Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.11 AVERAGE
3.11 AVERAGE
A challenging book intellectually but really worth sticking with it. Characters are complex, engaging and for the most part not that appealing. I read the ‘Melrose’ novels some time ago and had forgotten how dark and off piste St Aubyn’s writing could be. This book quickly reminded me. A feeling of accomplishment when finishing!
This felt like a really messy stream of consciousness for 90% of the time. The other 10% was enough to keep me interested in the story and I see where the author was going with how smart the characters were, but it failed to capture a novel style story to follow along with. I ended up skipping pages at a time because the characters thoughts would go on forever without any real movement.
I enjoyed this more than I initially thought I would and some parts had me actually laughing. Well worth a read and maybe even a re-read, there’s probably more wit than I caught first go round.
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
St. Aubyn's writing is good enough that I just kept waiting for the story behind the writing to magically appear. The scientific topics broached were well-researched and interesting enough for me to believe that he must really have some point in writing this novel. I was gravely disappointed in the end.
I read this book all in one sitting. Not because I was compelled to, but because I was stuck on a delayed plane, and what started off interesting enough gently morphed into a hate-read by the end.
The author is clearly talented in writing, and I believe many of the other reviewers I read summed up much of what I had issue with by stating that he should have just written a series of essays rather than a novel. They probably would have been great essays (specifically all the interesting facts about schizophrenia), and that is one of the reasons this book gets two starts instead of one.
Because let me tell you, there was very little plot (and I'm not someone who reads for plot), and zero closure to the book (but not in a good, open-ended way). The author was extremely explain-y right off the bat. He tells you everything about the characters personalities and backstory without showing in scene--and yet in the same instance of backstory, he would talk about a formative experience in one of the character's lives to then only explain half of it and get distracted by another thought. Please, for the love of all things, let me see the characters for myself and deduce their personalities from their actions!
Because of this lack of being in scene, it was very difficult to understand the various character motivations in the book. Therefore, someone like Hunter, who is decidedly unlikable at the start suddenly becomes "good" while Francis, who was admittedly the most interesting and complex character, goes from very likable to an uncontrollable horndog who cheats on his pregnant girlfriend with a very one-dimensional side character, and somehow we as the audience as just supposed to believe and accept this swift change? There are also literally so many side stories and asides in the book that the author often goes down a rabbit hole and when you finally come out the other side, you forget where you were in the first place and why it was so important to go the route you went.
Overall, while a lot of the writing itself was beautiful and intelligent, it was very pompous in tone, and the whole of the book felt like a good excuse for the writer to show off his talents and expertise. Double Blind often portrayed itself like a half-remembered fever dream that the author woke up from and wrote down one morning, complete with hazy characters, long-winded rants, and a maze-like "plot" that has no clear exit.
I read this book all in one sitting. Not because I was compelled to, but because I was stuck on a delayed plane, and what started off interesting enough gently morphed into a hate-read by the end.
The author is clearly talented in writing, and I believe many of the other reviewers I read summed up much of what I had issue with by stating that he should have just written a series of essays rather than a novel. They probably would have been great essays (specifically all the interesting facts about schizophrenia), and that is one of the reasons this book gets two starts instead of one.
Because let me tell you, there was very little plot (and I'm not someone who reads for plot), and zero closure to the book (but not in a good, open-ended way). The author was extremely explain-y right off the bat. He tells you everything about the characters personalities and backstory without showing in scene--and yet in the same instance of backstory, he would talk about a formative experience in one of the character's lives to then only explain half of it and get distracted by another thought. Please, for the love of all things, let me see the characters for myself and deduce their personalities from their actions!
Because of this lack of being in scene, it was very difficult to understand the various character motivations in the book. Therefore, someone like Hunter, who is decidedly unlikable at the start suddenly becomes "good" while Francis, who was admittedly the most interesting and complex character, goes from very likable to an uncontrollable horndog who cheats on his pregnant girlfriend with a very one-dimensional side character, and somehow we as the audience as just supposed to believe and accept this swift change? There are also literally so many side stories and asides in the book that the author often goes down a rabbit hole and when you finally come out the other side, you forget where you were in the first place and why it was so important to go the route you went.
Overall, while a lot of the writing itself was beautiful and intelligent, it was very pompous in tone, and the whole of the book felt like a good excuse for the writer to show off his talents and expertise. Double Blind often portrayed itself like a half-remembered fever dream that the author woke up from and wrote down one morning, complete with hazy characters, long-winded rants, and a maze-like "plot" that has no clear exit.
A 2.5, at a pinch - a classic St Aubyn, in a way, too classic: too many ideas, too little character, too much of the same old same old (we know them by know, the stoned self-centred.... (fill in the gap)). Some really memorable dialogues and one-liners though but they get swamped by men trying to sound smart, throwing pseudo-wisdoms around to hide their utter lack of personality. And what's with Francis? Evolves from a genuinely good guy to a cunt-struck asshole - pardon my French - without any kind of motive or context.
Benedict Cumberbatch does an impressive Audiobook job though.
Benedict Cumberbatch does an impressive Audiobook job though.
Snoooooore. So much inner monologs and literally no story. There was so much filler that I kept forgetting who characters were.
This style of writing just really isn't for me, especially in an audiobook. My mind kept wandering.
This style of writing just really isn't for me, especially in an audiobook. My mind kept wandering.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Cancer, Child abuse
slow-paced
challenging
emotional
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes