Scan barcode
dale_in_va's review against another edition
3.0
The book kept me engaged, and I wanted to know what was going to happen to all the characters, so I did finish the book.
That said, do we need another victorian novel about who deserves to be in the elite based on archaic and inaccurate european caste systems? And do we really need to see what privileged white people will do to one another and to people who they find dispensible in order to hold onto their power?
That said, do we need another victorian novel about who deserves to be in the elite based on archaic and inaccurate european caste systems? And do we really need to see what privileged white people will do to one another and to people who they find dispensible in order to hold onto their power?
coralrose's review against another edition
4.0
So much better and more satisfying than his first. Loose ends are tied up and frayed and tied up again. Less overwrought and yet still complex. It's a pity you have to read his first in order to fully appreciate this, Cox's second offering.
katieparker's review
5.0
At first I had given this book four stars, but upon further consideration, mainly due to the fact that I couldn't get the voice of Miss Esperanza Alice Gorst out of my head, I changed my rating to five stars.
I don't want to say to much, as deciphering the truth alongside the young orphaned lady's maid is well-worth one's time, but I will say that this story builds well on the complex and interesting history already presented in The Meaning of Night. Most of the narrative is set at Evenwood, home of the Duports in Northamptonshire, England and now run by the 26th Baroness Tansor, Lady Emily Duport, née Cartaret, whom readers will remember well from The Meaning of Night, though she is now some 20 years older. Keep in mind that The Glass of Time is absolutely not a stand-alone novel, whatever you may have heard, and failure to first read its predecessor, The Meaning of Night, will undoubtedly leave you scratching your head and wishing for more details behind the quick summations given for prior events.
I read that Michael Cox had originally conceived the Duport story as a trilogy, however his recent death put an end to that vision, which I was sorry to learn. At least the end of this second book is clean and leaves (virtually) no loose ends.
I don't want to say to much, as deciphering the truth alongside the young orphaned lady's maid is well-worth one's time, but I will say that this story builds well on the complex and interesting history already presented in The Meaning of Night. Most of the narrative is set at Evenwood, home of the Duports in Northamptonshire, England and now run by the 26th Baroness Tansor, Lady Emily Duport, née Cartaret, whom readers will remember well from The Meaning of Night, though she is now some 20 years older. Keep in mind that The Glass of Time is absolutely not a stand-alone novel, whatever you may have heard, and failure to first read its predecessor, The Meaning of Night, will undoubtedly leave you scratching your head and wishing for more details behind the quick summations given for prior events.
I read that Michael Cox had originally conceived the Duport story as a trilogy, however his recent death put an end to that vision, which I was sorry to learn. At least the end of this second book is clean and leaves (virtually) no loose ends.
kikiandarrowsfishshelf's review against another edition
3.0
There is something about the redeemable bad guy, or more accurately, there is something about certain bad guys that make people want to redeem them. Usually, it fails in terms of the story. The bad guy becomes too saint like or something else.
Take the three Star Wars prequels, for instance (aka the bad Star Wars movies). In the three prequels, Lucas wanted to present the fall of a good man, a space opera Macbeth as it were.
Shakespeare has nothing to worry about (unless, he's turning over in his grave, but considering the amount of bad up-dates of his plays, he's going to be spinning for a long time).
The prequels had huge problems. The most revelent being why Padme would marry Anakin in the first place. I went to Clones with three other people. None of us knew what made Anakin attractive. Considering that this deep love is suppose to feed the fear that leads to Annie's fall, you would think it would be believable. The prequels convinced me that none of the whole galatic mess would've happened if (a) Jedi had brains, and (b) Yoda, Obi, or Mace had given Anakin a good hiding. Yes, I know spanking is out right now, but if any spoiled brat needed it, it was him.
Why does true love excuse his violent behavior and make Padme into a weak willed woman who sounds like a bad version of Samwise when she confronts her husband? (Honey, he killed all those Sand people!). Why does true love make a man who is a mulitple mass murderer, kills his teacher, tries to kill his son, freezes Han Solo, and tortures his daughter into a good guy who gets his own cartoon? (And why didn't Vader know Leia was his? How come veryone was surprised about twins? Was pre-natal care really that bad?)
Sometimes, however, redeeming the bad guy works. Take the movie Mongol, for instance. (Yes, don't worry. I will eventually get to the book). It is a sympathic view of Gengsis Khan, who if you are Western or Chinese, you have, at the very least, mixed feelings about. The movie made me want to marry him. He loves his wife, she loves him, she saves him by letting her self be wife napped, he gets her back, like she knew he would. Eventually, he gets captured and handed over to the Chinese. A monk gets a message to Khan's wife who journeys to get him out of jail (and boy is it a jail). To even get to China, she uses the only currency she has, herself. When she rescues her husband and they flee China, they are accompanied by their son as well as her daughter who was not, biologically speaking, his. The Khan's first words to the girl, "I'm your father now." Doesn't rebuke his wife, is simply happy to see her, doesn't treat the girl any differently than his son. He still has flaws, but the movie makes him an attractive and believable man.
This bad guy talk is important because Cox's first book was about a murderer who may or may not be a bad guy, and may or may not be insane. The Glass of Time is the sequel and answers these questions.
It is difficult to talk about this book without giving away spoilers for either The Meaning of Night or this sequel. In many ways, the answering of the questions raised in the first book, is somewhat of a disappointment. The reader, I think, of the first book is better without those answers. The story is better when the reader doubts the characters.
I say somewhat, because the theme of the book is forgiveness, and theme as well as the plot require the answers to those questions. Twenty years after the events of the first book, the characters still feel the ghost, the decay of those events. The book is the bastard child of [b:Wuthering Heights|6185|Wuthering Heights|Emily Brontë|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255584435s/6185.jpg|1565818], [b:Jane Eyre|10210|Jane Eyre|Charlotte Brontë|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266450134s/10210.jpg|2977639], and the works of Wilkie Collins. Cox was the heir to the Brontes and Collins (he seems like their much delayed love child).
Cox's redeeming of his bad guy is far more believable and realstic than Star Wars: The Bad Trilogy, more like Mongol. This means that while some twists are foreseeable, the novel is believable, which is more important than shocking. Cox's tone, gripping and fast paced, makes up for any easy to foresee plot twists.
Cox's death has robbed this generation of its Brontes, James, and LeFanu.
Take the three Star Wars prequels, for instance (aka the bad Star Wars movies). In the three prequels, Lucas wanted to present the fall of a good man, a space opera Macbeth as it were.
Shakespeare has nothing to worry about (unless, he's turning over in his grave, but considering the amount of bad up-dates of his plays, he's going to be spinning for a long time).
The prequels had huge problems. The most revelent being why Padme would marry Anakin in the first place. I went to Clones with three other people. None of us knew what made Anakin attractive. Considering that this deep love is suppose to feed the fear that leads to Annie's fall, you would think it would be believable. The prequels convinced me that none of the whole galatic mess would've happened if (a) Jedi had brains, and (b) Yoda, Obi, or Mace had given Anakin a good hiding. Yes, I know spanking is out right now, but if any spoiled brat needed it, it was him.
Why does true love excuse his violent behavior and make Padme into a weak willed woman who sounds like a bad version of Samwise when she confronts her husband? (Honey, he killed all those Sand people!). Why does true love make a man who is a mulitple mass murderer, kills his teacher, tries to kill his son, freezes Han Solo, and tortures his daughter into a good guy who gets his own cartoon? (And why didn't Vader know Leia was his? How come veryone was surprised about twins? Was pre-natal care really that bad?)
Sometimes, however, redeeming the bad guy works. Take the movie Mongol, for instance. (Yes, don't worry. I will eventually get to the book). It is a sympathic view of Gengsis Khan, who if you are Western or Chinese, you have, at the very least, mixed feelings about. The movie made me want to marry him. He loves his wife, she loves him, she saves him by letting her self be wife napped, he gets her back, like she knew he would. Eventually, he gets captured and handed over to the Chinese. A monk gets a message to Khan's wife who journeys to get him out of jail (and boy is it a jail). To even get to China, she uses the only currency she has, herself. When she rescues her husband and they flee China, they are accompanied by their son as well as her daughter who was not, biologically speaking, his. The Khan's first words to the girl, "I'm your father now." Doesn't rebuke his wife, is simply happy to see her, doesn't treat the girl any differently than his son. He still has flaws, but the movie makes him an attractive and believable man.
This bad guy talk is important because Cox's first book was about a murderer who may or may not be a bad guy, and may or may not be insane. The Glass of Time is the sequel and answers these questions.
It is difficult to talk about this book without giving away spoilers for either The Meaning of Night or this sequel. In many ways, the answering of the questions raised in the first book, is somewhat of a disappointment. The reader, I think, of the first book is better without those answers. The story is better when the reader doubts the characters.
I say somewhat, because the theme of the book is forgiveness, and theme as well as the plot require the answers to those questions. Twenty years after the events of the first book, the characters still feel the ghost, the decay of those events. The book is the bastard child of [b:Wuthering Heights|6185|Wuthering Heights|Emily Brontë|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255584435s/6185.jpg|1565818], [b:Jane Eyre|10210|Jane Eyre|Charlotte Brontë|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266450134s/10210.jpg|2977639], and the works of Wilkie Collins. Cox was the heir to the Brontes and Collins (he seems like their much delayed love child).
Cox's redeeming of his bad guy is far more believable and realstic than Star Wars: The Bad Trilogy, more like Mongol. This means that while some twists are foreseeable, the novel is believable, which is more important than shocking. Cox's tone, gripping and fast paced, makes up for any easy to foresee plot twists.
Cox's death has robbed this generation of its Brontes, James, and LeFanu.
bookishvanessa's review against another edition
5.0
This is a great sequel to The Meaning of Night, which I prefer over this sequel. Nonetheless, this story is just as enticing, dark, and atmospheric. It does away with the manuscript style of The Meaning of Night, making it faster-moving and more readable.
tericarol21's review
4.0
(mild spoilers, but not many...)
I thoroughly enjoyed this sequel to The Meaning of Night. While it may be a little overwritten, particularly in the first half, it is decidedly in-character (since the story is supposedly written by one of the characters). Again the plot twists kept me guessing for a while, though there are definitely things I knew well in advance of their big-reveal. I think anyone having read the first book would have guessed them, though--it's like reading any other story where you know more than the characters do. I confess that I was nervous toward the end, thinking perhaps it was going to all go wrong, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that was not the case.
I enjoyed this duet of books and would gladly read more from this author.
I thoroughly enjoyed this sequel to The Meaning of Night. While it may be a little overwritten, particularly in the first half, it is decidedly in-character (since the story is supposedly written by one of the characters). Again the plot twists kept me guessing for a while, though there are definitely things I knew well in advance of their big-reveal. I think anyone having read the first book would have guessed them, though--it's like reading any other story where you know more than the characters do. I confess that I was nervous toward the end, thinking perhaps it was going to all go wrong, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that was not the case.
I enjoyed this duet of books and would gladly read more from this author.
zey08e9e's review
5.0
I LOVED this book! What a page turner. I have to say The Meaning of Night, I enjoyed it, but, it didn't quite have me reading while walking like this one did. And I do feel you don't have to have read that in order to read this at all. They explain everything pretty well.
I think what made this most enjoyable is knowing that the lead character only really knew as much as you did. You were discovering each step as she was. Her past being so simple and straight forward that you literally knew all she did and saw all through her eyes. And just as you thought you knew where things were heading they throw in some curveballs and before you know it, its 3am and you can't stop reading! ha!
It had just the right amount of everything in it, not overly descriptive, it always got to the point and it kept moving.
I don't want to give anything away, I simply want to tell others READ IT. Lots of fun.
I think what made this most enjoyable is knowing that the lead character only really knew as much as you did. You were discovering each step as she was. Her past being so simple and straight forward that you literally knew all she did and saw all through her eyes. And just as you thought you knew where things were heading they throw in some curveballs and before you know it, its 3am and you can't stop reading! ha!
It had just the right amount of everything in it, not overly descriptive, it always got to the point and it kept moving.
I don't want to give anything away, I simply want to tell others READ IT. Lots of fun.
realbooks4ever's review
3.0
I'm a bit disappointed in this follow-up to THE MEANING OF NIGHT, my favorite book of 2006. I recommend reading that book before reading this book. Otherwise, I think one would become confused with all the information thats crammed in at the end of this story, apparently in order to make more sense of the storyline.
More...