The Night Watch
After my rampant enthusiasm over Sarah Waters novel Fingersmith, I was eager to read another of her novels, and I picked The Night Watch based upon the fact that a BBC drama was being broadcast this month starring Anna Maxwell Martin (Bleak House) and Claire Foy (Little Dorrit) and I have it recorded to watch.
My reaction to The Night Watch was complicated. The novel is set to begin with in 1947 London:
Viv and Helen work in an introduction bureau, what would nowadays be called a dating agency for disillusioned post war men who can't cope with the changes in womens attitudes and expectations.
Helen is involved in a relationship with writer Julia, and Viv is seeing a married man named Reggie, the two colleagues each feel embarrassed, and can't confide in one another.
Viv's brother Duncan is taken aback when he is surprised by an old acquaintance from less than salubrious circumstances, and makes tentative steps towards friendship.
Kay is living life suspended unable to readjust to ordinary life following her exciting and purposeful wartime role.
What is good about this novel is that it shines a light upon the role of women on the Home Front in the Second World War, an area that is too often overlooked in WW2 novels and dramas, and the injustice that these women were expected to "go back" to pre-war roles, after these experiences. It also highlights the curiousity of UK society at the time, war or no war. The idea that instead of an attempted suicide buying you a Section, it would perversely, in the 1940's have bought you a prison sentence. Also criminal offences worthy of prison were : conscientious objection, homosexuality and being involved in an abortion. This seems utterly barbaric in 2011, but was part of the mark of civilized society in the 1940's. If sometimes we forget how much massive social change truly occurred in 20th Century Britain, this novel brings it home well.
In certain respects, I found the novel difficult. I still hadn't warmed to it after 100 pages and felt a bit let down. It gets going when we leave 1947 and flash back first to 1944 and then to 1941 as we see our characters through the war years. I really liked the characters Kay and Viv, but I found Julia cold and couldn't bear whiny, insecure Helen. I also felt that the characters were over-connected to one another in a way, that, in a city like London doesn't ring true. Waters even forces a tenuous link between Kay and Duncan which feels completely spurious.
Although the device of telling the story backwards, beginning with 1947 and going back to 1941 is an innovative way of telling the story, it has an unexpected side-effect. By leaving our characters in 1947 and never returning to their present, it leaves all their story arcs open and unfinished. Though, what happens in certain storylines can potentially be guessed at as a "Readers Game", theres something melancholic about each characters circumstance when we leave 1947, it would have been nice to see plot resolutions there. As a side issue, I found it frankly laughable that Viv would have still entertained Reggie in 1947 given what transpired between them in 1944.
All in all, I found the book oddly dull at times considering it takes place within the action of the war. And, I was disappointed in my first post-Fingersmith Waters book. I still intend to read other titles like Affinity and Tipping the Velvet however. I would also close this review with the warning that readers in possession of a vagina might find themselves crossing their legs uncomfortably at certain moments! 7/10
Showing posts with label Vagina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vagina. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Book #47 Moon Over Soho by Ben Aaronovitch
Moon Over Soho
Another day, another vampire novel. I'm honestly not seeking them out, they're everywhere these days, a little hard to avoid, and in this case, the book is the recently published sequel to the recently reviewed Rivers Of London.
This book picks up where the last left off with bumbling PC and apprentice wizard Peter Grant investigating an unfortunate series of crimes involving 'vagina dentata' in one plot and the unexpected deaths of jazz musicians in the other. Again, I enjoyed its easily engaging style, a little tongue-in-cheek with a likeable, self-deprecating lead.
Unfortunately, I had a problem. I solved the mystery VERY early on in terms of one of the plots. I don't know whether this is a consequence of being somebody who reads a lot, writes and watches a lot of films, making me somebody who understands a lot about how stories work, and patterns writers use or whether it was just genuinely obvious, and would be to anyone, particularly anyone who'd read the first book. Books still do surprise me, particularly recently George R.R Martin's A Storm Of Swords, so perhaps a book that can't or doesn't surprise you is an example of lazy or poor writing.
These books aren't serious crime novels, more romps and light-hearted escapism. Maybe they oughtn't be more challenging in their mysteries, because they aren't that sort of book, the reader is pretty much along for the ride, but it was quite disappointing. Inept as Peter Grant may be, even he should have realised far sooner than he did. The originality shown in Rivers Of London is still present but the concept of the story is let down by the execution. It seems a little ridiculous to accuse a fantasy novel of lacking realism, but a fantasy story should at least be believable within its own framework.
Another thing with both Rivers Of London and Moon Over Soho is that they feel very current, there are references to iPads and Twitter, but this is a dangerous thing to do if you seek to write a book that proves timeless. Popular culture references date books badly, in twenty years will young readers know what these are? I doubt that an 18 year old today reading a older book that might reference such technological wonders as the ZX Spectrum or the Acorn Electron would have the foggiest clue what they were like. (Showing my age!)
One of the books strengths though is the feeling that you get that Aaronovitch, beneath the vampires, the magicians and the strange women with teeth in their vagina loves London and is in part writing a love letter to the city, there's something very endearing about that.
The problem with this book essentially is: although it had vampires, AND a woman with teeth in her vagina, it lacked any real bite whatsoever. The thing is I like Nightingale and Grant, I like the world Aaronovitch has created, and would consider it a foregone conclusion that I will read the third in the series 'Whispers Under Ground', to be published sometime next year. I like the world he's created enough to overlook the flaws. It reminds me slightly of when I was disappointed in Harry Potter and The Chamber Of Secrets but went on to read all the other books in the series anyway, because Rowling "had me" with the first book. Later books proved much better and I'm hoping this will be the case with this series too.
Just please Mr Aaronovitch, give me a genuine mystery I can (pardon the pun) get my teeth into, next time! 6/10
Another day, another vampire novel. I'm honestly not seeking them out, they're everywhere these days, a little hard to avoid, and in this case, the book is the recently published sequel to the recently reviewed Rivers Of London.
This book picks up where the last left off with bumbling PC and apprentice wizard Peter Grant investigating an unfortunate series of crimes involving 'vagina dentata' in one plot and the unexpected deaths of jazz musicians in the other. Again, I enjoyed its easily engaging style, a little tongue-in-cheek with a likeable, self-deprecating lead.
Unfortunately, I had a problem. I solved the mystery VERY early on in terms of one of the plots. I don't know whether this is a consequence of being somebody who reads a lot, writes and watches a lot of films, making me somebody who understands a lot about how stories work, and patterns writers use or whether it was just genuinely obvious, and would be to anyone, particularly anyone who'd read the first book. Books still do surprise me, particularly recently George R.R Martin's A Storm Of Swords, so perhaps a book that can't or doesn't surprise you is an example of lazy or poor writing.
These books aren't serious crime novels, more romps and light-hearted escapism. Maybe they oughtn't be more challenging in their mysteries, because they aren't that sort of book, the reader is pretty much along for the ride, but it was quite disappointing. Inept as Peter Grant may be, even he should have realised far sooner than he did. The originality shown in Rivers Of London is still present but the concept of the story is let down by the execution. It seems a little ridiculous to accuse a fantasy novel of lacking realism, but a fantasy story should at least be believable within its own framework.
Another thing with both Rivers Of London and Moon Over Soho is that they feel very current, there are references to iPads and Twitter, but this is a dangerous thing to do if you seek to write a book that proves timeless. Popular culture references date books badly, in twenty years will young readers know what these are? I doubt that an 18 year old today reading a older book that might reference such technological wonders as the ZX Spectrum or the Acorn Electron would have the foggiest clue what they were like. (Showing my age!)
One of the books strengths though is the feeling that you get that Aaronovitch, beneath the vampires, the magicians and the strange women with teeth in their vagina loves London and is in part writing a love letter to the city, there's something very endearing about that.
The problem with this book essentially is: although it had vampires, AND a woman with teeth in her vagina, it lacked any real bite whatsoever. The thing is I like Nightingale and Grant, I like the world Aaronovitch has created, and would consider it a foregone conclusion that I will read the third in the series 'Whispers Under Ground', to be published sometime next year. I like the world he's created enough to overlook the flaws. It reminds me slightly of when I was disappointed in Harry Potter and The Chamber Of Secrets but went on to read all the other books in the series anyway, because Rowling "had me" with the first book. Later books proved much better and I'm hoping this will be the case with this series too.
Just please Mr Aaronovitch, give me a genuine mystery I can (pardon the pun) get my teeth into, next time! 6/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)