Scan barcode
marlene87's review
dark
emotional
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
blackmore's review
1.0
The author has clearly done a lot of research and this was an interesting look into what it was like to be a house servant at the time. Unfortunately, that's where my compliments end. The book was just incredibly boring. Considering it's a spin-off of Jekyll & Hyde, I was disappointed in the lack of horror or suspense of any kind. It was almost suspenseful in a few places, but honestly overall it was a whole lot of nothing and I was just desperate to finish it.
rebuiltbybooks's review
dark
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
hoserlauren's review against another edition
2.0
The only saving grace of this book was that it was short. It's a pretty boring re-telling of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from the servant's point of view, but it brings absolutely nothing new to the story. There's no interesting vantage of an otherwise well known story or really anything to save this boring book. The amount of times that Mary gets a fire ready in a room is ridiculous.
I haven't read the original, but I'd also like to know why people don't recognize that Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll? How does the same person look so different that no one can recognize him?
I haven't read the original, but I'd also like to know why people don't recognize that Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll? How does the same person look so different that no one can recognize him?
ashkitty93's review against another edition
3.0
As much as I love the story of Jekyll & Hyde, I've never actually read the source material. I've heard variations of the story for years, from the Wishbone version when I was a kid to the Wildhorn/Bricusse musical and now this retelling. Every version seems to fill in a new space and add something new to the whole mythos, and I love that.
Mary's voice is very distinct, not in the least thanks to her imperfect (and sometimes inconsistent) speech and writing patterns. Early on in the book she was always saying "mun" instead of "must" and then by the end it seemed like she had dropped "mun" completely. Seeing as there was no information about her being further educated or anything like that, I found the change odd. The Afterword felt very reminiscent of the Phantom of the Opera, where the author/narrator stayed in character and described receiving Mary's papers. Overall it was nicely written.
Mary's voice is very distinct, not in the least thanks to her imperfect (and sometimes inconsistent) speech and writing patterns. Early on in the book she was always saying "mun" instead of "must" and then by the end it seemed like she had dropped "mun" completely. Seeing as there was no information about her being further educated or anything like that, I found the change odd. The Afterword felt very reminiscent of the Phantom of the Opera, where the author/narrator stayed in character and described receiving Mary's papers. Overall it was nicely written.
pilchardsmimi's review
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
kristinana's review
4.0
I liked this slim novel told from the perspective of the maid in Dr. Jekyll's house. I loved the descriptions of Mary's work (for some reason I enjoy descriptions of housework -- which is funny because I certainly don't like doing it) and Mary's voice was very distinct -- I feel as if I can still hear it in my head (part of the reason I plan to avoid the movie). The period details were really interesting, especially about funerals (my only complaint historically is that at one point, Jekyll asks the servants to sit down so that he can tell them something, which seems unlikely to me). Much of the novel is very eerie -- I enjoyed the chilling parts very much.
I had two main problems with the novel conceptually, though. The first is that I felt it was too short. It makes sense that it's short, since Jekyll & Hyde is, but for some reason, this novel didn't feel complete to me in the way J&H does. My second problem is that I can't see how the novel would make much sense if you hadn't read J&H. While I personally enjoyed being able to follow the references to J&H, I also feel a novel like this should be more than a companion to the original; it should be a stand-alone novel. For example, The Historian (a novel I seem repeatedly to compare to other recent novels) is enriched by having read Dracula, but it's got a full life all its own (though admittedly, the intimacy of Mary Reilly does make me feel I know her character better than those of The Historian). Anyway, The Historian) is three times longer than MR, so there you go. I just felt as though there was a lot missing from many of the conversations Mary has with Jekyll. Obviously we know what his mysterious questions mean, but her wondering about them often feels too much like she's just trying to figure him out specifically rather than having it inspire deeper thoughts in her. I mean, it does the latter too, but not to the extent I would like.
However, I don't mean to bash this novel, which I truly enjoyed. The scary parts are much scarier than I would have expected knowing J&H, and the idea of a literate maid is really interesting and unlikely but not unbelievable. There's something about Martin's writing that reminds me of Margaret Atwood (who is quoted on the back of the edition of the book I have), which can never be a bad thing.
I had two main problems with the novel conceptually, though. The first is that I felt it was too short. It makes sense that it's short, since Jekyll & Hyde is, but for some reason, this novel didn't feel complete to me in the way J&H does. My second problem is that I can't see how the novel would make much sense if you hadn't read J&H. While I personally enjoyed being able to follow the references to J&H, I also feel a novel like this should be more than a companion to the original; it should be a stand-alone novel. For example, The Historian (a novel I seem repeatedly to compare to other recent novels) is enriched by having read Dracula, but it's got a full life all its own (though admittedly, the intimacy of Mary Reilly does make me feel I know her character better than those of The Historian). Anyway, The Historian) is three times longer than MR, so there you go. I just felt as though there was a lot missing from many of the conversations Mary has with Jekyll. Obviously we know what his mysterious questions mean, but her wondering about them often feels too much like she's just trying to figure him out specifically rather than having it inspire deeper thoughts in her. I mean, it does the latter too, but not to the extent I would like.
However, I don't mean to bash this novel, which I truly enjoyed. The scary parts are much scarier than I would have expected knowing J&H, and the idea of a literate maid is really interesting and unlikely but not unbelievable. There's something about Martin's writing that reminds me of Margaret Atwood (who is quoted on the back of the edition of the book I have), which can never be a bad thing.
jordantanguay's review against another edition
4.0
A sharp little book with an excellent main character. It haunts the writings of Daphne Du Muarier and Agatha Christie. Spooky.
ralipessined's review
3.0
i thought this would give me more “romance” or affection between the characters but they honestly hardly interact. this was interesting but very repetitive which i guess fits into the idea of a journal.