Take a photo of a barcode or cover
2.73 AVERAGE
2.73 AVERAGE
Alrhough there are interesting tidbits of art history and Charney's passion clearly comes across the novel suffers due to the author's lack of refinement in writing technique.
"Like a radioactive centipede" was perhaps the worst line of the novel but there was quite a few to choose from. It also annoyed me (proably far too much) that British characters seem to throw American colloquialism about with abundance and Professor Barrow seems to use a register about 50 years too young for himself. The writing in many parts was simply sloppy - repetition of phrases, cumbersome turn of phrase "iridescent phosphoresence of ..." and a very random Caravaggio sub-plot that seemed to be thrown in simply so the author could talk about the painter, which spoiked the overall great idea.
"Like a radioactive centipede" was perhaps the worst line of the novel but there was quite a few to choose from. It also annoyed me (proably far too much) that British characters seem to throw American colloquialism about with abundance and Professor Barrow seems to use a register about 50 years too young for himself. The writing in many parts was simply sloppy - repetition of phrases, cumbersome turn of phrase "iridescent phosphoresence of ..." and a very random Caravaggio sub-plot that seemed to be thrown in simply so the author could talk about the painter, which spoiked the overall great idea.
This book was terrible. I only finished because I didn't have anything else to read.
The insider information on art history, the business of art, and art theft is the strength of this book. The plot is overly complicated and though some of the characters are interesting, the relationships between them aren't particularly nuanced or believable. It is refreshing to have a bloodless mystery.
It was a very confusing suspense novel about three stolen art works. I don't know that I would recommend the book for the actual story...but it did have some interesting art history lessons thrown in the plot that now have me thinking about enrolling in an art history class!
The author is a professor of art history and an expert in fine art forgery and theft. He also is described in the publicity material as the founding director of an international think tank on art crime with a board of trustees that “includes the respective art squad heads of the FBI, Carabinieri, and Scotland Yard, as well as renowned museum, art world, and criminology specialists.”
Considering this resume, you would think we would be in for quite the mystery ride. But to be honest it was painful, so much so, I had to skip read, and even that was boring. Okay, get mad at me for skip reading – but, seriously, I tried to like this novel – I wanted to like it, but, I couldn’t even drag myself through it.
The plot, the characters, the narrative, and the ending (yes, I needed to find out what if anything was resolved) were horrid. Entirely unsatisfying. But, I am just one reader. What did you think?
Considering this resume, you would think we would be in for quite the mystery ride. But to be honest it was painful, so much so, I had to skip read, and even that was boring. Okay, get mad at me for skip reading – but, seriously, I tried to like this novel – I wanted to like it, but, I couldn’t even drag myself through it.
The plot, the characters, the narrative, and the ending (yes, I needed to find out what if anything was resolved) were horrid. Entirely unsatisfying. But, I am just one reader. What did you think?
adventurous
informative
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Obviously not smart enough for this book. I never really got to like any of the characters, am pretty confused by the ending, and too irritated at the foul language to backtrack and try to figure out what the heck happened. Apparently I'm just not hip and edgy enough for this one.
This was a great read, especially for someone with an art history background.