Reviews - The Angel of the Crows

808 reviews for:

The Angel of the Crows

Katherine Addison

3.81 AVERAGE

meliss83's review against another edition

4.0

adventurous medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Character

maryellen's review against another edition

5.0

adventurous challenging dark emotional funny mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: Yes

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Complicated

Content Warnings

roguehireling's review against another edition

3.0

I had no idea what the book was about when I began. I really enjoyed the realization that this was a spin on Sherlock Holmes. I did very much enjoy the stories.
What I struggled with was the various formats in the book. It felt not as cohesive to me.
But overall, enjoyed the book and the story.

cathyg12's review against another edition

5.0

adventurous dark mysterious fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Plot

Strong character development: Complicated

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

gocubs1908's review against another edition

4.0

I kept thinking, I've read these stories before, because I have read these stories before. But I was still driven to keep reading. And I enjoyed the sensation of having the rug pulled out from under me. An odd book. Parts of it exceedingly well done.

amysmithlinton's review against another edition

4.0

What if Sherlock Holmes were a angel, and Watson a doctor recovering from a supernatural attack in Afghanistan? What if their Victorian London was inhabited by werewolves and hell-hounds, angels, and magic? And Jack the Ripper, naturally.

In this romp, Katherine Addison leverages fan fiction based on the recent BBC Benedict Cumberbatch (Benefit Scramblehatch?) Sherlock series into a lively homage to the classic detective stories.

bluepigeon's review against another edition

4.25

adventurous dark emotional funny mysterious tense fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: Yes

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

themorbidcorvid's review against another edition

4.25

adventurous dark mysterious medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Plot

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: No

kohlsamanda's review against another edition

2.0

DNF at 30%

Unfortunately, the blurb of this book really did it in. The promise was of a gritty, supernatural London plagued by Jack the Ripper with a dark angel seeking him out. Instead, it was... Sherlock Holmes. Not just inspired, but an actual retelling of multiple Sherlock Holmes cases.

The angel protecting London, rather than the avenger as described in the description, is just an awkward, socially inept Sherlock Holmes with wings. Dr. Watson is himself, except at night he sometimes turns into a hellhound.

There is really nothing in this book that relates to what was promised. Apparently, if I were to continue, the Jack the Ripper storyline is one of the smaller stories in which Sherlock tracks a Jack the Ripper-esque figure. Unfortunately, I didn't really want to slog through a series of short stories (in which I already knew the endings) to get there.

luciferin's review against another edition

If you want to read Johnlock Wingfic, go read real Johnlock Wingfic on AO3. This here is not what you want.

I loved the premise. Sherlock AND supernatural forces? Yes, please. The characters are interesting and their background stories even more so. I also really would have loved the queer elements in this, in theory. In the reality that is this book, or execution-wise, you could say, this falls as flat as a wet piece of toast on the floor. First of all (and that’s a pet peeve of mine), the title never actually occurs anywhere in the book. In fact, Crow calls himself

the angel of London, which makes way more sense

. Second, he hardly ever really solves ANYTHING. It’s Doyle, or their friends, or the suspects or their victims themselves who miraculously turn up wherever they are needed to catch the perpetrator. Third, and that is two things that immediately made me remove any other work by this author from my tbr, and I purposely don’t hide this behind a spoiler warning, because I personally would have liked to know this beforehand: This book will queerbait you to death. The feeling of weirdly forced heteronormativity you get after you read about a third of it? Yes, you are correct in feeling that way. There isn’t ever anything going to happen between these two. And that’s not even the “worst“ of it:

besides this reading like baby‘s first fanfic (which is absolutely not a bad thing IN FIC, as we all start small), it SEVERELY lacks a sensitivity reader. The way the queer themes in this book are handled feels like the author has ZERO idea what they are writing about, and how to write about it. And that really pisses me off and puts me off anything this author could ever write. Or as two commenters before me said:

xan_van_rooyen's review: […] Doyle is outed as actually being a woman. He describes himself as a woman in one conversation but later says he feels like he's not a man or woman. Given the time period I completely understand not using modern terminology like non-binary, but the assertion that Doyle is a woman despite presenting like a man and seemingly self-identifying as a man didn't sit well with me. There is also the matter of Crow, his closest friend, deadnaming Doyle in a moment of crisis and this isn't presented as problematic and is never questioned or emotionally responded to by Doyle. Did this upset Doyle? Does Doyle prefer being called Joanna? No idea. As a reader, and a trans one at that, I'm left feeling confused about Doyle's identity. If this character is a trans man, which is how I initially read him, to say he's 'actually' a 'woman' doesn't seem right in a way that makes me wonder if this is less an issue within the character and more a problem of representation as written by the author.

The second issue is Crow, or all angels in general really, who are female but come to be defined by external expectations. They seem to assume a gender based on others naming them despite how they might identify within themselves, or the fact that they never actually identify as anything other than female. At one point Doyle and Crow discuss this and it seems clear to me that Crow accepts others might see him as male but that he identifies as female, or a woman perhaps (not necessarily the same thing). Doyle then has a moment of indecision about pronouns but says he just cant bring himself to see Crow as female so defaults to male pronouns without asking Crow what he might actually want or how he feels about it. This idea that a person's gender identity depends on how others perceive you is deeply problematic for me, especially when Doyle disregards how Crow identifies because of what Doyle thinks is easier, better, more correct.

So, both characters are ostensibly trans and yet their agency and identity seems to get muddled to the point where I don't actually know how Doyle saw his own identity. Despite this being in first person, we are never privy to Doyle's own thoughts about his gender identity outside of a few comments about not missing skirts and needing to keep his anatomy a secret, something he even later uses as blackmail material. Actually the more I reflect on this, the less I like the trans rep in this book. As for Crow, it seems he (she) is misgendered throughout the book but this is never challenged or corrected. It just feels weird.

There is also an odd take on consent and asexuality where Crow offers Doyle sex and Doyle considers that any sex with a person who doesn't feel sexual attraction would be akin to rape and that is... quite a statement considering the diversity of feelings towards sex and intimacy across the ace spectrum.

So yeah, there was a lot to like about this book, but I did not love the queer rep at all and I'm struggling to give this any sort of star review because of that.

foggy_rosamund's review: […] I don't understand what Addison's thinking was with Doyle's gender identity. My reading of the novel was that Doyle is a trans man, but at other times Addison suggests that Doyle is dressing as a man for practical reasons only, and at other times that Doyle has a non-binary gender identity. Doyle being ambivalent about his gender, or not having accessing to language to describe his relationship to gender, would make a lot of sense given the time period, but Addison doesn't explore Doyle's gender in any depth.

[…]

And I‘ll throw in sone reddit takes on this: napplepie: About the gender thing... Monette/Addison is on the record stating that Doyle could be read as genderqueer, a crossdressing lesbian, or a transman, and that those are all valid readings. Personally I wasn't really sure what to think of it. Doyle says they're a woman in that quote, but then also is okay with presenting as a man for years on end.

eriophora OP: Mmm. I'm honestly not sure how to feel about that. There's a VERY big difference between being a crossdressing lesbian and a trans man, for example. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Addison thinks that those two identities could have the same story arc and character development across such a lengthy novel.

And the interview the comments are hinting at:
Thebooksmugglers.com/2020/06/queering-dr-watson-sexual-identity-in-the-angel-of-the-crows

[…] The question of Doyle’s sexual identity is a vexed one. You can read Doyle as a trans man, although that term is completely unavailable to the characters, or you can read Doyle as a transvestite lesbian. Or you can read Doyle as profoundly genderqueer (also a term not available to the characters). […]

The author‘s intentions are kind and honourable, but again, the execution is awful. What you NEED in this case is a sensitivity reader, preferably someone WHO IS PART OF THE GROUP YOU WRITE ABOUT AND CAN GIVE YOU THEIR LIVED AND TRUE OPINION AND EXPERIENCES.

Sigh. I‘m tired of this book. I could have loved this. But I can’t. So I also think I will not give this any star rating at all.

More...