Scan barcode
bev_reads_mysteries's review against another edition
3.0
Mary Reilly by Valerie Martin is a retelling of Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde. Vividly told from the point of view of Mary Reilly, a maid in Jekyll's house, we are given an inside look at how Jekyll's house was run and how his household viewed his behavior during those fateful months when Hyde was let loose. Her story is told in the form of journal entries made during her time in Jekyll's household..
Mary is a likeable character and, as the narrator, tells her story well. We learn that she endured her own Jekyll/Hyde character--found in her father. Her father was a man who never showed great love for Mary, but who turned into an abusive demon-like character when, as she puts it, "the drink was upon him." It is the scars on her hands, a result of such abuse, that first draws her to the attention of her Master. Jekyll asks her for a written account of how she acquired those scars and she obliges. One might wonder how a housemaid in Victorian London is able to read and write, but that is explained. Mary had the opportunity to attend one of the schools that Jekyll charitably supports and she made the most of her brief time there.
Over the course of the story, Mary and Dr. Jekyll are drawn together. It would seem that he has taken an interest in her precisely because of her experience of the dark side of man. And he seems interested in her responses to the experiences she has had. He asks her how she felt about the monster her father became at times. And she replies, "Oh, I don't think he were a monster, sir. He were an ordinary man, but drinking did for him as it has many another." He considers her answer and asks, " You don't hate this father of yours, Mary?" She replies, but doesn't really answer his question. She continues to struggle with this question throughtout the book.
For her part, Mary is totally devoted to Jekyll. She believes she has found the best employer possible and a safe haven from her past in the dark back streets of her childhood. She worries at
his apparent failing health as he continues his "work" in his laboratory and frets at the influence the strange Mr. Hyde seems to have over him. And worries about herself as events unfold and she is reminded more and more of her father.
Mary is a believable, strongly drawn character. She is observant and tells us all she sees and experiences--even those experiences that seem to show her idolized employer in a less than ideal light. It may stretch our belief a bit that Dr. Jekyll would talk to such a one as Mary as he does and take her into his confidence in some of the matters that he does, but the story is so well-told that our disbelief is willingly suspended. I was completely drawn into Mary's story and absolutely enjoyed this alternate take on the familiar tale. When I took part in the Dueling Monster Read-a-Long, one of the questions asked was if we thought the lack of female characters detracted from the story. I think that Valerie Martin has given a very good rendition of what the story could have been with female characters strongly to the fore.
My main quibble comes from the Afterword--written as if the diaries were real and Ms. Martin came across them. Ms. Martin writes it as though she is completely unaware of the account given by Robert Louis Stevenson. As if there's a question of what really happened in the end. Surely a faculty member in a graduate writing program has heard of the earlier account. It would have read much cleaner if she had made her bows to Stevenson's work.
Three and a half stars out of five.
Mary is a likeable character and, as the narrator, tells her story well. We learn that she endured her own Jekyll/Hyde character--found in her father. Her father was a man who never showed great love for Mary, but who turned into an abusive demon-like character when, as she puts it, "the drink was upon him." It is the scars on her hands, a result of such abuse, that first draws her to the attention of her Master. Jekyll asks her for a written account of how she acquired those scars and she obliges. One might wonder how a housemaid in Victorian London is able to read and write, but that is explained. Mary had the opportunity to attend one of the schools that Jekyll charitably supports and she made the most of her brief time there.
Over the course of the story, Mary and Dr. Jekyll are drawn together. It would seem that he has taken an interest in her precisely because of her experience of the dark side of man. And he seems interested in her responses to the experiences she has had. He asks her how she felt about the monster her father became at times. And she replies, "Oh, I don't think he were a monster, sir. He were an ordinary man, but drinking did for him as it has many another." He considers her answer and asks, " You don't hate this father of yours, Mary?" She replies, but doesn't really answer his question. She continues to struggle with this question throughtout the book.
For her part, Mary is totally devoted to Jekyll. She believes she has found the best employer possible and a safe haven from her past in the dark back streets of her childhood. She worries at
his apparent failing health as he continues his "work" in his laboratory and frets at the influence the strange Mr. Hyde seems to have over him. And worries about herself as events unfold and she is reminded more and more of her father.
Mary is a believable, strongly drawn character. She is observant and tells us all she sees and experiences--even those experiences that seem to show her idolized employer in a less than ideal light. It may stretch our belief a bit that Dr. Jekyll would talk to such a one as Mary as he does and take her into his confidence in some of the matters that he does, but the story is so well-told that our disbelief is willingly suspended. I was completely drawn into Mary's story and absolutely enjoyed this alternate take on the familiar tale. When I took part in the Dueling Monster Read-a-Long, one of the questions asked was if we thought the lack of female characters detracted from the story. I think that Valerie Martin has given a very good rendition of what the story could have been with female characters strongly to the fore.
My main quibble comes from the Afterword--written as if the diaries were real and Ms. Martin came across them. Ms. Martin writes it as though she is completely unaware of the account given by Robert Louis Stevenson. As if there's a question of what really happened in the end. Surely a faculty member in a graduate writing program has heard of the earlier account. It would have read much cleaner if she had made her bows to Stevenson's work.
Three and a half stars out of five.
gelatolady's review
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
eileenmccoy's review
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.75
gnoe's review
I felt the need to read Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde to be able to fully appreciate Mary Reilly. So that's what I did. And I'm glad of it because now I often knew what was happening while Mary did not.
Of course I was looking out for Mary Reilly in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde but... she wasn't there! Just the kitchen maid, a nervous little person. So Valerie Martin made Mary up. I like how she uses her (and Stevenson's story) to acquaint us with the fact that there *were* housemaids and underhousemaids in the Victorian Age that could read and write. How she plays with fact and fiction on this matter.
BUT. Although I enjoyed reading the book I got annoyed by Mary every once in a while - how she adored her Master and resigned herself to her fate. But that's easily said in this day and age ;-)
His mouth was set and he looked at me so cold, I felt he hardly saw me, that I was some object to him, useful like his pen or his cheque, such as only exists to serve his will. A rush of anger came upon me, but I fought it down, remembering my place and my duty. Why, I thought, should he think of his own hands when he needs them? No more should he think of me.
In this Mary Reilly reminded me of reading Girl with a pearl earring.
I would like to know what happened to Mary after the death of her Master. Might there be a follow up some time in the future?
I do believe that Mary Reilly is a better read when you have a good (recent) knowledge of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - and I am even afraid of how little might be left without that. It certainly isn't gonna make my 2006 hit list ;-) And if you have the choice you'ld better read Valerie Martin's Property!
Of course I was looking out for Mary Reilly in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde but... she wasn't there! Just the kitchen maid, a nervous little person. So Valerie Martin made Mary up. I like how she uses her (and Stevenson's story) to acquaint us with the fact that there *were* housemaids and underhousemaids in the Victorian Age that could read and write. How she plays with fact and fiction on this matter.
BUT. Although I enjoyed reading the book I got annoyed by Mary every once in a while - how she adored her Master and resigned herself to her fate. But that's easily said in this day and age ;-)
His mouth was set and he looked at me so cold, I felt he hardly saw me, that I was some object to him, useful like his pen or his cheque, such as only exists to serve his will. A rush of anger came upon me, but I fought it down, remembering my place and my duty. Why, I thought, should he think of his own hands when he needs them? No more should he think of me.
In this Mary Reilly reminded me of reading Girl with a pearl earring.
I would like to know what happened to Mary after the death of her Master. Might there be a follow up some time in the future?
I do believe that Mary Reilly is a better read when you have a good (recent) knowledge of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - and I am even afraid of how little might be left without that. It certainly isn't gonna make my 2006 hit list ;-) And if you have the choice you'ld better read Valerie Martin's Property!
janellreads's review
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
vita_zeta's review
4.0
The movie Mary Reilly came out in the year I turned 11, and I remember my powerful need to see it. As you can imagine, this was not remotely appropriate for an 11-year-old, but the gothic tapestry and suggestions of erotically-charged violence were exactly what I was craving back then. I was a weird kid. And it must be that somehow I did see this movie, though not in its entirety because as I read this book particular scenes came back to me. The ones that stood out were of course the most garish - Mary being forced to look at the gory aftermath of one of Edward Hyde's early crimes, Hyde smearing his own blood over Mary's face, and of course the final scene where Hyde and Jekyll battle over the body they share and until finally they both fall dead.
That part doesn't actually happen in the book, which didn't really surprise me.
The novel Mary Reilly has two ambitions - one to illuminate the text of the original [b:The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde|51496|The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde|Robert Louis Stevenson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1318116526s/51496.jpg|3164921] while adhering to it faithfully, and creating something faithful to the gothic romance style. When I told a friend recently that I was craving gothic romance, she laughed and said something a long the lines of "Good luck with that." Which is understandable, they just don't exist anymore. Any modern publications that come even close are the much maligned YA paranormal romances. But Mary Reilly adheres to both the voice of the period and the gothic romance tradition, with Mary's thoughtful but devoted love to her tortured master, Dr. Henry Jekyll, and the delicate way their relationship unfolds. In some ways, the narrative arc of this book is held down by the original story - which doesn't really have much of an arc at all - but what the story lacks a bit in climax and action, it makes up for with an eerie atmosphere and a young but wise main character.
There is much here that contributed to the original story that I appreciated. For one, it calls out Jekyll on his shit, repeatedly. Putting the story from the perspective of someone lower in station from Jekyll creates dissonance and perspective that the original just doesn't have. What do I care what Jekyll's lawyer thinks of him? They're the same status and thus have much the same concerns - reputation. Mary, however, cares for her master's soul, and isn't so naive to not realize that its going astray. Her angrier thoughts she keeps to herself (understandable, she does need to keep her job), but what Jekyll comes to appreciate about her is her blunt and thoughtful manner of speech, which I appreciated as well.
Valerie Martin is very artful with the way she portrays Mary. As the story is told in the form of Mary's journals, she's faithful to the manner of speech and education level of housemaid who happens to know how to read and write. Mary is a survivor of childhood abuse, studious enough to pick up reading even in a difficult school environment, and dedicated enough to maintain a good job in a good house. She has to be both proud in her work, but humble in her person. Firm in her beliefs, wise in the way she views the world, but gray enough that love might sway her to do foolish or bold things. Martin keeps Mary's darker attributes at arm's length until the end - even going so far as extrapolating on them in an afterword, which I found fascinating -, so that while you may get a little bored of her detailed accounts of how she cleaned her master's rooms, you never really get tired of or upset with her.
Martin also thankfully blurs the line further between Hyde and Jekyll. We get to see moments where Mary sees Hyde through Jekyll's eyes, though she doesn't realize it at the time. It suggests what the movie leaned into - that because Jekyll is gently and gentlemanly falling in the love with Mary, Hyde wants her viciously and violently. Mary never knows the true nature of her master's experiments, so unfortunately she doesn't get the opportunity to question the ethics of what he's done. She understands early on that Jekyll is Hyde's enabler, a fact that disturbs her considering the evidence of his evil that she's seen, but as her love for her master grows, her sympathy for his situation only strengthens. She views him as a victim only, which while a tad frustrating (as I just want to scream about this so-called philanthropist who just doesn't want to get caught raping and killing people) I suppose that's what makes it a gothic romance. It's also the reason why the story ends the way it does - in a similar quiet way that in the original story felt mostly unextraordinary, in this feels creepily satisfying. Mary is not a scientist, she's a servant, she cares little how Jekyll did what he did. There's no big battle for the body and soul of Henry Jekyll, just a broken down door a man left with his a shame, and a woman who is willing to accept him and darkness, because it mirrors her own.
Valerie Martin adds a sprinkle of ambiguity and color to the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with this story, using a compelling and well-drawn character. The movie added a lot of sex appeal (which I am pretty cool with) and more drama (also very cool with), but this novel provides plenty of rich, spooky atmosphere and dark psychology, so much that I think it actually surpasses the original story in many ways. It gives you more violence, more scares than original story while still staying to true to a literary style that is all about suggestion, never the obvious.
That part doesn't actually happen in the book, which didn't really surprise me.
The novel Mary Reilly has two ambitions - one to illuminate the text of the original [b:The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde|51496|The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde|Robert Louis Stevenson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1318116526s/51496.jpg|3164921] while adhering to it faithfully, and creating something faithful to the gothic romance style. When I told a friend recently that I was craving gothic romance, she laughed and said something a long the lines of "Good luck with that." Which is understandable, they just don't exist anymore. Any modern publications that come even close are the much maligned YA paranormal romances. But Mary Reilly adheres to both the voice of the period and the gothic romance tradition, with Mary's thoughtful but devoted love to her tortured master, Dr. Henry Jekyll, and the delicate way their relationship unfolds. In some ways, the narrative arc of this book is held down by the original story - which doesn't really have much of an arc at all - but what the story lacks a bit in climax and action, it makes up for with an eerie atmosphere and a young but wise main character.
There is much here that contributed to the original story that I appreciated. For one, it calls out Jekyll on his shit, repeatedly. Putting the story from the perspective of someone lower in station from Jekyll creates dissonance and perspective that the original just doesn't have. What do I care what Jekyll's lawyer thinks of him? They're the same status and thus have much the same concerns - reputation. Mary, however, cares for her master's soul, and isn't so naive to not realize that its going astray. Her angrier thoughts she keeps to herself (understandable, she does need to keep her job), but what Jekyll comes to appreciate about her is her blunt and thoughtful manner of speech, which I appreciated as well.
Valerie Martin is very artful with the way she portrays Mary. As the story is told in the form of Mary's journals, she's faithful to the manner of speech and education level of housemaid who happens to know how to read and write. Mary is a survivor of childhood abuse, studious enough to pick up reading even in a difficult school environment, and dedicated enough to maintain a good job in a good house. She has to be both proud in her work, but humble in her person. Firm in her beliefs, wise in the way she views the world, but gray enough that love might sway her to do foolish or bold things. Martin keeps Mary's darker attributes at arm's length until the end - even going so far as extrapolating on them in an afterword, which I found fascinating -, so that while you may get a little bored of her detailed accounts of how she cleaned her master's rooms, you never really get tired of or upset with her.
Martin also thankfully blurs the line further between Hyde and Jekyll. We get to see moments where Mary sees Hyde through Jekyll's eyes, though she doesn't realize it at the time. It suggests what the movie leaned into - that because Jekyll is gently and gentlemanly falling in the love with Mary, Hyde wants her viciously and violently. Mary never knows the true nature of her master's experiments, so unfortunately she doesn't get the opportunity to question the ethics of what he's done. She understands early on that Jekyll is Hyde's enabler, a fact that disturbs her considering the evidence of his evil that she's seen, but as her love for her master grows, her sympathy for his situation only strengthens. She views him as a victim only, which while a tad frustrating (as I just want to scream about this so-called philanthropist who just doesn't want to get caught raping and killing people) I suppose that's what makes it a gothic romance. It's also the reason why the story ends the way it does - in a similar quiet way that in the original story felt mostly unextraordinary, in this feels creepily satisfying. Mary is not a scientist, she's a servant, she cares little how Jekyll did what he did. There's no big battle for the body and soul of Henry Jekyll, just a broken down door a man left with his a shame, and a woman who is willing to accept him and darkness, because it mirrors her own.
Valerie Martin adds a sprinkle of ambiguity and color to the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with this story, using a compelling and well-drawn character. The movie added a lot of sex appeal (which I am pretty cool with) and more drama (also very cool with), but this novel provides plenty of rich, spooky atmosphere and dark psychology, so much that I think it actually surpasses the original story in many ways. It gives you more violence, more scares than original story while still staying to true to a literary style that is all about suggestion, never the obvious.
lottpoet's review against another edition
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
isabelrsalazar's review
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
linwearcamenel's review
challenging
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.25
octavia_cade's review
4.0
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, from the point of view of his young household servant, Mary Reilly. Mary herself is the high point of the book - cool, collected, most deliberately not a whiner even though her life is a harsh one. (Martin doesn't glamourise servant life as anything but hard labour and long hours.) It's very easy to feel for her, to get caught up in her confusion even though, being familiar with the originating story, I knew what was happening and how it would end.
It's one of those books that's very easy to read - the writing flows nicely, carrying you along. I'm not sure that the conceit of "these are the real diaries of!" in the final pages is necessary, though. Granted, it provides an excuse for the unlikely level of literacy, but that could have been done equally well with a publisher's note or even nothing. We're already suspending disbelief, after all...
It's one of those books that's very easy to read - the writing flows nicely, carrying you along. I'm not sure that the conceit of "these are the real diaries of!" in the final pages is necessary, though. Granted, it provides an excuse for the unlikely level of literacy, but that could have been done equally well with a publisher's note or even nothing. We're already suspending disbelief, after all...