Scan barcode
A review by crufts
Northanger Abbey by Val McDermid
emotional
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
As a famous classic novel, Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey has been adapted a number of times. This novel is one such adaption, where Val McDermid has reimagined the characters in a Scottish landscape.
To add context to my review, I've never read the original Jane Austen novel and have no preconceptions about what the characters or story "should" be.
At first I enjoyed following along with sweet-natured bookworm Cat Morland as she packed her bags and headed off to Edinburgh. Her first naive encounters with big city life had me on her side, although the mentions of Facebook and Twitter came off as somewhat stilted. It was all going okay until, like an anvil, the author drops in the fact that Cat is a Twilight fan.
What's the problem with this? It's that Twilight is polarizing, something that people tend to either love or hate. It's a real-world topic that people get passionate and heated about.
And that's a problem! Cat's enjoyment of Twilight is just meant to be an example of her love for supernatural stories, but instead it is distracting, because it knocks the reader out of their immersion and into their own real-life opinions on Twilight.
It would have been more effective if Cat enjoyed virtually any other vampire books. Dracula, The Southern Vampire Mysteries, even something goofy like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter - these are all references that every reader can politely nod at and then move on with their reading, understanding the point that Cat likes the vamps. In contrast, referencing Twilight is a show-stopper that might even prompt some readers to put the book down.
After that, I liked the portrayal of the boorish John Thorpe and thought he was written really well as an arrogant, bad-mannered pest. However, his presence revealed a more systemic problem in the novel: the author's choices for the modern-day adaption.
Cat and her contemporaries use Facebook and Twitter, which took a few years to become popular after their creation in 2004 and 2006. This implies the year is 2010 or later. Which causes some problems...
- Characters frequently throw out sexist remarks. John Thorpe suggests that a woman writer was merely credited as someone's girlfriend, while Bella Thorpe frequently remarks "Ugh, men!". I don't know what the zeitgeist was like in Edinburgh in 2010, but was sexism this normal that it would just pass without comment? This made the setting feel more like the 1990s, which broke my immersion. I'm guessing that sexism was an important theme in the original novel, and that's why McDermid had to include it here, but in that case it might be better to put the story in the 1990s and make it more believable.
- There is a significant age difference between 17-year-old Cat Morland and her crush Henry Tilney, who is old enough to be a practicing lawyer. This wouldn't have been weird in the 1803 novel, but it sure is weird now - yet nobody ever comments on it. No one says "Isn't he a bit old for you?" or suggests Cat date someone her own age instead.
- Despite the social media namedropping, hardly anyone is using phones for communication. For example, there's a plot event which could have been solved immediately if Cat had given Ellie Tilney a call, but... she just doesn't. Cat even considers texting Ellie, decides not to because a text message wouldn't get her point across, then conveniently forgets that the main function of a phone is to MAKE CALLS. On the same note, Cat is supremely interested in Henry yet never asks his sister Ellie for his phone number, or even for his Facebook profile.
- The "modern lingo" used by Bella Thorpe and others was cringe-inducing. To be clear, I would have no problem if the characters were writing in slang on their social media or on the internet. But "totes", "lol", "amazeballs", "oh em gee" and more are actually said aloud by these characters in their direct speech. Only chronically online people talk like that in real life. This gave an out-of-touch "how do you do, fellow kids" vibe to these characters' dialogue.
Again, I've never read Austen's original, but I got the impression that Val McDermid was "translating" line by line rather than transforming the plot and characters in a more abstract way. As a result we got these problems.
Overall, the book still has its charms, but it wasn't for me.
To add context to my review, I've never read the original Jane Austen novel and have no preconceptions about what the characters or story "should" be.
At first I enjoyed following along with sweet-natured bookworm Cat Morland as she packed her bags and headed off to Edinburgh. Her first naive encounters with big city life had me on her side, although the mentions of Facebook and Twitter came off as somewhat stilted. It was all going okay until, like an anvil, the author drops in the fact that Cat is a Twilight fan.
What's the problem with this? It's that Twilight is polarizing, something that people tend to either love or hate. It's a real-world topic that people get passionate and heated about.
And that's a problem! Cat's enjoyment of Twilight is just meant to be an example of her love for supernatural stories, but instead it is distracting, because it knocks the reader out of their immersion and into their own real-life opinions on Twilight.
It would have been more effective if Cat enjoyed virtually any other vampire books. Dracula, The Southern Vampire Mysteries, even something goofy like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter - these are all references that every reader can politely nod at and then move on with their reading, understanding the point that Cat likes the vamps. In contrast, referencing Twilight is a show-stopper that might even prompt some readers to put the book down.
After that, I liked the portrayal of the boorish John Thorpe and thought he was written really well as an arrogant, bad-mannered pest. However, his presence revealed a more systemic problem in the novel: the author's choices for the modern-day adaption.
Cat and her contemporaries use Facebook and Twitter, which took a few years to become popular after their creation in 2004 and 2006. This implies the year is 2010 or later. Which causes some problems...
- Characters frequently throw out sexist remarks. John Thorpe suggests that a woman writer was merely credited as someone's girlfriend, while Bella Thorpe frequently remarks "Ugh, men!". I don't know what the zeitgeist was like in Edinburgh in 2010, but was sexism this normal that it would just pass without comment? This made the setting feel more like the 1990s, which broke my immersion. I'm guessing that sexism was an important theme in the original novel, and that's why McDermid had to include it here, but in that case it might be better to put the story in the 1990s and make it more believable.
- There is a significant age difference between 17-year-old Cat Morland and her crush Henry Tilney, who is old enough to be a practicing lawyer. This wouldn't have been weird in the 1803 novel, but it sure is weird now - yet nobody ever comments on it. No one says "Isn't he a bit old for you?" or suggests Cat date someone her own age instead.
- Despite the social media namedropping, hardly anyone is using phones for communication. For example, there's a plot event which could have been solved immediately if Cat had given Ellie Tilney a call, but... she just doesn't. Cat even considers texting Ellie, decides not to because a text message wouldn't get her point across, then conveniently forgets that the main function of a phone is to MAKE CALLS. On the same note, Cat is supremely interested in Henry yet never asks his sister Ellie for his phone number, or even for his Facebook profile.
- The "modern lingo" used by Bella Thorpe and others was cringe-inducing. To be clear, I would have no problem if the characters were writing in slang on their social media or on the internet. But "totes", "lol", "amazeballs", "oh em gee" and more are actually said aloud by these characters in their direct speech. Only chronically online people talk like that in real life. This gave an out-of-touch "how do you do, fellow kids" vibe to these characters' dialogue.
Again, I've never read Austen's original, but I got the impression that Val McDermid was "translating" line by line rather than transforming the plot and characters in a more abstract way. As a result we got these problems.
Overall, the book still has its charms, but it wasn't for me.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Misogyny, and Sexism
Minor: Homophobia