Scan barcode
jennybeastie's review against another edition
3.0
About William Blake, at least in theory. He was really a secondary character, but there was a great deal of interesting circus and historical chair-making action, so it was pretty good. Wrapped up a bit too neatly for me.
towardinfinitybooks's review against another edition
3.0
Since reading Girl with a Pearl Earring, I've counted Tracy Chevalier as one of my go-to authors for historical fiction, but her work is not always consistent. I found her Falling Angels to have the same spark as Girl, and Virgin Blue had the same eerie quality as did Angels, but her other works failed to pull me in. However, when I heard that she had a new book coming out (I was waiting for what seemed like ages for her to write another), I eagerly put it on my to-read list. Real Life interfered and it wasn't until this week that I was able to pick up Burning Bright.
The story is set in London in the year 1792, at a time when revolutionary spirit was growing in nearby France, making mostly everyone in England express either disdain or support for those events. Thomas Kellaway, a carpenter, brings his family to London after the death of his youngest son and also after receiving an invitation from Philip Astley, the owner of a traveling circus based in the city. The book focuses on Thomas's son, Jem, and the young friend he makes in Maggie Butterfield, the daughter of a local con artist, and their adventures in London as well as their growing friendship with the poet William Blake who lives next-door to the Kellaway family.
Blake as the main historical figure in this book is portrayed in a mysterious light. Chevalier writes about his piercing gaze, his knowing look. He is present and watching many of the events that occur in the story, but often does not participate. Beyond this portrayal, the reader doesn't really learn anything about Blake or get to know him in any way. He is set apart from the story. That is not to say that the other characters have more depth to them. Chevalier clearly has attempted to make Jem and Maggie - as well as Jem's sister Maisie and really, any children at all who enter the story - into metaphors for innocence and experience, the subjects of Blake's most famous poems. At times, the metaphor is too forced and too obvious. The author is not timid about describing the characters' working conditions and family life, but her writing in this book is lacking. It is not as refined as in some of her other works, and many of the characters are not completely three-dimensional. The story did pull me in - I read the entire book in one day - but it was not up to the standards that Chevalier has managed to pull off before. Also, as a small nitpick, I had hoped there would
be a historical note at the end, as in some of her other books, explaining what characters she made up entirely and which were based on historical records. Unfortunately, there wasn't. Three stars for writing, three and a half for enjoyment.
The story is set in London in the year 1792, at a time when revolutionary spirit was growing in nearby France, making mostly everyone in England express either disdain or support for those events. Thomas Kellaway, a carpenter, brings his family to London after the death of his youngest son and also after receiving an invitation from Philip Astley, the owner of a traveling circus based in the city. The book focuses on Thomas's son, Jem, and the young friend he makes in Maggie Butterfield, the daughter of a local con artist, and their adventures in London as well as their growing friendship with the poet William Blake who lives next-door to the Kellaway family.
Blake as the main historical figure in this book is portrayed in a mysterious light. Chevalier writes about his piercing gaze, his knowing look. He is present and watching many of the events that occur in the story, but often does not participate. Beyond this portrayal, the reader doesn't really learn anything about Blake or get to know him in any way. He is set apart from the story. That is not to say that the other characters have more depth to them. Chevalier clearly has attempted to make Jem and Maggie - as well as Jem's sister Maisie and really, any children at all who enter the story - into metaphors for innocence and experience, the subjects of Blake's most famous poems. At times, the metaphor is too forced and too obvious. The author is not timid about describing the characters' working conditions and family life, but her writing in this book is lacking. It is not as refined as in some of her other works, and many of the characters are not completely three-dimensional. The story did pull me in - I read the entire book in one day - but it was not up to the standards that Chevalier has managed to pull off before. Also, as a small nitpick, I had hoped there would
be a historical note at the end, as in some of her other books, explaining what characters she made up entirely and which were based on historical records. Unfortunately, there wasn't. Three stars for writing, three and a half for enjoyment.
sarah1984's review against another edition
4.0
10/11 - The reason it didn't get five is because there was no real climax to the story. There is a little bit of tension built during the first 3/4 of the book and then it's a total anti-climax - a little disappointing, but still a good story. Chevalier describes London so well that you can clearly see it all in your head. I noticed that she has written a few other books since Girl with the Pearl Earring and I look forward to reading them at some point in the future.
*Update* Haven't got around to reading any further Chevalier books, yet, five years later.
*Update* Haven't got around to reading any further Chevalier books, yet, five years later.
rebeccasreadingrambles's review against another edition
3.0
This was a good story, but didn't have the most captivating plot. It took a while to get into it and still I felt like I was waiting for more. The characters were good, if a little under-developed. I would have liked to know more about Mr. Blake and his "revolutionary" ties. I would also like a little more emotion from Jem and Maisie. This book was not as good as "Girl with a Pearl Earring", so I was a little disappointed. I was left thinking "that was it?" when I finished. It got better in the end, but I still wasn't totally hooked. A quick and entertaining enough read. I still look forward to reading other books by Chevalier.
chandraisenberg's review against another edition
4.0
Burning Bright wasn't my favorite Tracy Chevalier novel, but it wasn't my least favorite either. She really captured the essence of lower- class, Georgian London and I became quite invested in the main characters. I like the fact that Chevalier typically bases her novels on everyday people who encounter artistic movers and shakers of the period. Blake's character was pretty flat and I was left feeling that Chevalier could have made better use of him in the novel. IMO, she would have done better to choose another player from late 18th cent. London...
Overall, Burning Bright was worth reading.
Overall, Burning Bright was worth reading.
cateresa's review against another edition
4.0
Another good read from Tracy Chevalier. Led me to research more on William Blake's life and work.
rlbasley's review against another edition
1.0
Not all books are enjoyable to all readers and this book really surprised me as I have enjoyed other better oks by this author. The positive of the book is it gives a peek into what what life was like for common Londoners as French Revolution was happening. It gave a little insight of the life in a circus at this time and it to me the story of a family who moves to the city for a better life then returns to their old life disenchanted with the new...
That being said, my first thought when I read the final sentence in this book was what did I just read? And my second thought was I feel nothing. No character stood out, no plot was my favorite. I just didn’t like it personally.
That being said, my first thought when I read the final sentence in this book was what did I just read? And my second thought was I feel nothing. No character stood out, no plot was my favorite. I just didn’t like it personally.
jordantaylor's review against another edition
2.0
I absolutely love Tracy Chevalier. "Girl with a Pearl Earring" was great fun, and "Falling Angels" absolutely blew me away. So, I was really looking forward to another of her works. However, no matter how much I wanted to like this book, I never managed to enjoy it all that much.
The storyline revolves around a family, the Kellaways, who have moved from the country into the busy city of London in 1792 - the eve of the French Revolution. Jem, the eldest Kellaway son, befriends a working girl named Maggie Butterfield and their next-door neighbor, a poet named William Blake. Jem's father spends his days working as a carpenter for the circus, while Maggie's father spends his days cheating people out of their money. As Jem and Maggie grow up and learn from each other, they unknowingly become the inspiration for a poem that Mr. Blake is writing.
Even as I tried to write the above paragraph, I faltered quite a few times, staring blankly at the keyboard and flipping back through the book itself, hoping that some forgotten, important plot detail would jump back out at me.
The truth is, however, that I wouldn't be able to name any vastly important plot details at all. There were possibilities of a plot when the novel started, but none of them ever seemed to go anywhere.
My favorite book that Chevalier wrote, "Falling Angels," similarly has a loose, vague plot. However, while 'Angels' gathers strength off of this fact (by turning your attention to vivid, magnificent characters), it did no favors for "Burning Bright."
I wanted something to happen! So much of this book reminded me of a Dickens-esque world, and I kept waiting for the rush of complex, melodramatic action to go along with it.
However, none came.
There were opportunities - such as, the mystery that is hinted at right from the beginning. Did Maggie kill a man? Why?
A couple times in the book, this is mentioned, and it seems to be a dark sort of secret that probably has hidden significance.
The 'mystery' is revealed toward the end, but it wasn't even anything exciting, and it certainly didn't do anything to further any sort of plot.
Chevalier is so amazing at writing personable, lovable characters, but I didn't feel any of that here. The main character, Jem, was not explored in any particular depth, and I never felt that I knew him. The other prominent character, Maggie, was a bit more life-like, but this is possibly just because she had such a springy, energetic character that was easier to write. I was constantly annoyed by her, leaving me with yet another person I didn't really feel that fond of.
There are some 'bad' characters, such as John Astley, the son of the circus owner. He does one bad deed in one scene, and is never seen again.
So much of this book, as I have said before, was left to go nowhere. At one point, a girl overhears a man speaking to the circus manager, and she learns that Philip Astley is not (as everyone assumes) the owner / manager of the circus - John (his son) is. Does John know this? Is his father taking advantage of him? Stealing the money from his son? Something?
We never know.
Countless other scenarios like this can be found through-out the book.
John has an illegitimate son that his father will not accept. Mentioned once and then forgotten.
Really - these things could have added a lot to the book if they were followed up on!
The character of William Blake was one that I was curious reading, to see what Chevalier would do with him. I have read his poetry, but know little about the man behind it.
He was a very neglected, minor character, even though I think that the author wanted him to play a large part in the story.
Blake's garden is mentioned far more times than he is, and whenever he does actually come into the story in person (about three times for a page or two), he is always making these dramatic, profound speeches to the children. In every scene, he ponders aloud about deep, philosophical matters, or asks the children their opinions on in-depth topics. None of these topics are ever very relevant, and since this is all we ever see of Blake, he comes across as a strange, eccentric man.
Perhaps he was...
But I wanted to see more of him. He came into the story a couple times and asks questions like "If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it make a sound?" and then leaves us.
No character could possibly be spun from this, and he was actually pretty pointless, now that I think about it.
I did briefly enjoy the descriptions of London, and Chevalier sends her characters roaming about to quite a few parts of the city, so we get a good look at it in 1792. Poorer areas are focused upon, and of particular interest to the story seemed to be prostitutes, both the beautifully tempting ones and the rotting, filthy ones that were far more common.
It was interesting, though never quite as vivid and transporting as I know Tracy Chevalier is capable of.
I wish that I had better things to write about this book, as it is from one of my favorite modern historical fiction writers, but I was very disappointed with it. Hopefully, my next Chevalier read will be a better one.
The storyline revolves around a family, the Kellaways, who have moved from the country into the busy city of London in 1792 - the eve of the French Revolution. Jem, the eldest Kellaway son, befriends a working girl named Maggie Butterfield and their next-door neighbor, a poet named William Blake. Jem's father spends his days working as a carpenter for the circus, while Maggie's father spends his days cheating people out of their money. As Jem and Maggie grow up and learn from each other, they unknowingly become the inspiration for a poem that Mr. Blake is writing.
Even as I tried to write the above paragraph, I faltered quite a few times, staring blankly at the keyboard and flipping back through the book itself, hoping that some forgotten, important plot detail would jump back out at me.
The truth is, however, that I wouldn't be able to name any vastly important plot details at all. There were possibilities of a plot when the novel started, but none of them ever seemed to go anywhere.
My favorite book that Chevalier wrote, "Falling Angels," similarly has a loose, vague plot. However, while 'Angels' gathers strength off of this fact (by turning your attention to vivid, magnificent characters), it did no favors for "Burning Bright."
I wanted something to happen! So much of this book reminded me of a Dickens-esque world, and I kept waiting for the rush of complex, melodramatic action to go along with it.
However, none came.
There were opportunities - such as, the mystery that is hinted at right from the beginning. Did Maggie kill a man? Why?
A couple times in the book, this is mentioned, and it seems to be a dark sort of secret that probably has hidden significance.
The 'mystery' is revealed toward the end, but it wasn't even anything exciting, and it certainly didn't do anything to further any sort of plot.
Chevalier is so amazing at writing personable, lovable characters, but I didn't feel any of that here. The main character, Jem, was not explored in any particular depth, and I never felt that I knew him. The other prominent character, Maggie, was a bit more life-like, but this is possibly just because she had such a springy, energetic character that was easier to write. I was constantly annoyed by her, leaving me with yet another person I didn't really feel that fond of.
There are some 'bad' characters, such as John Astley, the son of the circus owner. He does one bad deed in one scene, and is never seen again.
So much of this book, as I have said before, was left to go nowhere. At one point, a girl overhears a man speaking to the circus manager, and she learns that Philip Astley is not (as everyone assumes) the owner / manager of the circus - John (his son) is. Does John know this? Is his father taking advantage of him? Stealing the money from his son? Something?
We never know.
Countless other scenarios like this can be found through-out the book.
John has an illegitimate son that his father will not accept. Mentioned once and then forgotten.
Really - these things could have added a lot to the book if they were followed up on!
The character of William Blake was one that I was curious reading, to see what Chevalier would do with him. I have read his poetry, but know little about the man behind it.
He was a very neglected, minor character, even though I think that the author wanted him to play a large part in the story.
Blake's garden is mentioned far more times than he is, and whenever he does actually come into the story in person (about three times for a page or two), he is always making these dramatic, profound speeches to the children. In every scene, he ponders aloud about deep, philosophical matters, or asks the children their opinions on in-depth topics. None of these topics are ever very relevant, and since this is all we ever see of Blake, he comes across as a strange, eccentric man.
Perhaps he was...
But I wanted to see more of him. He came into the story a couple times and asks questions like "If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it make a sound?" and then leaves us.
No character could possibly be spun from this, and he was actually pretty pointless, now that I think about it.
I did briefly enjoy the descriptions of London, and Chevalier sends her characters roaming about to quite a few parts of the city, so we get a good look at it in 1792. Poorer areas are focused upon, and of particular interest to the story seemed to be prostitutes, both the beautifully tempting ones and the rotting, filthy ones that were far more common.
It was interesting, though never quite as vivid and transporting as I know Tracy Chevalier is capable of.
I wish that I had better things to write about this book, as it is from one of my favorite modern historical fiction writers, but I was very disappointed with it. Hopefully, my next Chevalier read will be a better one.