Take a photo of a barcode or cover
stephwd 's review for:
The Woman in Black: Angel of Death
by Martyn Waites
Who doesn’t love ‘The Woman in Black’ and by that I mean the superb novel by Susan Hill as opposed to the film that was not only incredibly slow and poorly acted by Daniel Radcliffe, but also changed the ending of the novel entirely thus destroying its atmosphere and impact. However, ‘The Woman in Black’ as a novel and indeed as a stage production, is superb. Hill, through her Victorian prose and subtle atmospheric detail chills the reader to the bone. So, when I saw the sequel, I thought I would give it a go. I have two words for you: UTTER TRITE!
1.There was no attempt to even echo Hill’s prose style. Instead, the narrative was dominated by ineffectual dialogue and short, clipped sentences that had nothing in common with the winding prose of Hill’s original that drew us into the dark Victorian world of her novel.
2. For all the author’s claims in his afterword/ aftermath that he was not just riding on the coattails of a better author, this is exactly what he has attempted to do and thus suckered poor fools like me into buying is second rate novel. The very fact that the front cover of this novel emblazons her title ‘The Woman in Black’ on it as opposed to his clichéd ‘Angel of Death’ is a clear example of this and a cheap and desperate marketing tactic. As a further example, those of you familiar with ‘The Woman in Black’ will be aware that one of the most haunting aspects of the novel are its sound effects. Arthur Kipps is alone in Eel Marsh House and the sounds of the house and moors are captured through onomatopoeic and poetic prose by Hill not least the eerie rocking chair that moves of its own accord. In this version, this was conveyed by something along the lines of ‘creak creak crack’ – a puerile attempt to create sound that I would have criticized my GCSE students for.
3.It was pretty clear to me that this was a cash cow. It had been written to be a movie and then, only later, written as a book to make a few bucks. The problem with this is that, whilst it might work as a film and I could see that in some of the more ridiculously dramatic moments it could, it does not work as a novel particularly one that is supposed to be a sequel to Hill’s subtly haunting narrative.
4.The story was really a bit stupid. For instance, why would evacuated children be moved to a location next to a dummy airfield that was intended to encourage bombing!?
5.Rather than subtlety, Waites relies on hyperbole and overt drama. This is fine in some stories, but does not work here and actually defuses both tension and any sense of the haunting atmosphere he is trying to create
6.The romance between Harry and Eve is a silly distraction
I could go on, but I can’t be bothered. However, what really annoyed me was the arrogance of his afterword. He justifies the decisions he has made by insisting that new authors have every right to reinvent another’s work (which is perfectly true and often proves fruitful as in ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’). Yet he then goes on to compare this work to Hill’s own sequel to ‘Rebecca’ – ‘Mrs De Winter’. This is not only ludicrous, but utterly hubristic. Whilst Hill emulates Du Maurier’s style beautifully and does justice to her original narrative by creating a similarly haunting tale that blends well with ‘Rebecca’ and offers a thought-provoking and compelling sequel, Waites does quite the opposite. I only hope that this novel does not put people off from reading the original, which is far superior!
In short, this is really not worth the paper it is written on and is not only utterly forgettable, but an insult to Hill that it is even referred to in the same breath.
1.There was no attempt to even echo Hill’s prose style. Instead, the narrative was dominated by ineffectual dialogue and short, clipped sentences that had nothing in common with the winding prose of Hill’s original that drew us into the dark Victorian world of her novel.
2. For all the author’s claims in his afterword/ aftermath that he was not just riding on the coattails of a better author, this is exactly what he has attempted to do and thus suckered poor fools like me into buying is second rate novel. The very fact that the front cover of this novel emblazons her title ‘The Woman in Black’ on it as opposed to his clichéd ‘Angel of Death’ is a clear example of this and a cheap and desperate marketing tactic. As a further example, those of you familiar with ‘The Woman in Black’ will be aware that one of the most haunting aspects of the novel are its sound effects. Arthur Kipps is alone in Eel Marsh House and the sounds of the house and moors are captured through onomatopoeic and poetic prose by Hill not least the eerie rocking chair that moves of its own accord. In this version, this was conveyed by something along the lines of ‘creak creak crack’ – a puerile attempt to create sound that I would have criticized my GCSE students for.
3.It was pretty clear to me that this was a cash cow. It had been written to be a movie and then, only later, written as a book to make a few bucks. The problem with this is that, whilst it might work as a film and I could see that in some of the more ridiculously dramatic moments it could, it does not work as a novel particularly one that is supposed to be a sequel to Hill’s subtly haunting narrative.
4.The story was really a bit stupid. For instance, why would evacuated children be moved to a location next to a dummy airfield that was intended to encourage bombing!?
5.Rather than subtlety, Waites relies on hyperbole and overt drama. This is fine in some stories, but does not work here and actually defuses both tension and any sense of the haunting atmosphere he is trying to create
6.The romance between Harry and Eve is a silly distraction
I could go on, but I can’t be bothered. However, what really annoyed me was the arrogance of his afterword. He justifies the decisions he has made by insisting that new authors have every right to reinvent another’s work (which is perfectly true and often proves fruitful as in ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’). Yet he then goes on to compare this work to Hill’s own sequel to ‘Rebecca’ – ‘Mrs De Winter’. This is not only ludicrous, but utterly hubristic. Whilst Hill emulates Du Maurier’s style beautifully and does justice to her original narrative by creating a similarly haunting tale that blends well with ‘Rebecca’ and offers a thought-provoking and compelling sequel, Waites does quite the opposite. I only hope that this novel does not put people off from reading the original, which is far superior!
In short, this is really not worth the paper it is written on and is not only utterly forgettable, but an insult to Hill that it is even referred to in the same breath.