Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.28 AVERAGE
3.28 AVERAGE
challenging
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
adventurous
dark
hopeful
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I did not care for Emily’s love interests (“oH eMiLy!) because they were flat and akin to stalkers, and Emily was forever fainting, leaning against walls for strength and crying at the drop of a hat even after the Udolpho arc (I’m convinced someone could make a drinking game out of it). But all in all I enjoyed the gothic atmosphere of it and would recommend it for that.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Confinement, Gaslighting, Sexual harassment
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
tense
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:
No
Ann Radcliff is a master of long descriptive sentences with many many many commas. I decided to slow down and found it hypnotic reading. It apparently IS possible to have hundreds of pages of "gloomy" descriptions of forests and Castle halls and secret passageways be satisfying. Who would of thought. Very Gothic novel with everything explained in the last 50 pages. I liked it a lot.
slow-paced
Haven t read Radcliffe in decades. Here are my thoughts on this classic:
* There’s something about Emily St-Aubert. She attracts a lot of creepy stalkers
* Speaking of, why didn’t Mons. Du Pont get a first name? He shows up throughout the novel
* Overuse of the word sublime, but I knew that going in
* The chapter with Ludovico in the room is legit suspenseful. I wish she had used that technique more, rather than relying upon. Interruptions and “we’ll meet later”s
* This book would make a good farce. It’s got ghosts, bandits, several location changes, and so much identity porn
* There’s something about Emily St-Aubert. She attracts a lot of creepy stalkers
* Speaking of, why didn’t Mons. Du Pont get a first name? He shows up throughout the novel
* Overuse of the word sublime, but I knew that going in
* The chapter with Ludovico in the room is legit suspenseful. I wish she had used that technique more, rather than relying upon. Interruptions and “we’ll meet later”s
* This book would make a good farce. It’s got ghosts, bandits, several location changes, and so much identity porn
adventurous
mysterious
slow-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:
Yes
challenging
dark
emotional
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Okay, I'm torn between "Thank god, it's over" and "Wow, what a fascinating story." It took me almost two weeks to read this book, which is long for me, especially for a book that contemporary readers considered an absolute page-turner. I had a hard time getting into it at first, partly because nothing much happened in the beginning, but also because I had to get used to Radcliffes style and her overly complicated way of shoving way to many subclauses into one sentence. But I got more and more intrigued the further I read on. From the reputation of the book, I had expected more typical gothic horror and fewer crazy plot-twists. But this is not a simple ghost story or a vampire gore fest. This is first and foremost the story of unhappy people who made bad decisions that come back to haunt them. Oh, and there's dead bodies and robbers and pirates and sword and gunfights galore. But they serve more as a backdrop to the stories that really count. I think the book would make a good telenovela. The story is way too complicated and has too many characters and side-stories to reasonably fit into a movie or even a mini-series. That would break it. It is a story that, to develop its full potential, needs to be told exactly as Radcliffe tells it: slowly adding layer after layer of mystique and mystery, building a many skinned onion of tension that then, only in the last volume, slowly gets peeled open, revealing what's behind it all. It's a book that does not gel with modern tastes very well, where everything has to be efficient, on-point and immediately gratifying. This book takes patience and devotion. But then the reward is fantastic. I absolutely understand why this book was so loved at a time when reading was for many people, especially many women, their main way of escapism, when there was no tv, no social media, no quick way to entertain yourself. And I also understand why it has fallen out of favor since. It's not an instant dopamine rush. Instead it is a slowly rising tide that only gets you fully submerged towards the end.