You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
elizabitch 's review for:
The Cloisters
by Katy Hays
Yes, it's slow. Yes, the murder doesn't happen until 50% in and it doesn't pick the pace up until 75%. Yes, the narrator can be unlikeable (as is almost every character.) But I liked this.
I liked the slow obsession Ann builds with tarot, from her scathing rejection of it in the beginning to knowing it deeply by the end. I liked the messy romantic polygon that's never really clear. I liked the academic world perceiving Rachel as perfect but we see her codependency and inner anxieties flair when triggered. I liked Ann's rejection of her home town, of her family, of her lower class disadvantages and how easily wooed she is by wealth and privileged people around her -- while also incredibly critical of those people. Ann is made up of a duology of parts, parts that both reject everyone and everything around her while desperately and deeply wanting their approval. I started the book by disliking her, it's hard to like a narrator who hates everything around them, but I warmed up to her as she warmed up to New York and her work.
I've read reviews that feel this was too academic, that it gets bogged down in academia. I actually felt the opposite - yes, there are info dumps to set up the history of tarot but once that's done, much of the academia disappears. I honestly have no clue what this paper Ann and Rachel were writing was about; it serves as a plot device but is rather empty of meaning itself. The true history of occult tarot? And nobody asks for proof of the deck Ann discovered? Also, where the hell was the antiquities dealer getting these? What did her undergrad advisor have to do with any of this? How does she credit his thrown away notes in her paper? What journal is going to accept this paper? The whole basis for the paper is sketchy as hell.
It's also clear the author lives on the professorial side of museums and libraries, as much of the portrayal of museums and libraries felt or was incorrect. If only academics knew how librarians felt about them ;)
SPOILERS!!!:
I wished Hays leaned slightly into the tarot deck having a supernatural element, for it to be alive and have a will of its own. It's there for anyone to interpret but could have made for some nice spookiness. Not a lot, it could easily become cheesy, but a hint. After all, Patrick, Rachel, and Ann become obsessed with this deck. Patrick, enough to abandon the duties of his job as he hunts down cards. Rachel, as she commits murder to own the deck, even though she refuses to be read out of superstition. Ann, as she is won over by the cards and eventually commits murder to avenge them. The final reading of the cards, where Rachel caves to allow Ann to read her, was cinematic and clever. 4 Aces to symbolize the people Rachel has murdered and the Devil to symbolize her own end. If this is ever adapted, I can see that climax playing out wonderfully.
I liked the slow obsession Ann builds with tarot, from her scathing rejection of it in the beginning to knowing it deeply by the end. I liked the messy romantic polygon that's never really clear. I liked the academic world perceiving Rachel as perfect but we see her codependency and inner anxieties flair when triggered. I liked Ann's rejection of her home town, of her family, of her lower class disadvantages and how easily wooed she is by wealth and privileged people around her -- while also incredibly critical of those people. Ann is made up of a duology of parts, parts that both reject everyone and everything around her while desperately and deeply wanting their approval. I started the book by disliking her, it's hard to like a narrator who hates everything around them, but I warmed up to her as she warmed up to New York and her work.
I've read reviews that feel this was too academic, that it gets bogged down in academia. I actually felt the opposite - yes, there are info dumps to set up the history of tarot but once that's done, much of the academia disappears. I honestly have no clue what this paper Ann and Rachel were writing was about; it serves as a plot device but is rather empty of meaning itself. The true history of occult tarot? And nobody asks for proof of the deck Ann discovered? Also, where the hell was the antiquities dealer getting these? What did her undergrad advisor have to do with any of this? How does she credit his thrown away notes in her paper? What journal is going to accept this paper? The whole basis for the paper is sketchy as hell.
It's also clear the author lives on the professorial side of museums and libraries, as much of the portrayal of museums and libraries felt or was incorrect. If only academics knew how librarians felt about them ;)
SPOILERS!!!:
I wished Hays leaned slightly into the tarot deck having a supernatural element, for it to be alive and have a will of its own. It's there for anyone to interpret but could have made for some nice spookiness. Not a lot, it could easily become cheesy, but a hint. After all, Patrick, Rachel, and Ann become obsessed with this deck. Patrick, enough to abandon the duties of his job as he hunts down cards. Rachel, as she commits murder to own the deck, even though she refuses to be read out of superstition. Ann, as she is won over by the cards and eventually commits murder to avenge them. The final reading of the cards, where Rachel caves to allow Ann to read her, was cinematic and clever. 4 Aces to symbolize the people Rachel has murdered and the Devil to symbolize her own end. If this is ever adapted, I can see that climax playing out wonderfully.