It would be wrong to suggest that publishing is astroturfed, but it’s definitely 5000% true that if publishers want to push something, it’s going to be everywhere. That’s how the overnight success of Caro Claire Burke’s Yesteryear, pre-optioned by Amazon with Anne Hathaway attached and specifically thanked in the acknowledgements, happened. It mushroomed everywhere, and almost immediately the discourse became “is Yesteryear worth the hype?” My literary media in Christ, you’re the ones who pushed it! But the answer is … it’s all right. It just doesn’t hold up to any degree of scrutiny.
“My name is Natalie Heller Mills, and I was perfect at being alive.”
Natalie Mills is the face of Yesteryear, a homesteading brand that recalls the antebellum US, but you’d better not call her a tradwife. On the day after she experiences more than a little trouble behind the scenes of her perfect life, Natalie wakes up to find that she appears to be living in the 1855 she so eloquently espouses on her channels – with none of the modern conveniences, cameras, or nannies, that helped her get through the day-to-day. Stuck with a husband who looks like an older version of her “real” husband Caleb, who is distant at best, and an uncanny valley of children who resemble but are not those she is used to, Natalie is desperate to return in the other direction.
A different novel would have focused heavily on Natalie’s 1855 lifestyle, but Burke is merciful. Interlaced between the 1855 segments, which come to feel as much of a bad dream to the reader as they do to the subject, is Natalie’s life story to date: from her friendless childhood with a pretend dead father, to her friendless college tenure with a roommate she equally could not stand but was also fixated on, and to her fledgling relationship with God’s dumbest soldier.
Natalie is a fascinating character primarily because she is often close to seeing the truth of the society that she has chosen to live in, but then she gets it horribly wrong. Every time there’s a potential breakthrough or an event makes her look like she could be a sympathetic figure, she says or does something so horrible that you feel like she’s not worth saving or caring about. Burke has written Natalie as a supremely unreliable narrator, even to herself. The perspective is so close that you can’t tell how much is reality and how much is fabrication. There are blink-and-you’ll-miss-them moments of revelation of character that will force you to go back and reread earlier passages to make you realise that an assessment you felt was unfair may have had some truth to it. You can, and you must, hold in your head the twin concepts that Natalie is a bad person but also that she is treated unfairly.
Yesteryear falls into an uneasy understanding of modern social media and all its many tentacles; Caleb falls victim to many granular forums that sell him a deadly cocktail of what to believe and what he wants to believe, ignoring that in recent years much of this content is now on the wide open mesas of the internet rather than hiding out in specialist venues. Caleb is one of Burke’s more curious creations, as she wants to simultaneously showcase him as a corrupted simpleton and a Machiavellian prince.
Other characters are not so well filled out: Amelia, Caleb’s mother, is an inconsistent sketch of a woman, a failed depiction of the permanently zonked out wife of a professional Republican campaigner. It takes too long for Amelia’s secondary character to reveal itself, at which point it does not ring true, and it never makes sense that she (badly) cooks the family dinner every night when she has an army of invisible maids at her disposal. Here Burke’s satire fails due to a lack of clarity of purpose, and she falls into easy caricature. Amelia is not enough of a person in any direction to feel sorrow or contempt for, and it’s difficult to place that blame at Natalie’s feet rather than Burke’s.
Yet in the end it feels like the facade falls not from Natalie, but from Burke herself. Having written herself into a corner with the possible divine or science-fictional punishment of our “heroine”, Burke just throws everything up in the air and hopes that it lands in a satisfactory matter. But Yesteryear stretches the boundaries of disbelief in a way that does not justify anything that came before it.
Is Burke sadistic? There’s a distinct sense that Yesteryear is giving its protagonist her comeuppance, but any time that she suffers or is abused in the 1855 timeline, it merely feels like she is suffering or being abused. We are too close to the character to feel that she’s getting just deserts, which are frequent and horrible. At times it feels like Burke is trying to recreate a version of The Handmaid’s Tale where Offred secretly deserves her treatment, but realistically no one does, no matter how ironic the punishment.
The real question is does Yesteryear need its “time travel” gimmick? Apart from anything else, that smacks of genre, and seems more likely to turn readers away than draw them in. But more than that, the 1855 timeline isn’t a logical conclusion, it just throws into relief that Yesteryear could have been told in a close enough to linear fashion without suffering in the least; benefiting from it, even. It’s understandable that a book needs a hook if it wants to make it in the cut throat world of publishing (even when the book is anointed by its publisher?), but sometimes a thesis gets in the way of itself.
Yesteryear offers few easy answers, but asks the reader to swallow the last thirty pages and like them without trying to assimilate them with anything that they know, either internally or externally. If you think about it, and Yesteryear is designed as a “makes you think” piece, nothing makes sense either psychologically or legalistically. Can you duff something so badly and for so many pages that a partially affecting epilogue can pay for all? That’s what Burke is counting on, and that’s what she doesn’t deliver. Yesteryear eventually becomes propulsive, but its multiple frustrations pile up and somehow it becomes less than the sum of its parts. Maybe Anne Hathaway can justify it, but you could be forgiven for feeling that it’s just so much empty hype.