You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
klosterphobia 's review for:
The Wood at Midwinter
by Susanna Clarke
lighthearted
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Did I read a Christmas book in the summer? Yes.
Was it an accident? Also yes.
Did I know this book was tiny before I bought it? No.
But did I enjoy it? Yes, I did.
an odd little book, poetic, and clearly trying to step into the role of a modern Christmas classic. It doesn’t quite get there for me. I found it charming enough that I’m planning to revisit it in December, when the cold and quiet might give it more umph.
The story itself is more of a long poem or fable, and honestly, I think it suffers a bit for that. There’s a long author’s note at the end that attempts to explain the story, and while it’s interesting, the very fact that it needs explaining suggests that this tale could’ve benefited from being fleshed out more. The central idea is strong, even intriguing (essentially the author reimagines the Virgin Mary as wild woods woman with a bear cub instead of a boy) but its just too small to have good execution:
more picture book than prose.
more mood than meat.
After listening to the radio broadcast version, I can definitely understand the demand for a pretty little physical edition as a keepsake, a seasonal gift, or something to hold onto. But honestly, this is a story best spoken aloud. It would be a lovely book to read aloud to a child born in December or January. The subtle retake on the nativity story has just enough strangeness to make you tilt your head. The illustrations are nicely done but they’re not exactly revelatory.
There are some beautifully quotable lines scattered throughout as per Clarke’s usual. If you’re someone who enjoys Clarke’s style and wants to complete your collection, this is a nice addition but don’t go in expecting Piranesi (don’t follow in my footsteps and remember to do your research folks)
Apparently, this is set in the world of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (which I haven’t read), but I didn’t notice any obvious connections. Nor did I feel like I needed to have read that book first. Maybe I would’ve appreciated this more if I had, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Final thought - isn’t the plural of wood “woods”????
Was it an accident? Also yes.
Did I know this book was tiny before I bought it? No.
But did I enjoy it? Yes, I did.
an odd little book, poetic, and clearly trying to step into the role of a modern Christmas classic. It doesn’t quite get there for me. I found it charming enough that I’m planning to revisit it in December, when the cold and quiet might give it more umph.
The story itself is more of a long poem or fable, and honestly, I think it suffers a bit for that. There’s a long author’s note at the end that attempts to explain the story, and while it’s interesting, the very fact that it needs explaining suggests that this tale could’ve benefited from being fleshed out more. The central idea is strong, even intriguing (essentially the author reimagines the Virgin Mary as wild woods woman with a bear cub instead of a boy) but its just too small to have good execution:
more picture book than prose.
more mood than meat.
After listening to the radio broadcast version, I can definitely understand the demand for a pretty little physical edition as a keepsake, a seasonal gift, or something to hold onto. But honestly, this is a story best spoken aloud. It would be a lovely book to read aloud to a child born in December or January. The subtle retake on the nativity story has just enough strangeness to make you tilt your head. The illustrations are nicely done but they’re not exactly revelatory.
There are some beautifully quotable lines scattered throughout as per Clarke’s usual. If you’re someone who enjoys Clarke’s style and wants to complete your collection, this is a nice addition but don’t go in expecting Piranesi (don’t follow in my footsteps and remember to do your research folks)
Apparently, this is set in the world of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (which I haven’t read), but I didn’t notice any obvious connections. Nor did I feel like I needed to have read that book first. Maybe I would’ve appreciated this more if I had, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Final thought - isn’t the plural of wood “woods”????