Usually I try to review books that I've enjoyed. Well, here's one I didn't enjoy.
I was attracted by the cover and the hope that it would be another enjoyable Victorian- era novel a la Sarah Waters. It starts out quite promisingly, with believable characters and something that might become an interesting plot, but about three-quarters of the way through all believable parameters are thrown away and I felt as if I was reading someone's drug trip, mental breakdown or a rewrite of the Book of Revelation. It's as if the author suddenly gave up and thought he'd just throw a lot of weird stuff in, which might (he hopes) be interpreted by the reader as significant and meaningful. Good fantasy has an internal logic of its own; its world is believable on its own terms, but this....? It's a lot like the last episode of Lost, which raised more questions than it answered and was really lame. ("Oh, so they all go into the Light, do they? How very original. Not.") With this book, you're left asking "Yes, but how did Ariston Day and the Fetches get into the Empyrean? And why did Nathan become a white ape? And what are the white apes anyway? And how did Madeleine and Pascal get back to London from the Empyrean, considering that the Empyrean is not on the same plane of existence? Did they walk? Did they get a cab? " Sorry, Sarah Waters it aint. Reading the readers' reviews on Goodreads I obviously missed something; everyone else seemed to think it was a work of genius, but I can't concur. If I was being really nasty I would say it was subjective claptrap, trying hard to be deep and profound.
Best avoided.
Thank you.
ReplyDelete