Agnes Grey
Length of Time In Possession : Roughly 3 years
I want to start by saying that 'The Tenant Of Wildfell Hall' is one of my favourite books of all time, easily top 3. I wrote my dissertation on it in university. However, when it came to the Bronte sisters I had only read the 'Big Three' (Eyre, Heights, Tenant) leaving three of Charlotte's novels remaining and one of Anne's.
As Anne is my favourite Bronte and I have issues with Charlotte, I went with her first. Agnes Grey is the story of a poor vicar's daughter who decides to try her hand at being a governess. The petted youngest daughter, her family don't think she'll be able to cut it, a story none too dissimilar from Anne's own life. It is clear that Anne drew on her life experience to write this novel.
The eponymous hero teaches first Tom and Mary-Ann and then Rosalie and Matilda; all are uppity spoiled brats who scorn her with indulgent parents who foist the blame for their children's behaviour on to Agnes. It is known that Anne did not have great experiences of her own with teaching, both as a governess and when she was at school.
Agnes Grey unfortunately was quite dull, though it hurts me to say it. The prose was rather essayist than novelist, and there is little character development or growth. The romance too has little depth and she and her suitor hardly have much time to connect.
It is her other novel Tenant, which truly lifts the lid on her life as a governess, as it is said that given she had a sheltered life at Haworth much of the debauchery shown in Tenant came from her witnessing less than salubrious lifestyles during her time in service.
By contrast Agnes Grey is rather ordinary and rather staid and I was most disappointed
Verdict : 5/10
Destination : ebook storage
Showing posts with label Disappointing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disappointing. Show all posts
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Book #71 The Woman In Black by Susan Hill
The Woman In Black
One Christmas, the stepchildren of Arthur Kipps begin telling ghost stories for fun, and are shocked when their normally benign stepfather loses his temper and goes out into the night. Arthur, it turns out has his own ghost story, and a true one at that, which he begins to relate in the first person to the reader.
As a young solicitor Arthur was sent to close the estate of a woman who died without family in an isolated house in the marshes. Whilst there he begins seeing visions of a mysterious woman in black and experiences other supernatural occurrences, that leave him altered forever.
Sadly, I had several problems with the book, although period pieces are exactly my thing whether they be written in the past as in Dickens or a modern attempt to write a novel in that style such as Susannah Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell; this novel felt affected, like an attempt at a period tone rather than believable as an actual period novel. A pastiche. For a ghost story I was not particularly scared and as a result of being a short novel it lacked much in the way of incident ghostly or otherwise.
Though the story of the Woman In Black when explained and played out is very sad, it is hard to see why she would harbour a vendetta against either the town or Arthur. The ending is actually bizarre, in many ways it is the novels big reveal, following the opening but once the final event is described the novel ends immediately, abruptly, badly. Almost as if a schoolchild had done it and hadn't known how to conclude the story once all the events had been told. It ends something like "There you are, thats my story" It's weird.
The novel has recently been adapted for the screen and will feature Daniel Radcliffe in the lead, the trailer coincidentally was released today, in contrast to the book, the film seems genuinely creepy and I think this could be one of the occasions whereby the film may prove more enjoyable than the source material it came from. 6/10
One Christmas, the stepchildren of Arthur Kipps begin telling ghost stories for fun, and are shocked when their normally benign stepfather loses his temper and goes out into the night. Arthur, it turns out has his own ghost story, and a true one at that, which he begins to relate in the first person to the reader.
As a young solicitor Arthur was sent to close the estate of a woman who died without family in an isolated house in the marshes. Whilst there he begins seeing visions of a mysterious woman in black and experiences other supernatural occurrences, that leave him altered forever.
Sadly, I had several problems with the book, although period pieces are exactly my thing whether they be written in the past as in Dickens or a modern attempt to write a novel in that style such as Susannah Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell; this novel felt affected, like an attempt at a period tone rather than believable as an actual period novel. A pastiche. For a ghost story I was not particularly scared and as a result of being a short novel it lacked much in the way of incident ghostly or otherwise.
Though the story of the Woman In Black when explained and played out is very sad, it is hard to see why she would harbour a vendetta against either the town or Arthur. The ending is actually bizarre, in many ways it is the novels big reveal, following the opening but once the final event is described the novel ends immediately, abruptly, badly. Almost as if a schoolchild had done it and hadn't known how to conclude the story once all the events had been told. It ends something like "There you are, thats my story" It's weird.
The novel has recently been adapted for the screen and will feature Daniel Radcliffe in the lead, the trailer coincidentally was released today, in contrast to the book, the film seems genuinely creepy and I think this could be one of the occasions whereby the film may prove more enjoyable than the source material it came from. 6/10
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Book #64 One Good Turn by Kate Atkinson
One Good Turn
If you have not read Case Histories, then this post contains spoilers.
I'm going to be frank and say from the off that One Good Turn was a disappointment. It isn't that the recent TV adaptation diverged from it (not much, but enough) but that largely it lacks much plausibility.
Our hero Jackson Brodie an ex soldier, ex cop and now ex private detective is living off his inheritance in France. He travels to Edinburgh to see his former client and now girlfriend Julia Land in a play of dubious quality at the Fringe.
This novels mystery surrounds Graham Hatter an outwardly respectable privately unscrupulous builder of houses similar to Redrow or Barratt. He arrives in A and E with a Russian dominatrix little to his wife's surprise.
Marty Canning, a weak dissatisfied writer whose life is dull and without excitement, is involved in a violent incident in a car park, this leads to his name becoming attached to a series of crimes, in a way that is all very unlikely.
Jackson Brodie, whilst out sightseeing finds a dead Russian girl in the water. Somehow all these people are connected, but how?
And this is essentially the issue. They are all connected or all end up connected, Jackson Brodie and Marty through the carpark incident, the Russian girls to Graham Hatter, employees of Hatter to incidents which befall both Brodie and Canning. It's just too many coincidences and too implausible.
Jackson, no longer a private eye has no reason to be where he is most of the time and even new heroine Louise Munroe tells him he's "becoming a professional witness". It's not just unlikely that he would become embroiled in all these events it's borderline impossible, statistically. It just made me roll my eyes a bit.
I hope it isn't too spoilery to say there is a crime scene near the end; but the fact that not one, not two, but three witnesses are able to walk from said crime scene without police intervention beggars total belief. I understand now why the BBC adaptation made the changes it did and consider them an improvement in terms of believability.
I now feel more certain in my belief that Atkinson or at least her publisher, regretted retiring Jackson Brodie in Case Histories. He remains charismatic, loveable and with plenty of creative mileage as a character. But, in bringing him back in such a way, without rank or reason to be involved doesn't hold water. Because Brodie admits he feels unmanned by his new elevated station in life, it would have made more sense for him to first return from France, re-establish his agency and go from there.
I will read the next two novels When Will There Be Good News? and Started Early, Took My Dog, but this will be because I like Jackson Brodie as a character; not because this novel which is ultimately disappointing and weak has induced me to do so. 6/10
If you have not read Case Histories, then this post contains spoilers.
I'm going to be frank and say from the off that One Good Turn was a disappointment. It isn't that the recent TV adaptation diverged from it (not much, but enough) but that largely it lacks much plausibility.
Our hero Jackson Brodie an ex soldier, ex cop and now ex private detective is living off his inheritance in France. He travels to Edinburgh to see his former client and now girlfriend Julia Land in a play of dubious quality at the Fringe.
This novels mystery surrounds Graham Hatter an outwardly respectable privately unscrupulous builder of houses similar to Redrow or Barratt. He arrives in A and E with a Russian dominatrix little to his wife's surprise.
Marty Canning, a weak dissatisfied writer whose life is dull and without excitement, is involved in a violent incident in a car park, this leads to his name becoming attached to a series of crimes, in a way that is all very unlikely.
Jackson Brodie, whilst out sightseeing finds a dead Russian girl in the water. Somehow all these people are connected, but how?
And this is essentially the issue. They are all connected or all end up connected, Jackson Brodie and Marty through the carpark incident, the Russian girls to Graham Hatter, employees of Hatter to incidents which befall both Brodie and Canning. It's just too many coincidences and too implausible.
Jackson, no longer a private eye has no reason to be where he is most of the time and even new heroine Louise Munroe tells him he's "becoming a professional witness". It's not just unlikely that he would become embroiled in all these events it's borderline impossible, statistically. It just made me roll my eyes a bit.
I hope it isn't too spoilery to say there is a crime scene near the end; but the fact that not one, not two, but three witnesses are able to walk from said crime scene without police intervention beggars total belief. I understand now why the BBC adaptation made the changes it did and consider them an improvement in terms of believability.
I now feel more certain in my belief that Atkinson or at least her publisher, regretted retiring Jackson Brodie in Case Histories. He remains charismatic, loveable and with plenty of creative mileage as a character. But, in bringing him back in such a way, without rank or reason to be involved doesn't hold water. Because Brodie admits he feels unmanned by his new elevated station in life, it would have made more sense for him to first return from France, re-establish his agency and go from there.
I will read the next two novels When Will There Be Good News? and Started Early, Took My Dog, but this will be because I like Jackson Brodie as a character; not because this novel which is ultimately disappointing and weak has induced me to do so. 6/10
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Book #50 The Blasphemer by Nigel Farndale
The Blasphemer
The Blasphemer by Nigel Farndale was shortlisted for the 2010 Costa Book Award, and frankly, it rather beats me as to how that happened. It isn't that it is a BAD book, dreadful to read or anything like that; it's a book which if it were a person would suffer from multiple personality disorder. It doesn't seem to know what it is, or what it wants to be. There are about five storylines:
The link between all these strands is Daniel: Philip is his father, Martha his daughter, Hamdi her teacher and Wetherby his colleague. But it just doesn't work. What frustrated me whilst reading this book is that each strand, taken alone, is a brilliant premise for a novel.
The first storyline could have been a brilliant examination of the effect of a being a disaster survivor upon a relationship, the second a great historical novel about love, cowardice and the folly of war. The third a creepy, atmospheric tale about a sinister saboteur who sets out to destroy an oblivious friend. The fourth a commentary about the treatment of Muslims in a post 9/11 and 7/7 world, and the last a look at the modern world in which parents live in a culture of fear with regard to child safety.
Instead, the novel is none and all of these things, an awful mish-mash of half ideas, concepts imagined and left hanging. It really feels as though Farndale started five separate novels, got writers block and in the end just bunged them all together. It's really odd, and feels like not just a wasted opportunity but five wasted opportunities. Particularly, I felt, in the character of Wetherby alone there was real potential for deep character development and a dark psychological thriller, in the vein of Ian McEwan's Enduring Love or Zoe Heller's Notes On A Scandal, but this does not occur.
In addition there is an examination of faith versus atheism underpinning the novel, but this again feels 'thrown in for good measure', underdeveloped and lacking in anything new to say. The end twist involving Hamdi does raise a small smile, but then the epilogue feels superfluous after this denouement.
One of the reasons I bought this novel was because of the amount of 5 star reviews it had on Amazon, which, I must say I'm a bit baffled by. One reviewer on Amazon said this :
A book of opportunities wasted, I'm going to give this 5/10 a point for every great novel it could so easily have been.
The Blasphemer by Nigel Farndale was shortlisted for the 2010 Costa Book Award, and frankly, it rather beats me as to how that happened. It isn't that it is a BAD book, dreadful to read or anything like that; it's a book which if it were a person would suffer from multiple personality disorder. It doesn't seem to know what it is, or what it wants to be. There are about five storylines:
1) Daniel and Nancy go on an exotic holiday for their anniversary and events permanently change their relationship.
2) Andrew, a young soldier fights in WW1, whilst his grandson Philip tries to piece together his story
3) Wetherby, an embittered, pious, dried up academic seeks to destroy a colleagues career out of jealousy and spite
4) Hamdi, an innocent Muslim teacher is labelled as a 'clean-skin' and potential terrorist by the Security Services when he is accidentally caught up in a demonstration.
5) Martha, an overly mature 9 year old, begins behaving oddly and then goes missing.
The link between all these strands is Daniel: Philip is his father, Martha his daughter, Hamdi her teacher and Wetherby his colleague. But it just doesn't work. What frustrated me whilst reading this book is that each strand, taken alone, is a brilliant premise for a novel.
The first storyline could have been a brilliant examination of the effect of a being a disaster survivor upon a relationship, the second a great historical novel about love, cowardice and the folly of war. The third a creepy, atmospheric tale about a sinister saboteur who sets out to destroy an oblivious friend. The fourth a commentary about the treatment of Muslims in a post 9/11 and 7/7 world, and the last a look at the modern world in which parents live in a culture of fear with regard to child safety.
Instead, the novel is none and all of these things, an awful mish-mash of half ideas, concepts imagined and left hanging. It really feels as though Farndale started five separate novels, got writers block and in the end just bunged them all together. It's really odd, and feels like not just a wasted opportunity but five wasted opportunities. Particularly, I felt, in the character of Wetherby alone there was real potential for deep character development and a dark psychological thriller, in the vein of Ian McEwan's Enduring Love or Zoe Heller's Notes On A Scandal, but this does not occur.
In addition there is an examination of faith versus atheism underpinning the novel, but this again feels 'thrown in for good measure', underdeveloped and lacking in anything new to say. The end twist involving Hamdi does raise a small smile, but then the epilogue feels superfluous after this denouement.
One of the reasons I bought this novel was because of the amount of 5 star reviews it had on Amazon, which, I must say I'm a bit baffled by. One reviewer on Amazon said this :
Farndale has been compared by many to Sebastian Faulks; both for his descriptions of WW1 and tying together contemporary themes, such as fundamantalism, (sic) science and faith. Having read both 'Birdsong' and 'One week in December' (sic), I think The Blasphemer does it better.There is NO comparison in my eyes between this book and the sublime Birdsong, or between Farndale and Faulks. I find myself slightly horrified by the suggestion. I feel like she should wash her mouth out to be honest, as should any of these 'many' making comparisons. Yes, I thought 'A Week In December' was dreadful, but that book is the exception to my experience with Faulks as a writer. Faulks, at least, takes one idea and develops it, whereas Farndale can't seem to decide what the hell he wants his book to be about. There are some ridiculous 'as if' coincidences at the end too, such as the conclusion of the Wetherby storyline and the Martha storyline.
A book of opportunities wasted, I'm going to give this 5/10 a point for every great novel it could so easily have been.
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Book #40 The New York Trilogy by Paul Auster
The New York Trilogy
The New York Trilogy isn't a trilogy in the sense that Steig Larsson's Millenium Trilogy is a trilogy or The Lord Of Rings is a trilogy, it's three extended short stories 'City Of Glass', 'Ghosts' and 'The Locked Room'. It's another example of metafiction, which I wasn't expecting, I can't remember who recommended it to me in the first instance or what they said about it. Whilst the use of metafiction is totally unintrusive in 'The Things They Carried', you knew it was there but it didn't effect the story, it is so intrusive in 'The New York Trilogy' that I think it probably counts as an example of 'breaking the fourth wall' or if it doesn't quite technically fit the criteria, it comes very close.
I hate it when authors break the fourth wall, I like to become immersed in the story, the characters, and pretend at least for the duration I read it that I am a visitor to the world about which I am reading. I don't like the authors wagging finger appearing in my face and saying 'this isn't REAL you know, it's just a STORY'. I know that already, I know the difference between fiction and non fiction.
I think one of the central discussion points of the trilogy is on the nature of authorship, and whether the story is more important than its author and the author is essentially irrelevant. In 'City Of Glass' Daniel Quinn is a formerly successful poet who following terrible tragedy now writes mystery stories, churning out one a year under the pseudonym 'William Wilson'. He receives a phonecall in the dead of night looking for a private detective named Paul Auster whom he then impersonates. Essentially all Auster has done here is use his own name as a character name but the effect is nonetheless jarring. A separate character who coincidentally also shares the name Paul Auster appears later on. I didn't like it. In the last story 'The Locked Room' the question of authorship arises again. A man publishes the work of his missing, presumed dead, friend and is asked whether he would consider writing a few more novels under his friends name, the public being none the wiser. I wondered briefly if Paul Auster wasn't a real person and that was part of the point but it seems that he is.
'The Locked Room' is actually quite a good story, but in it he re-uses several character names from 'City Of Glass' including, at one point, Paul Auster, and I just found this approach really very irritating. The characters in The Locked Room are not the ones from City Of Glass either they just have the same names. I think he's trying to make another point with this and that is that the names don't matter only the story. In Ghosts, Auster replaces every character name with a colour, which sounds like a small thing but actually makes it quite hard to read.
I wonder if a lot of reviews at the time praised Auster for playing with formats and BREAKING NEW GROUND, but I found something quite arrogant about it, a tone which suggests he thinks he's a better and more innovative writer than he actually is. The sense that he's writing for the critics, and the literary world at large. The first two stories are genuinely confusing, and I didn't really "take away" much from the book having finished it. I felt quite "so what?" about it.
In the first story Quinn meets a young woman reading one of his mystery novels, when she tells him she's finding it average without knowing he's the author, he leaves, because he is afraid he might punch her in the face. I kind of had the same feeling towards Auster throughout. A disappointment 5/10
The New York Trilogy isn't a trilogy in the sense that Steig Larsson's Millenium Trilogy is a trilogy or The Lord Of Rings is a trilogy, it's three extended short stories 'City Of Glass', 'Ghosts' and 'The Locked Room'. It's another example of metafiction, which I wasn't expecting, I can't remember who recommended it to me in the first instance or what they said about it. Whilst the use of metafiction is totally unintrusive in 'The Things They Carried', you knew it was there but it didn't effect the story, it is so intrusive in 'The New York Trilogy' that I think it probably counts as an example of 'breaking the fourth wall' or if it doesn't quite technically fit the criteria, it comes very close.
I hate it when authors break the fourth wall, I like to become immersed in the story, the characters, and pretend at least for the duration I read it that I am a visitor to the world about which I am reading. I don't like the authors wagging finger appearing in my face and saying 'this isn't REAL you know, it's just a STORY'. I know that already, I know the difference between fiction and non fiction.
I think one of the central discussion points of the trilogy is on the nature of authorship, and whether the story is more important than its author and the author is essentially irrelevant. In 'City Of Glass' Daniel Quinn is a formerly successful poet who following terrible tragedy now writes mystery stories, churning out one a year under the pseudonym 'William Wilson'. He receives a phonecall in the dead of night looking for a private detective named Paul Auster whom he then impersonates. Essentially all Auster has done here is use his own name as a character name but the effect is nonetheless jarring. A separate character who coincidentally also shares the name Paul Auster appears later on. I didn't like it. In the last story 'The Locked Room' the question of authorship arises again. A man publishes the work of his missing, presumed dead, friend and is asked whether he would consider writing a few more novels under his friends name, the public being none the wiser. I wondered briefly if Paul Auster wasn't a real person and that was part of the point but it seems that he is.
'The Locked Room' is actually quite a good story, but in it he re-uses several character names from 'City Of Glass' including, at one point, Paul Auster, and I just found this approach really very irritating. The characters in The Locked Room are not the ones from City Of Glass either they just have the same names. I think he's trying to make another point with this and that is that the names don't matter only the story. In Ghosts, Auster replaces every character name with a colour, which sounds like a small thing but actually makes it quite hard to read.
I wonder if a lot of reviews at the time praised Auster for playing with formats and BREAKING NEW GROUND, but I found something quite arrogant about it, a tone which suggests he thinks he's a better and more innovative writer than he actually is. The sense that he's writing for the critics, and the literary world at large. The first two stories are genuinely confusing, and I didn't really "take away" much from the book having finished it. I felt quite "so what?" about it.
In the first story Quinn meets a young woman reading one of his mystery novels, when she tells him she's finding it average without knowing he's the author, he leaves, because he is afraid he might punch her in the face. I kind of had the same feeling towards Auster throughout. A disappointment 5/10
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Book #24 A Feast For Crows by George R.R Martin
A Feast For Crows
This, the fourth book in the A Song Of Ice and Fire series really divided me if I'm honest and I think due to the fact I can't write about the plots in a way which doesn't involve spoilers, this will be a fairly short review.
A Feast For Crows is essentially, by Martin's own admission half a book, he intended to write in other plots and characters as well but then the sheer length of the manuscript got too large and he decided to move the second half into a new book A Dance With Dragons, which he tells the reader in the Authors Note will be published 'next year'. He wrote said Authors Note in 2005, A Dance With Dragons is due for publication in July 2011. Martin has had hate mail from his own fans as a consequence. Personally I'm glad that I got into the series late as I only have to wait about three months, I don't know how early fans of the books survived!
A Feast For Crows tells the story of events picking up from where A Storm Of Swords left off using primarily the viewpoints of Arya, Jaime, Samwell, Sansa, Brienne and for the first time Cersei. It also throws in point of view narratives from members of the Greyjoy family and the Martell family and it was the latter I was disappointed with. Attached to an already large cast of characters I found myself failing to care about these others. There are several chapters devoted to decisions over the Seastone Throne that to be honest could have been axed and appeared as a couple of paragraphs of news and information via other characters. Though interesting things happen at Sunspear we don't know these characters enough to have a vested interest.
I think were Martin does have a problem in his writing is with editing and knowing what to leave in and out he seems to be unable to stop himself and the counterpart A Dance With Dragons is apparently equally long. A Dance Of Dragons will be taking place in the exact same time period of events as A Feast For Crows but will focus on the adventures of Jon Snow, Daenerys, Tyrion, Stannis and others, whilst the events in this book took place. This means that Martin has written over 2,000 pages about one section of time in Westeros. Although I enjoy the novels, I find this a little excessive and I had trouble again with an overflow of characters and remembering whom was whom particularly when minor characters from earlier novels were mentioned again.
Many major things happen in A Storm Of Swords, but this is not the case with A Feast For Crows when only one or two truly significant things happen. If A Dance With Dragons proves eventful I am afraid to say that when looking back on the Series as a whole, fans may say that A Feast For Crows was one of the weaker books.
I'm quite glad that this series is on hiatus for now because it means I can get back to putting variety into the blog, and blog more often, the sheer size of these novels meant they took longer to read than most.
7/10 but nearly gave it 6.5
This, the fourth book in the A Song Of Ice and Fire series really divided me if I'm honest and I think due to the fact I can't write about the plots in a way which doesn't involve spoilers, this will be a fairly short review.
A Feast For Crows is essentially, by Martin's own admission half a book, he intended to write in other plots and characters as well but then the sheer length of the manuscript got too large and he decided to move the second half into a new book A Dance With Dragons, which he tells the reader in the Authors Note will be published 'next year'. He wrote said Authors Note in 2005, A Dance With Dragons is due for publication in July 2011. Martin has had hate mail from his own fans as a consequence. Personally I'm glad that I got into the series late as I only have to wait about three months, I don't know how early fans of the books survived!
A Feast For Crows tells the story of events picking up from where A Storm Of Swords left off using primarily the viewpoints of Arya, Jaime, Samwell, Sansa, Brienne and for the first time Cersei. It also throws in point of view narratives from members of the Greyjoy family and the Martell family and it was the latter I was disappointed with. Attached to an already large cast of characters I found myself failing to care about these others. There are several chapters devoted to decisions over the Seastone Throne that to be honest could have been axed and appeared as a couple of paragraphs of news and information via other characters. Though interesting things happen at Sunspear we don't know these characters enough to have a vested interest.
I think were Martin does have a problem in his writing is with editing and knowing what to leave in and out he seems to be unable to stop himself and the counterpart A Dance With Dragons is apparently equally long. A Dance Of Dragons will be taking place in the exact same time period of events as A Feast For Crows but will focus on the adventures of Jon Snow, Daenerys, Tyrion, Stannis and others, whilst the events in this book took place. This means that Martin has written over 2,000 pages about one section of time in Westeros. Although I enjoy the novels, I find this a little excessive and I had trouble again with an overflow of characters and remembering whom was whom particularly when minor characters from earlier novels were mentioned again.
Many major things happen in A Storm Of Swords, but this is not the case with A Feast For Crows when only one or two truly significant things happen. If A Dance With Dragons proves eventful I am afraid to say that when looking back on the Series as a whole, fans may say that A Feast For Crows was one of the weaker books.
I'm quite glad that this series is on hiatus for now because it means I can get back to putting variety into the blog, and blog more often, the sheer size of these novels meant they took longer to read than most.
7/10 but nearly gave it 6.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)