![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I read this book for Whitby's Bibliogoth meeting and I think I can honestly say if I wasn't reading it for Bibliogoth I would have never bothered to finish it. I liked the setting, I thought the idea of an alternate England where magic had worked and had since disappeared had a lot of potential. I really liked the whole idea of academic magicians vs. practical magicians. So I was really expecting to enjoy the book but I didn't.
I found the characterisation fairly superficial particularly the few women characters and the plot none existent. I kept trying to look for some over-riding theme, or conflict or mystery to propel the reader along but I didn't find anything. I thought it was quite dull and rather slow going. There seemed to be a fair deal of repetition in parts, such as Stephen's visits to fairy, that were completely unnecessary. I did quite like the idea of going mad in order to work magic, but I found the actual ending quite unsatisfactory. I didn't feel like she explained how or why the magic came and went or how the fairies fit in.
I didn't much care for the format. It seemed like the author had no idea who the narrator was, the narrator seemed to have a godlike knowledge of all the events but how or why was never explained. It wouldn't have seemed to difficult to give the book a made up name and fit it in with the rest of the academia she was inventing. At the meeting Sheridan said that in an interview the author stated she didn't know who the author was meant to be and I'm afraid that showed and made it weaker. I also thought the use of footnotes was a bit silly, they often seemed redundant or irrelevant and had no context, (unlike the excellent use of footnotes is House of Leaves). I did however enjoy the stories in the footnotes far more than the regular story. I think its because they were forced to be short and precise. I loved the story of the magic ring and the women magicians. I think if Clarke had stuck to writing a book of fairy tales set in the world she had created I would have loved it. As it was I found the novel rather long and tedious. The whole way through all I could think about was how much more I'd be enjoying re-reading Vanity Fair same size book, same time period, but infinitely superior in every way!
I found the characterisation fairly superficial particularly the few women characters and the plot none existent. I kept trying to look for some over-riding theme, or conflict or mystery to propel the reader along but I didn't find anything. I thought it was quite dull and rather slow going. There seemed to be a fair deal of repetition in parts, such as Stephen's visits to fairy, that were completely unnecessary. I did quite like the idea of going mad in order to work magic, but I found the actual ending quite unsatisfactory. I didn't feel like she explained how or why the magic came and went or how the fairies fit in.
I didn't much care for the format. It seemed like the author had no idea who the narrator was, the narrator seemed to have a godlike knowledge of all the events but how or why was never explained. It wouldn't have seemed to difficult to give the book a made up name and fit it in with the rest of the academia she was inventing. At the meeting Sheridan said that in an interview the author stated she didn't know who the author was meant to be and I'm afraid that showed and made it weaker. I also thought the use of footnotes was a bit silly, they often seemed redundant or irrelevant and had no context, (unlike the excellent use of footnotes is House of Leaves). I did however enjoy the stories in the footnotes far more than the regular story. I think its because they were forced to be short and precise. I loved the story of the magic ring and the women magicians. I think if Clarke had stuck to writing a book of fairy tales set in the world she had created I would have loved it. As it was I found the novel rather long and tedious. The whole way through all I could think about was how much more I'd be enjoying re-reading Vanity Fair same size book, same time period, but infinitely superior in every way!