Scan barcode
drlucyc's review
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Honestly, not a great book. But I did come out of it loving Clem, Besson and Laure.
jordantaylor's review
2.0
Illumination is set during the Franco-Prussian War, during the Siege of Paris in 1870. Hannah Pardy is a young English painter who fled her life in London to pursue her art in the more liberal Paris. She is now the lover of the illustrious Jean-Jacques Allix, an enigma of a man viewed as a heroic symbol of the resistance. In the early days of the siege, her cunning mother and adventurous brother show up in Paris, hoping to convince Hannah to return to safety in England - but instead, end up caught up in the events to come.
This was a novel that never more than mildly interested me, and I found the driving points of the plot suspiciously convenient. The characters never seemed to add up, and I could not bring myself to care all that much what happened to them.
Hannah, the main character, seemed an unlikable heroine - particularly in her insistance on seeing the bad in people, especially in her relationship with her mother, Elizabeth.
From the very beginning, Hannah calls her mother by her name, instead of “mother” or something parental, and this is never explained. Because of this, I was confused in the beginning, assuming that Elizabeth must be Hannah’s friend or relative. I only realized a bit later that she was actually her mother.
Hannah is constantly describing her mother as something akin to an evil witch to the reader, and she is merciless in her hatred of her mother. However, although Elizabeth was certainly a scheming woman, she was the only character in the book that I found truly interesting. She is a vivacious, beautiful woman who has traveled the world and found success as a writer. I wished that the book would have filled out her character more, or very importantly, gave us an explanation for Hannah’s bitterness toward her.
I found the approach to the female characters in this book questionable: The book opens in London, with Hannah’s mother attempting to persuade her to pose nude for a famous painter. Hannah then runs away to Paris, outraged. This topic then comes up numerous times - it is suggested that Hannah should “offer herself” to a famous painter (to which she responds with heavy costernation), and later in the book, Hannah has a long debate with herself over whether or not she should consider “offering herself” to a well known artist (not someone she knows or has even met, just a random famous person). I found all of this very strange. It seemed that by going back to this point again and again, the author was trying to tell us: “Look, Hannah is not the sort of girl who will go posing nude and sleeping around, okay?!”
In contrast, there is Laure Fleurot, who is described in the book numerous times as “the tart.” The author makes her a lascivious, very over the top character, with such gratuitious and constant sexual exploits, it quickly grows ridiculous. Laure, who is of course fiercely disliked by Hannah, has zero character except for her cartoonishly overdone sexuality: rough sex, talking dirty in public, flashing random people, inviting groups of men to grope her in a bar for no apparent reason, dancing on tables, having lesbian orgies in front of an audience…
I felt as if the author had this idea that his heroine would have to be straight-laced and uptight, randomly insisting countless times that she would never pose nude or “offer herself” to strange men (okay…?), while the only other young female character in the book had to be someone out of a porn film.
I found both portrayals laughably ridiculous, and a wildly inaccurate approach to women.
Numerous other elements of the plot seemed not to add up. For example, Clement and Elizabeth travel to Paris after recieving a letter stating that Hannah is unsafe there. Once they arrive, concerned and worried, Hannah is surprised and tells them that the letter is a lie. (She is also furious and annoyed that they have showed up in her life, despite the fact that they braved the siege to reach her! But, I have already mentioned how unlikable of a character she is, I suppose.) For the rest of the book, the question “Who wrote the letter?” hangs over everyone in the group. Everyone seems to readily agree that whoever wrote it was delivering a low blow to Hannah, trying to get her out of the city, and the entire affair is treated like a dark, ominous scandal.
Huh? The city is about to be under siege and swept up in battles and food shortages. Why is the idea that Hannah leave the city so unbelievable and evil? I kept asking myself just why everyone cared so much about that letter, and why it continued to be brought up with such dark undertones.
Also, Hannah is a painter, and in the beginning of the book, her entire character seems to revolve around this descriptor. However, as the story progresses, she gradually abandons her painting and rarely mentions it anymore. Conveniently, she eventually declares that she wants to join her lover’s citizen militia, because “Paris no longer has any need for painters.” And yet, after stumbling into one skirmish, she never involves herself with the militia again.
The twist at the end was the only part of the book that sparked any interest in me, and though it was a bit cliched, I thought that it was one of the only things the author did well.
In short, I disliked the characters and illogical plot devices used here, and never found the writing good enough to intrigue me.
This was a novel that never more than mildly interested me, and I found the driving points of the plot suspiciously convenient. The characters never seemed to add up, and I could not bring myself to care all that much what happened to them.
Hannah, the main character, seemed an unlikable heroine - particularly in her insistance on seeing the bad in people, especially in her relationship with her mother, Elizabeth.
From the very beginning, Hannah calls her mother by her name, instead of “mother” or something parental, and this is never explained. Because of this, I was confused in the beginning, assuming that Elizabeth must be Hannah’s friend or relative. I only realized a bit later that she was actually her mother.
Hannah is constantly describing her mother as something akin to an evil witch to the reader, and she is merciless in her hatred of her mother. However, although Elizabeth was certainly a scheming woman, she was the only character in the book that I found truly interesting. She is a vivacious, beautiful woman who has traveled the world and found success as a writer. I wished that the book would have filled out her character more, or very importantly, gave us an explanation for Hannah’s bitterness toward her.
I found the approach to the female characters in this book questionable: The book opens in London, with Hannah’s mother attempting to persuade her to pose nude for a famous painter. Hannah then runs away to Paris, outraged. This topic then comes up numerous times - it is suggested that Hannah should “offer herself” to a famous painter (to which she responds with heavy costernation), and later in the book, Hannah has a long debate with herself over whether or not she should consider “offering herself” to a well known artist (not someone she knows or has even met, just a random famous person). I found all of this very strange. It seemed that by going back to this point again and again, the author was trying to tell us: “Look, Hannah is not the sort of girl who will go posing nude and sleeping around, okay?!”
In contrast, there is Laure Fleurot, who is described in the book numerous times as “the tart.” The author makes her a lascivious, very over the top character, with such gratuitious and constant sexual exploits, it quickly grows ridiculous. Laure, who is of course fiercely disliked by Hannah, has zero character except for her cartoonishly overdone sexuality: rough sex, talking dirty in public, flashing random people, inviting groups of men to grope her in a bar for no apparent reason, dancing on tables, having lesbian orgies in front of an audience…
I felt as if the author had this idea that his heroine would have to be straight-laced and uptight, randomly insisting countless times that she would never pose nude or “offer herself” to strange men (okay…?), while the only other young female character in the book had to be someone out of a porn film.
I found both portrayals laughably ridiculous, and a wildly inaccurate approach to women.
Numerous other elements of the plot seemed not to add up. For example, Clement and Elizabeth travel to Paris after recieving a letter stating that Hannah is unsafe there. Once they arrive, concerned and worried, Hannah is surprised and tells them that the letter is a lie. (She is also furious and annoyed that they have showed up in her life, despite the fact that they braved the siege to reach her! But, I have already mentioned how unlikable of a character she is, I suppose.) For the rest of the book, the question “Who wrote the letter?” hangs over everyone in the group. Everyone seems to readily agree that whoever wrote it was delivering a low blow to Hannah, trying to get her out of the city, and the entire affair is treated like a dark, ominous scandal.
Huh? The city is about to be under siege and swept up in battles and food shortages. Why is the idea that Hannah leave the city so unbelievable and evil? I kept asking myself just why everyone cared so much about that letter, and why it continued to be brought up with such dark undertones.
Also, Hannah is a painter, and in the beginning of the book, her entire character seems to revolve around this descriptor. However, as the story progresses, she gradually abandons her painting and rarely mentions it anymore. Conveniently, she eventually declares that she wants to join her lover’s citizen militia, because “Paris no longer has any need for painters.” And yet, after stumbling into one skirmish, she never involves herself with the militia again.
The twist at the end was the only part of the book that sparked any interest in me, and though it was a bit cliched, I thought that it was one of the only things the author did well.
In short, I disliked the characters and illogical plot devices used here, and never found the writing good enough to intrigue me.
nigelbrown's review
3.0
2.5 really. Calling your mother by her first name in Victorian Britain, that really irked me.
rosalynnaustin's review
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
stephend81d5's review
3.0
enjoyed this historical novel based in paris as the franco-prussian war 1870/71 as its backdrop and all of the revolt after the collapse of the 2nd republic and start of the 3rd but felt wasn't as good as his other books
More...