Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.32 AVERAGE
3.32 AVERAGE
An interesting and historical piece of strange fiction that definitely fits in the horror genre. It started off slowly but soon sped up in pace and I had to finish it all faster than I had planned. Full of suspense and quite creepy!
[4.5 stars] this was honestly quiet an exciting read. the story was very intriguing in general, however, the ending was pretty disappointing and most of the mystery did not get resolved which was a let down. I still enjoyed the read a lot though and it‘s definitely a good representation of it‘s genre.
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
2.75 stars
for starters, if I hadn't been assigned this book for class, I probably would never have read it on my own time just because this isn't the sort of book that interests me. this book is labelled on the cover of my edition as a " tale of mystery and the supernatural": while it definitely falls under the supernatural category, the way this book is set up takes away from any attempts at mystery that the author may have been trying to convey. ( I might just be noticing this because this book was written in a time where mystery novels were generically different, but this is just my opinion)
my main criticism of this book is just that I really didn't like the way it was organized: the story is split up into 4 parts, each narrated by different characters. I enjoyed the first part the most, as the action began immediately and my time wasn't wasted reading a boring introductory scene. however, most of the plot and the "mystery" aspect of the story was revealed within the first 100 pages in the first two parts, and the second half of the book was just different characters mainly summarizing events that had already occurred from their own perspective, which was just unnecessary. by the time I was halfway through this, I for the most part knew exactly what the threat was and it didn't seem like anything else needed to be revealed. I thought that maybe there would be another big twist at the very end, or that the action would pick up, but the ending was disappointing and at that point I was just glad it was over.
this book also FOR SURE fails the racism and sexism test which, for a Victorian-Era novel isn't surprising BUT: the way that Egyptian people are described in terms of race and physical features is particularly bothersome. the plot of this is also built around the concept of an Egyptian cult that preys on (specifically) white, English, Christian women, so do what you will with that.
my review of this makes it seem like I would rate it lower than three stars but as something I read for class, it wasn't as boring or bad as other texts I've been assigned. I also read this for a class I'm taking on Pulp Fiction, so knowing the context of the book in that sense made it more interesting to read.
for starters, if I hadn't been assigned this book for class, I probably would never have read it on my own time just because this isn't the sort of book that interests me. this book is labelled on the cover of my edition as a " tale of mystery and the supernatural": while it definitely falls under the supernatural category, the way this book is set up takes away from any attempts at mystery that the author may have been trying to convey. ( I might just be noticing this because this book was written in a time where mystery novels were generically different, but this is just my opinion)
my main criticism of this book is just that I really didn't like the way it was organized: the story is split up into 4 parts, each narrated by different characters. I enjoyed the first part the most, as the action began immediately and my time wasn't wasted reading a boring introductory scene. however, most of the plot and the "mystery" aspect of the story was revealed within the first 100 pages in the first two parts, and the second half of the book was just different characters mainly summarizing events that had already occurred from their own perspective, which was just unnecessary. by the time I was halfway through this, I for the most part knew exactly what the threat was and it didn't seem like anything else needed to be revealed. I thought that maybe there would be another big twist at the very end, or that the action would pick up, but the ending was disappointing and at that point I was just glad it was over.
this book also FOR SURE fails the racism and sexism test which, for a Victorian-Era novel isn't surprising BUT: the way that Egyptian people are described in terms of race and physical features is particularly bothersome. the plot of this is also built around the concept of an Egyptian cult that preys on (specifically) white, English, Christian women, so do what you will with that.
my review of this makes it seem like I would rate it lower than three stars but as something I read for class, it wasn't as boring or bad as other texts I've been assigned. I also read this for a class I'm taking on Pulp Fiction, so knowing the context of the book in that sense made it more interesting to read.
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
This was quite entertaining and fast-paced overall (and there was very little interpersonal drama that slowed down the actual mysterious beetle-plot!!), but beat Dracula in having a super lacklustre ending, and is incredibly racist towards everything and everyone Arabic. It was an engaging, quick and easy read that was quite suspenseful at times - and the characters were absolutely awesome - but I can't help feeling a bit as if Marsh had already given up on it before it ended.
Repetition is a curse; but please, forgive me and bear with me when I, too, begin this review by stating that Richard Marsh's The Beetle and Bram Stoker's Dracula were both first published in the same year - I do have a point to make. While today, I think it's fairly safe to say, more people are familiar with Stoker's magum opus than with Marsh's The Beetle, The Beetle was actually the more popular of the two in the early 20th century. Apart from their being published in the same year, there are other similarities between the two books as well; one being the use of multiple narrators,
Starving, penniless and refused a roof over his head even from the casual ward (the section of a workhouse where tramps and beggars could pay in manual labor for a night's shelter) Robert Holt finds himself collapsed against the low wall surrounding a house of not much better appearance than his own.
In the words of Mr. Holt himself: "If only death had come upon me quickly, painlessly, how true a friend I should have thought it!", so desperate and in such agony was he, when his weary eyes fell upon his salvation: an open window.
The house was, to say the least, in poor shape and the darkness within was so impenetrable that it seemed almost impossible, but it would offer shelter from the rain, and it would offer some warmth just for having walls and soon it was that Robert Holt found himself inside.
It would not be long after that, that he would have great cause to regret his actions.
Robert Holt is but the first narrator, and through him and the subsequent three narrators we're told the story of Mr. Paul Lessingham, though only in the final chapters are we told the story's beginning.
This trick, of telling a story almost backwards, doesn't always work for me - there have been plenty of books where this method has irritated me beyond reason - but it does work in The Beetle.
Part of that, I think, is the way which Richard Marsh has of telling his story: the language is 'aged' but not dated; most sentences, written or spoken by characters, are flowery and embroidered (as shown in the quote above) which I found entertaining to read.
I actually found all but one character (Sydney Atherton) likeable, but even "the one" made for interesting read and I think it adds to the story that not all the characters are agreeable; it gave it more depth.
And I love the mix of creeping dread and comical quips.
Starving, penniless and refused a roof over his head even from the casual ward (the section of a workhouse where tramps and beggars could pay in manual labor for a night's shelter) Robert Holt finds himself collapsed against the low wall surrounding a house of not much better appearance than his own.
In the words of Mr. Holt himself: "If only death had come upon me quickly, painlessly, how true a friend I should have thought it!", so desperate and in such agony was he, when his weary eyes fell upon his salvation: an open window.
The house was, to say the least, in poor shape and the darkness within was so impenetrable that it seemed almost impossible, but it would offer shelter from the rain, and it would offer some warmth just for having walls and soon it was that Robert Holt found himself inside.
It would not be long after that, that he would have great cause to regret his actions.
Robert Holt is but the first narrator, and through him and the subsequent three narrators we're told the story of Mr. Paul Lessingham, though only in the final chapters are we told the story's beginning.
This trick, of telling a story almost backwards, doesn't always work for me - there have been plenty of books where this method has irritated me beyond reason - but it does work in The Beetle.
Part of that, I think, is the way which Richard Marsh has of telling his story: the language is 'aged' but not dated; most sentences, written or spoken by characters, are flowery and embroidered (as shown in the quote above) which I found entertaining to read.
I actually found all but one character (Sydney Atherton) likeable, but even "the one" made for interesting read and I think it adds to the story that not all the characters are agreeable; it gave it more depth.
And I love the mix of creeping dread and comical quips.
Part 1 – good
Part 2 – not good
Part 3 – not good
Part 4 – good
I read somewhere once that authors used to get paid by the word. This book is a great example of this policy. There is a lot of filler here. I would have liked this much more as a novella or even a short story. The middle section of this book dragged for me and there were a few times I thought about DNF’ing. Another review stated that this book came out at the same time as Dracula and for a while was more popular. I can see after having read both of them why Dracula has stood the test of time while this one faded into the background
Part 2 – not good
Part 3 – not good
Part 4 – good
I read somewhere once that authors used to get paid by the word. This book is a great example of this policy. There is a lot of filler here. I would have liked this much more as a novella or even a short story. The middle section of this book dragged for me and there were a few times I thought about DNF’ing. Another review stated that this book came out at the same time as Dracula and for a while was more popular. I can see after having read both of them why Dracula has stood the test of time while this one faded into the background