Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
adventurous
inspiring
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
adventurous
challenging
dark
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This was fine. Frankenstein gave me more to think about, with the ideas of death and life, creation and destruction, adoration and disgust. I think you can't really even make a compassion between the two "creatures," because has free agency as a being, and the other own is an animal. There was a brief discussion of "what makes a monster" right at the end, and then mentioned again in the author's note. But again, you can't really compare a human to an animal.
I loved this book! The main character is flawed, yet a wonderfully representation of a woman yearning to be more than what is “expected” of her. The combination of science, feminism, introspection, Frankenstein, queer love, and dinosaurs was stitched together perfectly. I really appreciated the character being bi without it becoming her whole personality or turning the book into a romance
an intoxicating gothic read
would’ve been even better if it was a lil gayer
would’ve been even better if it was a lil gayer
adventurous
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Brilliant tribute to Shelley's Frankenstein and clearly a labour of love. What I enjoyed most about Frankenstein was both the atmosphere and the human struggles magnified through the perspective of a "monster". McGill has taken these elements and constructed a tale that is captivating in how it portrays the struggles of a woman of science in the 19th century and fits perfectly in contemporary fiction.
Excellent performance by Florence Howard on the audiobook.
Excellent performance by Florence Howard on the audiobook.
Didn't think this would be the year I got exhausted by an influx of...Frankenstein retellings, of all things. But there we go. New mythic monsters, please.
I actually picked up this book at a local independent bookstore event, and as I was in the mood for something a little Gothic, I decided to give it a go. The premise was intriguing - I'm always rooting for historical women in science and I was curious as to how McGill would incorporate the Frankenstein elements. Overall, I found this book to be more compelling than I had originally expected. The characters were complex and well-developed, and I enjoyed the meditation on questions of science, who deserves credit for it, and so on. The main criticism I have that prevents me from giving this book a full 5 stars is the Frankenstein angle; while I think McGill did a brilliant job exploring what it meant to be scientist is the 19th century (especially a female scientist with no upper class contacts), I also think the Frankenstein elements felt a little gimmicky. Personally, I think the story would have worked better if McGill had drawn inspiration from Frankenstein and not set the story in the world of Frankenstein, so mostly for that reason, this book gets 4 stars from me.
Writing: McGill's prose is very easy to digest in that it flows nicely and never comes across as confusing, hurried, or sluggish. I thought McGill did a good job balancing telling and showing while also setting an appropriate pace, and I appreciated the movement back and forth in time, which gave us Mary's backstory in a compelling way.
I also liked that Mary's thoughts and inner voice felt very natural. McGill had a keen eye for balancing dialogue with thought, and thoughts seemed to build on one another in a way that felt progressive. I very much appreciated this and never felt bogged down by excessive detail or dialogue.
My main criticism of McGill's writing, however, is that the Frankenstein elements felt as if shoehorned into the narrative. Personally, I didn't think they harmonized with rest of the book, and they felt inserted in a way that maybe would have been used to appeal to a publisher. They are fairly insignificant to the plot aside from being a quick, almost gimmicky way to create tension, and to me, this tension was completely unnecessary (as the rest of the book worked wonderfully on its own). I think being inspired by Frankenstein rather than setting the plot into the world of Frankenstein would have been enough.
Plot: The plot of this book follows Mary Sutherland, a female scientist, as she and her husband, Henry, try to make a name for themselves in the scientific world. Mary and Henry are in a tough spot in that they are both lacking in social contacts - Mary because she is illegitimate and Henry because he has been both disinherited and disowned by society on account of a scathing, petty paper. In order to make themselves impossible to ignore, they follow in the footsteps of Mary's great uncle, Victor Frankenstein.
What I liked most about the plot is that it delved into the issues surrounding scientific discovery that Frankenstein failed to touch. While Frankenstein can be said to ponder ethics, McGill's book explores the politics of science - namely, how money and contacts play a significant role. I also very much appreciated that these issues intersected with race and gender, and McGill doesn't shy away from criticizing the sciences as being less concerned with "truth" than with things like fame and fortune.
I also liked that McGill balanced the scientific narrative with more interpersonal ones. Mary not only spends a lot of time researching and experimenting, but develops an intimate relationship with her sister-in-law, Maisie, just as her relationship with her husband, Henry, starts to unravel. McGill's approach feels smart, in part because these relationships make more abstract concepts (like women's work and credit) feel more personal and directly life-altering. It's one thing for some throwaway character to undervalue Mary's scientific contributions; it's quite another when Mary's husband does it.
If I had any criticism, it would be along the lines I discussed above: the Frankenstein references just did not work for me. They were fairly insignificant to the plot other than to be a shortcut for explaining how Mary got the idea for reanimating dead matter, and personally, I think McGill's writing is strong enough that they could have figured out how to do this without a clunky tie-in to Mary Shelley's work.
Characters: Mary, our POV character and main protagonist, is sympathetic on two fronts: first, she is barely recognized for her scientific contributions, and second, she carries with her the pain of having been treated as "lesser" because of her birth. I really liked the complex emotions she felt surrounding her background and the death of her child, and I admired the kindness she showed towards her sister-in-law, Maisie. At times, I thought Mary's hot-headedness in the fave of injustice felt a little short-sighted; I would have thought she would have been more aware of the way appearances affected her, for example, but it wasn't so jarring that it pulled me out of the book.
Henry, Mary's husband, was compelling in that I enjoyed seeing his relationship with his wife devolve. At first, he comes across as a companion with flaws, and it's easy to see how he and Mary initially loved each other. Over time, though, he becomes less and less considerate of Mary's feelings, and I think McGill handled the devolution well. Henry never comes across as a villain, but his views reflect the larger problems of society.
Maisie, Henry's sister, is a nice balance to Mary's energy. Maisie has a number of health problems which forces Mary to slow down a bit, and I appreciated the way McGill depicted chronic pain. Instead of being portrayed as a fragile thing, Maisie is treated with both sympathy and consideration by Mary while also being doubted by her brother. It seemed a more or less accurate picture of what it is like to be chronically ill or disabled. I also very much liked the relationship that blossomed between her and Mary, as it was a relationship built on trust, understanding, kindness, and forgiveness. I loved that the two learned to speak of difficult topics and that they understood one another in ways that the people around them did not. It felt very genuine, and I was glad that the two characters found so much joy and solace in each other.
TL;DR: Our Hideous Progeny is a captivating tale about the struggles of working class scientists as well as the barriers that prevent women from being recognized for their contributions. While the Frankenstein references felt a little clunky, the rest of the book (particularly the character relationships) was extremely well-executed, and I would recommend this novel to anyone with an interest in historical women in science.
Writing: McGill's prose is very easy to digest in that it flows nicely and never comes across as confusing, hurried, or sluggish. I thought McGill did a good job balancing telling and showing while also setting an appropriate pace, and I appreciated the movement back and forth in time, which gave us Mary's backstory in a compelling way.
I also liked that Mary's thoughts and inner voice felt very natural. McGill had a keen eye for balancing dialogue with thought, and thoughts seemed to build on one another in a way that felt progressive. I very much appreciated this and never felt bogged down by excessive detail or dialogue.
My main criticism of McGill's writing, however, is that the Frankenstein elements felt as if shoehorned into the narrative. Personally, I didn't think they harmonized with rest of the book, and they felt inserted in a way that maybe would have been used to appeal to a publisher. They are fairly insignificant to the plot aside from being a quick, almost gimmicky way to create tension, and to me, this tension was completely unnecessary (as the rest of the book worked wonderfully on its own). I think being inspired by Frankenstein rather than setting the plot into the world of Frankenstein would have been enough.
Plot: The plot of this book follows Mary Sutherland, a female scientist, as she and her husband, Henry, try to make a name for themselves in the scientific world. Mary and Henry are in a tough spot in that they are both lacking in social contacts - Mary because she is illegitimate and Henry because he has been both disinherited and disowned by society on account of a scathing, petty paper. In order to make themselves impossible to ignore, they follow in the footsteps of Mary's great uncle, Victor Frankenstein.
What I liked most about the plot is that it delved into the issues surrounding scientific discovery that Frankenstein failed to touch. While Frankenstein can be said to ponder ethics, McGill's book explores the politics of science - namely, how money and contacts play a significant role. I also very much appreciated that these issues intersected with race and gender, and McGill doesn't shy away from criticizing the sciences as being less concerned with "truth" than with things like fame and fortune.
I also liked that McGill balanced the scientific narrative with more interpersonal ones. Mary not only spends a lot of time researching and experimenting, but develops an intimate relationship with her sister-in-law, Maisie, just as her relationship with her husband, Henry, starts to unravel. McGill's approach feels smart, in part because these relationships make more abstract concepts (like women's work and credit) feel more personal and directly life-altering. It's one thing for some throwaway character to undervalue Mary's scientific contributions; it's quite another when Mary's husband does it.
If I had any criticism, it would be along the lines I discussed above: the Frankenstein references just did not work for me. They were fairly insignificant to the plot other than to be a shortcut for explaining how Mary got the idea for reanimating dead matter, and personally, I think McGill's writing is strong enough that they could have figured out how to do this without a clunky tie-in to Mary Shelley's work.
Characters: Mary, our POV character and main protagonist, is sympathetic on two fronts: first, she is barely recognized for her scientific contributions, and second, she carries with her the pain of having been treated as "lesser" because of her birth. I really liked the complex emotions she felt surrounding her background and the death of her child, and I admired the kindness she showed towards her sister-in-law, Maisie. At times, I thought Mary's hot-headedness in the fave of injustice felt a little short-sighted; I would have thought she would have been more aware of the way appearances affected her, for example, but it wasn't so jarring that it pulled me out of the book.
Henry, Mary's husband, was compelling in that I enjoyed seeing his relationship with his wife devolve. At first, he comes across as a companion with flaws, and it's easy to see how he and Mary initially loved each other. Over time, though, he becomes less and less considerate of Mary's feelings, and I think McGill handled the devolution well. Henry never comes across as a villain, but his views reflect the larger problems of society.
Maisie, Henry's sister, is a nice balance to Mary's energy. Maisie has a number of health problems which forces Mary to slow down a bit, and I appreciated the way McGill depicted chronic pain. Instead of being portrayed as a fragile thing, Maisie is treated with both sympathy and consideration by Mary while also being doubted by her brother. It seemed a more or less accurate picture of what it is like to be chronically ill or disabled. I also very much liked the relationship that blossomed between her and Mary, as it was a relationship built on trust, understanding, kindness, and forgiveness. I loved that the two learned to speak of difficult topics and that they understood one another in ways that the people around them did not. It felt very genuine, and I was glad that the two characters found so much joy and solace in each other.
TL;DR: Our Hideous Progeny is a captivating tale about the struggles of working class scientists as well as the barriers that prevent women from being recognized for their contributions. While the Frankenstein references felt a little clunky, the rest of the book (particularly the character relationships) was extremely well-executed, and I would recommend this novel to anyone with an interest in historical women in science.
3.5 stars rounded up to 4!
For starters, I really thought that this would be a “good for her!” type of book; it was, in a sense, but the ending did not give me the same satisfaction as, say, Midsommar. Throughout the book, I grew to hate Henry more and more. I despised him. However, I got through it by reminding myself of the prologue, in which Mary asks to go by her maiden name; I assumed that, at some point, Henry would die. Not quite. Sigh. If I was Mary, I would’ve let him hang, honestly. The cherry on top was when Mary finds out that she was born as a legitimate child *and* is the sole recipient of her grandmother’s inheritance…and then Mary can’t *actually* use the money. I realize that finance was (and still is) a ghastly, quite misogynistic sector, but really? All of the inheritance had to go to her *husband*?! So, perhaps Mary did have a happy ending, but what would have made it much more “good for her!” is if she’d done away with the rude husband and taken her own inheritance.
I was really quite sad about the relationship between Mary and her Creature. The fact that the whole thing was her idea in the first place? And she was the only one who truly cared for the Creature? I mean like…playing fetch with her pencils, letting the Creature put its head in her lap…it was so painful to read knowing that there was really no way for it all to end well. And when she realized that the stitches were coming undone and yet she had no way of knowing that it was in pain?! Despite the fact that it was some strange recreation of a dinosaur, I couldn’t help but picture, like…a puppy.
For starters, I really thought that this would be a “good for her!” type of book; it was, in a sense, but the ending did not give me the same satisfaction as, say, Midsommar. Throughout the book, I grew to hate Henry more and more. I despised him. However, I got through it by reminding myself of the prologue, in which Mary asks to go by her maiden name; I assumed that, at some point, Henry would die. Not quite. Sigh. If I was Mary, I would’ve let him hang, honestly. The cherry on top was when Mary finds out that she was born as a legitimate child *and* is the sole recipient of her grandmother’s inheritance…and then Mary can’t *actually* use the money. I realize that finance was (and still is) a ghastly, quite misogynistic sector, but really? All of the inheritance had to go to her *husband*?! So, perhaps Mary did have a happy ending, but what would have made it much more “good for her!” is if she’d done away with the rude husband and taken her own inheritance.
I was really quite sad about the relationship between Mary and her Creature. The fact that the whole thing was her idea in the first place? And she was the only one who truly cared for the Creature? I mean like…playing fetch with her pencils, letting the Creature put its head in her lap…it was so painful to read knowing that there was really no way for it all to end well. And when she realized that the stitches were coming undone and yet she had no way of knowing that it was in pain?! Despite the fact that it was some strange recreation of a dinosaur, I couldn’t help but picture, like…a puppy.