can't really pin him down. You think you know what he's about, but in the next scene he contradicts what you think. This has made my opinion of Danny constantly change from being my second favourite to my least. (I'm only talking of placing in regards to the main four characters as I see these as the most interesting.) But the amount of things the character has been through, and the fact that he has come out of them all still fighting, is one of the many reasons he doesn't stay my least favourite for long.
I didn't used to like Rab at all - I thought he was cocky and annoying - but now I like him. Not in the same way as I do the others, but in the way that he is probably the only one of them you could be friends with and not be driven completely insane. But the reason he seems the most palatable character is the same reason I used to not like him. I think that Rab ignores all that has gone on, and does go on, around him and the things that he cannot ignore he falls into denial. He is not as willing to show his emotions as much as the rest (who I know show them all but go as close as they dare). He hides behind jokes, sarcasm and a smart mouth, but this is just the way he deals with the things that have happened, just like the rest of the characters have their own way.
I am glad he stopped pretending with John because I found it frustrating that he always pretended that he had to be tricked into having sex with John, but I can see why he did it, as he loved John who loved Danny more, so I can see why he would be reluctant to admit his feelings.
Jodie Rhodes
After reading Chancery Stone's new blog entry I am now utterly terrified of Book Two and convinced that this one is going to finish me off. The end of book one almost killed me. However it was not the fact that John was [gone] - even though that in itself would have made me cry - it was the doomed love. With me it is always the doomed love.
Before I read Danny I read a review that described all the different types of people and what they would take from the book. It described cynics, the socially concerned, deviants and the romantics whose hearts would break at the tortured love of Danny and John (it wasn't anything like that but I can't find the quote and that's kind of the gist). I remember thinking, I reckon this one's gonna hurt a bit, because I knew which camp I always fall into. Then for a while before I purchased DANNY, because I couldn't afford it (can't believe there was a time I didn't have this book) I used to look at the comments and excerpts on Amazon and anything else I could find almost every day - for some reason before I read the book I was obsessed by it - then I read it and it killed me, it just killed me dead and, as I said, it was not just because one of the lovers was gone, it was because he didn't need to be.
I think John and Danny's relationship was built on revenge, jealousy, anger, one-upmanship, stubbornness and the inescapable need to be the victor of the other. They made each others' lives miserable when they clearly didn't have to. They both had the power to make each other happy, but the 'want to' had rotted away under all the other shit that got piled on them. I have had this conversation before about the ability of people to change, and yes, people can change the way they act, but its hard if you're not really sure why you do it.
Danny and John are too angry, and there's too much background for them ever to work, but the worst thing is that the reader can see that they should just stop doing what they do and to just forget all the rest, but sometimes people are never going to let that happen.
The fact that John and Danny found no way out, that one of them had to go and now we are left with the other who is going to (I think) despair and die over and over again at the thought that there will be no more trying to have another go at making the relationship work. As this is what they did [before] - that's why Danny kept coming back, because even though he knew the same thing would happen, that one of their jealousies or angers or wants for revenge would get in the way - neither of them could ever stop trying. But now the relationship no longer exists. It even upsets me just to write that.
My worry is the first book climbs right inside you - so much so that reading the last pages when they finally lose each other broke my heart, - to such an extent that no matter how many times I have read the book, and that is many, I have only read the last pages two or three times. Because, as stupid as it seems, I just don't like reading how they lost each other. I'd rather just start at the beginning again. I know that in the second book I won't be able to escape that fact. It is gonna be in every action that Danny makes. I am going to be able to read Danny's misery and loss in every word. Fuck me, I'm going to be depressed. But isn't it funny how I'd rather be that depressed than read any other book in the world.
Jodie Rhodes
I do not think the level of sex/violence is unrealistic [in DANNY]. I think some relationships differ from what is socially acceptable and considered healthy. It is the fact that these relationships can exist that makes some readers uncomfortable. If the interactions in DANNY had no basis in real life it would not create such strong reactions from its readers. The fact that the emotions in DANNY are very raw - they are stripped of social boundaries and rely on the characters own belief system of right and wrong instead of what is accepted by people as a whole - is what scares some readers.
Clearly they are not your typical family, and it is not expected that the themes in DANNY play out in everyone's living room, but for the situation the characters are in the occurrences seem to have followed a course I would have expected. If you look at the way they were brought up, the sexual abuse, the violence, the jealousy and competition for affections, that alone would create pretty fucked up individuals (although this background is not a staple for most families, I do know from friends experiences of working in social services it is not as rare as people would rather believe). I think the most important part, the part that creates realism in the actions of the adult characters, is that they never grow apart. None of the four main characters have moved on or even moved out, or interacted with other people without any of the others being involved. This, I think, in realistic terms, completely justifies the characters' actions.
Even if you take away the sex abuse and violence from adult members of the family (the thing which will have created the actions within the four as children) the four characters have a sexual history together as children (which is again not as rare as people want to think) they then, instead of separating and blocking out their past, become stuck in one house with everything reminding them of what has passed between them. I think in this situation, after years of it being on the back of everyone's mind, it is definitely believable that something would kick-start those deep feelings, emotions and memories, and it would all happen again, but worse as they are now grown.
To me, if these characters existed their actions would be understandable, the sexual relationships would be intense, there would be an overabundance of violence between them, there would be huge amounts of jealousy and confusion and hurt, therefore all the actions, however debauched, are necessary, because if they were real they would not have simple relationships. The most important aspects of the relationships would derive from their most intense actions. To omit these acts would be omitting the whole point of the relationships. If the sex and violence was not explicit and only happened occasionally and mildly we would not have a clue who these people were. We would not be able to read what they are actually about. That to me would be what was confusing.
The fact that some readers refer to the book's edgy and uncomfortable content as bland or tedious is to me a defence against the book's emotional reality, because I think if they could truly put themselves in the position of the characters they might react in some of the same ways. I think this makes people uncomfortable with themselves. I know some people I have given the book to cannot read it and make up excuses like the ones I have heard on line, like repetitive, dull and the like, but it is clear in the person's actions, when they recount the points of the book that made them say this, that bored is the last thing DANNY made them feel. All you can see is the uncomfortableness (not a word) they felt with the book and they want to get it as far away from them as possible, as soon as possible. If they simply found the book dull the reaction would not be as dramatic.
I have read many dull books and have not once reacted so strongly. I would either attempt to finish it or just stop reading it if it bored me. The readers who react in this way to DANNY are in denial of what the book truly made them feel. The fact that most feelings can be brought back to sex and violence is an opinion that has always been rallied against, but one I have always agreed with - that deep down they are the two main reasons for people's actions and this is what DANNY brings to light. The characters either react because of anger or because of the need for pleasure (or reassurance, affection and love, which are included in sex). The way DANNY locks into this deep psychological set-up of people when they are put in dramatic situations is the reason people feel uncomfortable with it and feel the need to deny its obvious truth. The readers that say DANNY is unrealistic and too devoid from real life are trying to distance themselves from the reality that it could be some peoples' real life and, as this is a scary notion to them, they would rather deny it
I do, however, have the uncomfortable reaction readers have to Danny to child abuse so I recognise it is as such, but it is intrinsic to some books' and films' narrative and I absorb it as I do the rest of the material, to fully understand the story and the characters, as without it they would make less sense and there would be nothing to challenge you in the story, as I think there should always be. Sex, violence and child abuse are all intrinsic to understanding DANNY, so no matter which part of it makes the reader uncomfortable, without it the book would be less effective, and denying the importance of a book that highlights these issues is merely an attempt to hide from them in reality. Sometimes feeling uncomfortable is the most important part of an art form, as it is supposed to highlight aspects of life others may not be used to, and is important in developing a person's understanding and opinions of a subject that other less daring writers would not draw attention to.
An example of a part of DANNY that made me uncomfortable is when John Jackson Moore Senior is allowed by John to do something sexual with Danny. This made me uncomfortable as it upset me that John would stand by and watch this happen, but I saw the scene's significance and the need for it to happen, for John to attempt to glimpse the truth of Danny and his father's relationship and to (in my opinion) give John a reason to kill him and for John to attempt to redeem himself for leaving Danny at his mercy as a child by avenging him in the present.
I do not think anything in DANNY could be seen as slight, not the characters or emotions or actions or anything. Slight seems to suggest that parts of it don't matter, and every word written in Danny matters to the whole of the story. DANNY is a deep book in every sense, and to only feel slight emotion for the characters doesn't make sense to me, as I think you feel so many emotions for all the main characters. The way the emotions you feel contradict themselves, as the characters do, makes you feel and understand the characters instead of feeling like you're being told about them. I can't understand how this writing could create slight emotions.
