Scan barcode
A review by rachel_abby_reads
Ironskin by Tina Connolly
2.0
I want to review this carefully, because I honestly feel that 2 stars is a little generous.
First: Jacket cover blurbs compare this to Beauty and the Beast and Jane Eyre, with a steampunk edge. The author even makes a reference in her acknowledgements that people kept telling her that "your book wants to be Jane Eyre," which she denies knowledge of, and then disingenuously praises Charlotte Bronte's Vilette.
Her book has some pretty serious plot similarities. Jane Eliot, protagonist, falls in love with her employer (Edward Rochart) while being governess to his child. He has a hideous secret, there's a Blanche Ingleby roaming around here and there, and Jane has a sister named Helen. She's fired from a Lowood style school (the name is even similar, though I wouldn't swear to it without the book actually being in hand). Rochart even has his own variety of shocking marital partner.
You don't get to pretend you aren't copying a classic work just because you don't devotedly hit every plot point.
For me, the power of Jane Eyre is in a woman making decisions based on what is right, not what seems easiest or most comfortable. That element is utterly absent from this book.
Second: Jane Eliot is the beast - at least physically. She was caught in a bomb blast that marred her face, and she can either wear an iron mask and be a freak or leave it off be a nightmare. Either way, she is focused intently on her appearance. And it isn't true love that restores her beauty, either. It's a desperate vanity and an ill-advised magical plastic surgery. Since the novel is rife with Jane's snide contempt of other women seeking surgical improvement, her eager participation feels hypocritical.
Third: The romance that isn't. There's minimal conversation and interaction. There are just a handful of conversations that indicate interest between Jane and Rochart. The romance doesn't even feel like the point of the story, which makes its presence even more lame.
Fourth: Heavy handed references that fail to deliver. Edward Rochart, in two conversations with Jane, references both Beauty and the Beast and Tam Lin fairy tales. There are hints and elements of both, without really honoring either.
Fifth: Tell me why the fey are the bad guys again? War, sure- but the person telling the story usually gets to decide who the good guys are. As I understood it: 1) humans were polluting pigs (which is a common modern theme); 2) the fey offered fey tech so humans could stop polluting; 3) it worked for a while; 4) humans built more factories, with more pollution; so 5) the fey went to war, with bombs, decaying tech, and a zombie-like habitation of dead human bodies. I'm pretty sure a modern sensibility includes caring about the environment (and that zombies are cool). In fact, inhabiting a dead body is just the ultimate in recycling.
This isn't a focused review- but it's an accurate reflection of the unfocused feel of the book. It looked and felt as though she couldn't decide what she wanted it to be, so she did a fey-zombie like cannibalization of the works that she referenced, without including any of their best moments.
First: Jacket cover blurbs compare this to Beauty and the Beast and Jane Eyre, with a steampunk edge. The author even makes a reference in her acknowledgements that people kept telling her that "your book wants to be Jane Eyre," which she denies knowledge of, and then disingenuously praises Charlotte Bronte's Vilette.
Her book has some pretty serious plot similarities. Jane Eliot, protagonist, falls in love with her employer (Edward Rochart) while being governess to his child. He has a hideous secret, there's a Blanche Ingleby roaming around here and there, and Jane has a sister named Helen. She's fired from a Lowood style school (the name is even similar, though I wouldn't swear to it without the book actually being in hand). Rochart even has his own variety of shocking marital partner.
You don't get to pretend you aren't copying a classic work just because you don't devotedly hit every plot point.
For me, the power of Jane Eyre is in a woman making decisions based on what is right, not what seems easiest or most comfortable. That element is utterly absent from this book.
Second: Jane Eliot is the beast - at least physically. She was caught in a bomb blast that marred her face, and she can either wear an iron mask and be a freak or leave it off be a nightmare. Either way, she is focused intently on her appearance. And it isn't true love that restores her beauty, either. It's a desperate vanity and an ill-advised magical plastic surgery. Since the novel is rife with Jane's snide contempt of other women seeking surgical improvement, her eager participation feels hypocritical.
Third: The romance that isn't. There's minimal conversation and interaction. There are just a handful of conversations that indicate interest between Jane and Rochart. The romance doesn't even feel like the point of the story, which makes its presence even more lame.
Fourth: Heavy handed references that fail to deliver. Edward Rochart, in two conversations with Jane, references both Beauty and the Beast and Tam Lin fairy tales. There are hints and elements of both, without really honoring either.
Fifth: Tell me why the fey are the bad guys again? War, sure- but the person telling the story usually gets to decide who the good guys are. As I understood it: 1) humans were polluting pigs (which is a common modern theme); 2) the fey offered fey tech so humans could stop polluting; 3) it worked for a while; 4) humans built more factories, with more pollution; so 5) the fey went to war, with bombs, decaying tech, and a zombie-like habitation of dead human bodies. I'm pretty sure a modern sensibility includes caring about the environment (and that zombies are cool). In fact, inhabiting a dead body is just the ultimate in recycling.
This isn't a focused review- but it's an accurate reflection of the unfocused feel of the book. It looked and felt as though she couldn't decide what she wanted it to be, so she did a fey-zombie like cannibalization of the works that she referenced, without including any of their best moments.