Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mostat 's review for:
What Moves the Dead
by T. Kingfisher
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I wanted to like this book so bad… but it was so corny… I would’ve rated it higher if it didn’t basically end with “together, we are the fall of the house of usher!!” . It gets 2.25 because it is so perfectly mid. Nothing against T. Kingfisher really, it just wasn’t for me. Gorgeous cover art though, this cannot be understated. I’m happy to own a copy just for the cover.
I kept wanting something from this book that it didn’t have. I just wish the horror was more grounded. It was very kooky and didn’t really take itself seriously, which to me killed any actual sense of horror or suspense. I kept wanting fucked up resident evil fungus body horror and I got it a little bit, but it was just a bit too fantastical for me.
I enjoyed how Madeleine was more of a character in this retelling, but I missed the very tangible friendship we get between the narrator and Roderick in the original Fall of the House of Usher. The fungus reviving Madeleine is genuinely a fun take on the story, and I did like the inclusion of the freaky ass hares. Unfortunately I don’t think any of the new characters that were introduced added much. The 19th century is such a fun setup for horror because people were starting to make scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, but so much was unknown and they were so wrong about so many things. There’s a lot of fun to be had with that lack of knowledge about the natural world, and I wanted a science fiction angle where this book gave me fantasy.
Made-up countries to me are always kind of stupid, so this is a purely personal gripe. I also didn’t really enjoy T. Kingfisher’s prose, but maybe I’d have liked it more if I had actually read the text. I found the audiobook narrator annoying. I will give T. Kingfisher another chance, I feel like her writing style is better suited to fantasy. I will not be reading the sequel to this book.
EDIT: Wow this review is so long… I guess I had a lot of very very specific gripes about this book
I kept wanting something from this book that it didn’t have. I just wish the horror was more grounded. It was very kooky and didn’t really take itself seriously, which to me killed any actual sense of horror or suspense. I kept wanting fucked up resident evil fungus body horror and I got it a little bit, but it was just a bit too fantastical for me.
I enjoyed how Madeleine was more of a character in this retelling, but I missed the very tangible friendship we get between the narrator and Roderick in the original Fall of the House of Usher. The fungus reviving Madeleine is genuinely a fun take on the story, and I did like the inclusion of the freaky ass hares. Unfortunately I don’t think any of the new characters that were introduced added much. The 19th century is such a fun setup for horror because people were starting to make scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, but so much was unknown and they were so wrong about so many things. There’s a lot of fun to be had with that lack of knowledge about the natural world, and I wanted a science fiction angle where this book gave me fantasy.
Made-up countries to me are always kind of stupid, so this is a purely personal gripe. I also didn’t really enjoy T. Kingfisher’s prose, but maybe I’d have liked it more if I had actually read the text. I found the audiobook narrator annoying. I will give T. Kingfisher another chance, I feel like her writing style is better suited to fantasy. I will not be reading the sequel to this book.
EDIT: Wow this review is so long… I guess I had a lot of very very specific gripes about this book
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal death, Body horror
Moderate: Gun violence, Violence
Minor: Transphobia