Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by rumblebee
The Magnolia Palace by Fiona Davis
2.0
This probably should have been a DNF, but I'm stubborn and my backlog on BOTM is long, so I powered through. I agree with a lot of other reviews I see, the 60s timeline seems superfluous, the actual mystery doesn't come up until the last third of the book, etc. But what really bothers me most about the book is just how truly unlikable and reprehensible ALL of the Fricks are (Helen included of course) and how they are consistently forgiven by the protagonist.
The Fricks are all flawed in unique ways(which isn't bad mind you, flaws are often what makes a character), but the ways in which the author and more namely the protagonist try to redeem them all fall terribly flat. Maybe it's because I have no sympathy for the inordinately wealthy, but I found it very hard to parse through their insufferable banter for which there is little to no consequence to their bad behavior.
Something else in particular that rubbed me the wrong way was the treatment of Joshua, more importantly what his presence served to the overall story. To be honest, Joshua was the most interesting character. His story and motivation as a young black archivist with the ambition to study and illuminate art specifically made by marginalized artists is compelling! And yet it feels like his story feels tacked on amongst the laborious and plentiful descriptions of the Frick House art (almost all notably produced by, you guessed it! White artists!)
Joshua's story is a story worth sharing, but it's inclusion in this particular book feels like more of an afterthought rather than a pertinent inclusion central to the stories core narrative. I also felt like Joshua's character served to redeem the white female characters of this novel (specifically, Helen may be a bullheaded, self-absorbed, rich, xenophobic narcissist, but at least she's not racist! *insert eyeroll*) more-so than actually offer a nuanced and honest depiction of black artists/historians.
The attempts at nuanced critique of race and class relations throughout the novel are clearly there, but overall, I feel like this book puts more work into glorifying the opulence and excess of the American bourgeoise than any of its efforts to critique or admonish it.
The Fricks are all flawed in unique ways(which isn't bad mind you, flaws are often what makes a character), but the ways in which the author and more namely the protagonist try to redeem them all fall terribly flat. Maybe it's because I have no sympathy for the inordinately wealthy, but I found it very hard to parse through their insufferable banter for which there is little to no consequence to their bad behavior.
Something else in particular that rubbed me the wrong way was the treatment of Joshua, more importantly what his presence served to the overall story. To be honest, Joshua was the most interesting character. His story and motivation as a young black archivist with the ambition to study and illuminate art specifically made by marginalized artists is compelling! And yet it feels like his story feels tacked on amongst the laborious and plentiful descriptions of the Frick House art (almost all notably produced by, you guessed it! White artists!)
Joshua's story is a story worth sharing, but it's inclusion in this particular book feels like more of an afterthought rather than a pertinent inclusion central to the stories core narrative. I also felt like Joshua's character served to redeem the white female characters of this novel (specifically, Helen may be a bullheaded, self-absorbed, rich, xenophobic narcissist, but at least she's not racist! *insert eyeroll*) more-so than actually offer a nuanced and honest depiction of black artists/historians.
The attempts at nuanced critique of race and class relations throughout the novel are clearly there, but overall, I feel like this book puts more work into glorifying the opulence and excess of the American bourgeoise than any of its efforts to critique or admonish it.