Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.73 AVERAGE
3.73 AVERAGE
I think this just might be a me thing, not the book. I love Waters’s writing style, and I love historical fiction set during this period, but I can’t help but feel my focus being drawn elsewhere. I can’t see myself reading the other half anytime soon, so I’ll pass it on but will definitely be picking up Fingersmith in the future.
Hmmmmmm, not my favorite, loath as I am to admit it. I desperately want to LOVE all of Sarah Water's work simply because I don't know of many other authors who are writing sapphic historical novels. However, I'm simply just not a huge fan of narratives that jump back and forth in time - although I will say that this might be the first time that I've read a book that went just backwards in time. Although it's an interesting experiment in revealing motives and pasts and all that, it didn't provide quite enough movement and character development for me. The short third act was especially weak for me - by that point I'd known enough about the beginnings of Duncan's and Kay's and Helen's stories, and it felt more like an exploratory sketch for these characters rather than a finished part of the book that added something further to the narrative.
I did dig the setting, so I'll give Waters points for that.
Spoiler
ALSO, WTF is up with Viv for staying with some cheating asshole who let her be taken to the hospital by herself?? Dude, I wanted to know how that story ENDED. I will say that the Viv/Reggie storyline was the strongest of the second act, though. Also, The Kay/Helen/Julia love-story was wicked boring. Yeah, you're hopelessly in love and replicating unhealthy patterns... okay.I did dig the setting, so I'll give Waters points for that.
warnings galore: cutting, graphic description of a bad reaction to an abortion, suicide
If you can get past that, it's well written with evocative prose. It tends toward slow, and I more than once thought about abandoning it. I'm glad I didn't, but no entirely sure why.
If you can get past that, it's well written with evocative prose. It tends toward slow, and I more than once thought about abandoning it. I'm glad I didn't, but no entirely sure why.
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Content Warnings
Graphic: Abortion
challenging
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I had a little bit of a hard time getting into this book, but that may have had more to do with my mood than the book itself. The "backwards through time" approach worked well, even though I found myself hoping the stories wouldn't turn out the way I already knew they had/would. Much of the story takes place at night, with bombs literally dropping overhead, increasing the sense of tension.
Stayed up late reading yet another Sarah Waters novel... Something about her writing helps me recapture the excitement about reading that has diminished somewhat since I've become an academic -- reading in a kind of fever, staying up late, etc.
That said, this novel (as other reviewers have noted) is quite different from her others. The plot is certainly not as fast-paced or full of "twists" as the earlier novels; the setting has moved from Victorian to WWII (which makes a big difference to me as a Victorianist); and the voice has changed from first person to third, with four main characters instead of one or two. Perhaps the biggest but not as obvious change is an overall difference in tone and writing style; although she hasn't really captured a Modernist tone as she caught the Victorian tone of past novels, she is clearly working in a mid-twentieth century style, one that's more concise (other reviewers might say "less flowery," though I take issue with the description of Victorian style as flowery). I'm always impressed with the subtle differences in the feel of her novels and her ability to make her characters sound different from one another, but this departure is to me the most impressive of all.
I didn't give the novel the highest rating, only because I'm trying to reserve that if possible for my very favorite novels, but I did like this very much. Although it was slower than others, I still was drawn in emotionally right from the beginning (perhaps I felt this more keenly coming in right from The Thirteenth Tale, into which I was, sadly, not drawn). I really felt for the characters. At first I wasn't sure about the chronology (the first part takes place in 1947, the next in 1944, and the final in 1941), but as I thought more about the novel, I liked it because I felt like the structure reinforced the story. That is, the story is about trauma on a number of levels, and the only way to approach trauma is to work backward. Ultimately the reader is left hanging somewhat -- even if you re-read the early sections you're not sure exactly what will happen to the characters -- but this really works for the story, since the characters themselves are stuck, unsure if they can really get past their situations. Some of them see a way out, but will they be able to get there? We're not entirely sure.
One of the things Waters writes about best, in my opinion, is betrayal. And she does a wonderful job in a number of the books with showing the other side of a betrayal -- what made a person do what they did. But even if she doesn't show the other side, she's so good in any case at making you feel the chill of a lover's betrayal. If anyone can defend Reggie's behavior, please leave a comment. His betrayal is one of the worst I can think of. Man, I hated that guy. And kinda enjoyed hating him, too.
That said, this novel (as other reviewers have noted) is quite different from her others. The plot is certainly not as fast-paced or full of "twists" as the earlier novels; the setting has moved from Victorian to WWII (which makes a big difference to me as a Victorianist); and the voice has changed from first person to third, with four main characters instead of one or two. Perhaps the biggest but not as obvious change is an overall difference in tone and writing style; although she hasn't really captured a Modernist tone as she caught the Victorian tone of past novels, she is clearly working in a mid-twentieth century style, one that's more concise (other reviewers might say "less flowery," though I take issue with the description of Victorian style as flowery). I'm always impressed with the subtle differences in the feel of her novels and her ability to make her characters sound different from one another, but this departure is to me the most impressive of all.
I didn't give the novel the highest rating, only because I'm trying to reserve that if possible for my very favorite novels, but I did like this very much. Although it was slower than others, I still was drawn in emotionally right from the beginning (perhaps I felt this more keenly coming in right from The Thirteenth Tale, into which I was, sadly, not drawn). I really felt for the characters. At first I wasn't sure about the chronology (the first part takes place in 1947, the next in 1944, and the final in 1941), but as I thought more about the novel, I liked it because I felt like the structure reinforced the story. That is, the story is about trauma on a number of levels, and the only way to approach trauma is to work backward. Ultimately the reader is left hanging somewhat -- even if you re-read the early sections you're not sure exactly what will happen to the characters -- but this really works for the story, since the characters themselves are stuck, unsure if they can really get past their situations. Some of them see a way out, but will they be able to get there? We're not entirely sure.
One of the things Waters writes about best, in my opinion, is betrayal. And she does a wonderful job in a number of the books with showing the other side of a betrayal -- what made a person do what they did. But even if she doesn't show the other side, she's so good in any case at making you feel the chill of a lover's betrayal. If anyone can defend Reggie's behavior, please leave a comment. His betrayal is one of the worst I can think of. Man, I hated that guy. And kinda enjoyed hating him, too.