Scan barcode
rzh's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
1.5
This is a tricky one to review. Honestly, I would say it was… okay. I liked the concept, even if it was a bit clumsy. I liked the steampunk-y aesthetics of it. I liked the flashbacks to the mid-century spy escapades. It was fun. However, there were significant drawbacks that left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. And I would like to talk about them.
There were far too many characters. Certain names were revisited as if suddenly of cosmic significance, though they were only briefly referred to earlier. Even more entirely unnecessary characters were introduced within the last fifty pages of the book. The sudden realisation that some of these characters were indeed- shock horror!- the same guy dressed up as different guys!- would have been more of a revelation and more of a twist if I remembered who most of them were, or, indeed, if they were properly developed from the outset.
The book tries SO hard to be funny. Oh God, does this guy think he’s the dog’s bollocks. If there’s ever a dead giveaway that a book has been written by a man, its by the sense that as the writer was sitting typing he was simultaneously chuckling away at his own attempts at jokes.
Most of the book was an exhausting barrage of attempted whimsy, of manic-pixie-plot scenes: by this I mean the kind of parts which form a memorable image or fan favourite scene in a movie: a Eureka moment; the reveal of a twist; a particularly weird sex scene. Angelmaker tries to manufacture a moment, a scene, a one-liner like this approximately every two or three pages, if not every paragraph. The Guardian apparently called it “pure unhinged delight” apparently. Though I certainly concur with the descriptor, I find it difficult to discern where the Guardian’s reviewer could take a single moment to experience this delight amidst wading through the density of the prose and the sweaty breathlessness of the rollocking from scene to scene.
Another dead giveaway that Angelmaker was written by a man was the way the female characters were approached. Not that I mean to say that women writers books are entirely devoid of sexism and voyeurism, but usually if it is present you get the idea that it is in full knowledge that the women do not take kindly to it, or the perpetrators are demonised in some way. In Angelmaker, the sleaziness is presented without comment, and even encouraged by the female characters and their two-dimensional characterisation. Polly Cradle’s only function in the plot is as the resident saucepot, who are inexplicably supposed to believe has fallen head over heels with Joe despite his vast disregard for anything about her other than her sex appeal. Her only interest, apparently, is sex: so much so that she has had extensive work done on her house so she can use the passing trains as a free vibrator. Although I appreciate a gal going after what she wants, it would have been nice to know a bit more about her. Her favourite food, maybe. Her hobbies. Anything. Her legs are described more often in the book than perhaps any of the character’s faces, and the only other thing we learn about her other than her horniness is that she is some other guy in the plot’s wee sister. Bechdel, avert thine eyes.
The only other major female character, despite being a nonagenarian and a superspy, somehow also has time between these two attributes to function as a secondary saucepot in the book. I’m not convinced the writer skipped over her sex scenes for any other reason than not doing so would require at least some knowledge of what actually happens in lesbian sex. And hey, I’m not against a good sex scene in a book, or women in said books enjoying said sex scenes. However, I do hate remembering, upon reading a book written from the male perspective, that some men do indeed just look at women and only see their legs, listen to them talk only to leer at the way their lips move, treat lesbians as a voyeur’s paradise. The occasional rebuttal of this, of these two women supposedly showing a bad-ass-lady-moment, kicking some dude’s butt, etcetera etcetera, is still completely outweighed by the perviness of the majority of their portrayal. I realise that Angelmaker was published some ten years ago now, so I can only hope that Nick Harkaway has managed to read some Laura Mulvey in that time, though I am not holding my breath.
Honestly, I think Angelmaker is fun if you just don’t pay any attention, however this would mean you would not get to grips with the whole doomsday machine aspect and all of the frankly exhausting twists. To pay attention, to hold on to the plot as it careers through these twists and turns, would award you with, for all your effort, limp female characterisation, far too many other characters, and a glutton’s helping of smarmy wittiness. 1.5/5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Torture
Moderate: Sexual content, Vomit, Forced institutionalization, Alcohol, Death, and Gun violence
More...