You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
challenging
emotional
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A narrative in four parts that will leave you yearning for more. I spent a good portion of the book (and it's a long book), wondering how it would all tie together in the end. And come together it does - I laughed out loud at the clever way the author kept me guessing until the end. If you enjoyed Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver, you will also enjoy this masterpiece. Mystery, history, political intrigue - it has it all.
What I remember most about reading this novel is that I did so during a visit to Germany, and the novel added to my enjoyment of the trip. It's excellent, it's intricate, it's worth the effort. I want to reread it, but I'm also a bit daunted by the thought.
challenging
dark
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Way too long
I did not finish the book. I did not finish the first of four narrations in the book. Even the boredom and tediousness of my computer's unending backup (7 disks and counting) cannot move me to resume reading this text. The first narrator is a self-centered, ignorant, judgmental boor; he thinks he is a gentleman but he is prig and a cretin. As is apparently "normal" in the mid- to late 17th century, he is an adherent of the "new philosophy" which seems to involve men creating "medicine" by using the most offensive and least proper ingredients and procedures and conducting hideously unfeeling experiments on all sorts of animals and people. I shall not be finishing this book, even though I am fully aware that the author probably hates this character and his many faults almost as much as I do. He is very "Candide" and thus, suitably but annoyingly, almost completely without self-awareness, humility, or any other lasting appealing qualities. I love a good mystery but I can't trudge through all this nonsense to get to it.
Pears offers an historical fiction set in 1663, primarily in the university town, Oxford. For the last few decades, the residents of Oxford (as well as many of the subjects throughout England) are wrestling over questions of religion, politics, and science. Yes, there is a murder to be solved, but there are multiple mysteries within the novel: What is each character's true politics? (Royalist or Cromwell sympathizer?) What is each character's true religious affiliation (Anglican, Catholic, Anabaptist, Quaker, the occult or other?) Where are their primary affections? (To God, country, land deeds, a trade/vocation, a lover, or to simply saving one's hide?)
Pears creates a novel that employs four different narrators. They are so different in perspective--and even at time different in fact--that they are almost four distinct novels. Each narrator personifies elements from Sir Francis Bacon's writings on epistemology, or how we know what we know.
The first narrator focuses on the quest for truth through the appropriate method: induction or deduction? As a philosopher and physician-in-training, his major obsession is the quest for scientific truth. He rubs shoulders with Boyle, Wren, Locke and some lesser-known scientists and intellectuals as he explores the developing scientific method as a replacement for the a priori truths of classical philosophy.
The second narrator focuses on the quest for truth through evidence of trustworthiness or betrayal, the latter requiring revenge. Even though he is a student of law, his narrative demonstrates great emotion and the influence of both angels and demons.
The third narrator, a cryptographer, focuses on the quest for truth through prejudice based on nationality, gender, class and vocation. He and the second narrator start with their conclusions and subsequently gather their evidence.
The fourth narrator uses a variety of methods for pursuing truths, but I'll leave you to discover his methods and biases since he has the priviledge of going last and revealing many hidden truths--or presenting another version of the truth in contrast or in addition to the three narratives that precede his.
Even though this novel is about a specific time and place, it examines age-old questions about epistemology: How can people rid themselves of personal bias? And should they exclude emotions such as love, compassion or even security when they adjudicate narratives or even merely report stand-alone facts (if that's possible) as evidence? How do people handle perspectivity since no one is omniscient? nor is anyone omnipresent? How can we avoid the sad fact that the victors usually write, disseminate, promote and preserve history?
Pears does a fabulous job asking these questions about truth-making, and he picks an appropriate historical setting for such questions. I learned a great deal. For example, I do not have the stomach for politics: too much shifting ground. But I applaud Pears for keeping me engaged, for keeping me learning not just about history but about epistemology, and for keeping me guessing for the duration of 600+ pages.
Pears creates a novel that employs four different narrators. They are so different in perspective--and even at time different in fact--that they are almost four distinct novels. Each narrator personifies elements from Sir Francis Bacon's writings on epistemology, or how we know what we know.
The first narrator focuses on the quest for truth through the appropriate method: induction or deduction? As a philosopher and physician-in-training, his major obsession is the quest for scientific truth. He rubs shoulders with Boyle, Wren, Locke and some lesser-known scientists and intellectuals as he explores the developing scientific method as a replacement for the a priori truths of classical philosophy.
The second narrator focuses on the quest for truth through evidence of trustworthiness or betrayal, the latter requiring revenge. Even though he is a student of law, his narrative demonstrates great emotion and the influence of both angels and demons.
The third narrator, a cryptographer, focuses on the quest for truth through prejudice based on nationality, gender, class and vocation. He and the second narrator start with their conclusions and subsequently gather their evidence.
The fourth narrator uses a variety of methods for pursuing truths, but I'll leave you to discover his methods and biases since he has the priviledge of going last and revealing many hidden truths--or presenting another version of the truth in contrast or in addition to the three narratives that precede his.
Even though this novel is about a specific time and place, it examines age-old questions about epistemology: How can people rid themselves of personal bias? And should they exclude emotions such as love, compassion or even security when they adjudicate narratives or even merely report stand-alone facts (if that's possible) as evidence? How do people handle perspectivity since no one is omniscient? nor is anyone omnipresent? How can we avoid the sad fact that the victors usually write, disseminate, promote and preserve history?
Pears does a fabulous job asking these questions about truth-making, and he picks an appropriate historical setting for such questions. I learned a great deal. For example, I do not have the stomach for politics: too much shifting ground. But I applaud Pears for keeping me engaged, for keeping me learning not just about history but about epistemology, and for keeping me guessing for the duration of 600+ pages.
challenging
informative
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
