vivdunstan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
vivdunstan) wrote2024-06-17 05:02 am
vivdunstan) wrote2024-06-17 05:02 am
Entry tags:
Book 24 of 2024: Scarlet by Genevieve Cogman
I finished this the other night, the first in a trilogy I think of stories set in the Scarlet Pimpernel world of the French Revolution, with added vampires. I'd previously read one Invisible Library series book by the same author.
There was a lot to like in Scarlet. You don't need to be familiar with the original Scarlet Pimpernel stories by Baroness Orczy, though it's nice to recognise familiar characters. It is set after the first Pimpernel book, and tells you what you need to know. The Scarlet Pimpernel is an English aristocrat, with a French wife, who with his gang of fellow conspirators goes undercover in France to rescue French aristocrats from the guillotine.
The book is told through the experiences of an English maid, who gets embroiled in the Pimpernel's efforts in France. I did wonder how well this was going to work. Was she always going to be listening at doors, one step removed? But no, she is enmeshed effectively, in what to me was a surprising and good way.
I did expect the plot to go slightly differently in one section of the book, but overall it was full of surprises. And not necessarily following the history as we know it.
I wasn't so keen on another fantasy element (not the vampires) that was introduced later on in the story. But maybe this will be developed more in the subsequent books.
The big downside of the book for me was that there was far too much info dumping about the history. Not least in the introduction to the book, which had a phenomenally in-depth - far, far too much depth to be honest - essay giving a historical overview of the French Revolution at this point. Which I found phenomenally off-putting, and did not endear me to the author. Show us what we need to know through the story, through what the character encounters, and their experiences. Do not have a long-winded and frankly boring history lesson. I would skip this sort of thing when I was my doing my taught postgraduate Masters degree in history including this exact historical period. I don't want to read it in a fiction book, even historical fiction.
Also I don’t recommend following a Dramatis Personae listing with an opening chapter about a whole bunch of folk not in the list. It was a good chapter, but having the list immediately before it was jarring.
There were also extended sections - often multiple pages - of psychological reflections by the characters. I think the editor(s) could have tightened this aspect considerably.
For these reasons I'm rating it 3/5 stars. But I did enjoy it. And would read the sequels. But it should have been better.
There was a lot to like in Scarlet. You don't need to be familiar with the original Scarlet Pimpernel stories by Baroness Orczy, though it's nice to recognise familiar characters. It is set after the first Pimpernel book, and tells you what you need to know. The Scarlet Pimpernel is an English aristocrat, with a French wife, who with his gang of fellow conspirators goes undercover in France to rescue French aristocrats from the guillotine.
The book is told through the experiences of an English maid, who gets embroiled in the Pimpernel's efforts in France. I did wonder how well this was going to work. Was she always going to be listening at doors, one step removed? But no, she is enmeshed effectively, in what to me was a surprising and good way.
I did expect the plot to go slightly differently in one section of the book, but overall it was full of surprises. And not necessarily following the history as we know it.
I wasn't so keen on another fantasy element (not the vampires) that was introduced later on in the story. But maybe this will be developed more in the subsequent books.
The big downside of the book for me was that there was far too much info dumping about the history. Not least in the introduction to the book, which had a phenomenally in-depth - far, far too much depth to be honest - essay giving a historical overview of the French Revolution at this point. Which I found phenomenally off-putting, and did not endear me to the author. Show us what we need to know through the story, through what the character encounters, and their experiences. Do not have a long-winded and frankly boring history lesson. I would skip this sort of thing when I was my doing my taught postgraduate Masters degree in history including this exact historical period. I don't want to read it in a fiction book, even historical fiction.
Also I don’t recommend following a Dramatis Personae listing with an opening chapter about a whole bunch of folk not in the list. It was a good chapter, but having the list immediately before it was jarring.
There were also extended sections - often multiple pages - of psychological reflections by the characters. I think the editor(s) could have tightened this aspect considerably.
For these reasons I'm rating it 3/5 stars. But I did enjoy it. And would read the sequels. But it should have been better.
no subject
no subject
Incidentally I was watching a Cymera book festival chat last night with 3 authors talking on the "There's been a murder" panel. T.L. Huchu was one of them, talking about his "The Mystery of Dunvegan Castle". I can watch this via my paid digital weekend ticket for Cymera. I have a lot of talks to watch on catchup!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Not all authors have this problem. Benedict Jacka's Verus series had excellent world-building from the start, and that started with his first published novel. His new series (only book one so far) also sets up the new world very convincingly and intriguingly. Jim Butcher, on the other hand, did a reasonable but not perfect job with his Dresden Files and had to do some retconning by about book 4 to ensure things were stable for his long -running series.
Maybe that's good advice for new authors. Start off with a limited series and then if you want to write something longer start something new where you've got the capability to set it up from the start.
no subject
I remember liking but not loving the Invisible Library series. (Though I was impressed enough by it, especially the later books, to request it for Yuletide.) And I think I probably came away feeling a bit more positive about Scarlet than about IL book 1 – it was less meta and the protagonist felt more vulnerable than Irene, so there was more sense of hazard.
As with IL, the romance thread is dull, but that's okay -- it doesn't take up much page space.
no subject
I liked Scarlet more than Invisible Library #1, which didn't leave me enamoured enough to carry on reading the series. Though to be fair I may have been extra ill neurologically then. And I really like the concept of the Scarlet Pimpernel.
Agreed re the romance. Also the bit that I thought the book would handle differently was when Chauvelin takes Eleanor on as a servant. I hoped he realised who she must be, and who she was going to pretend to be, and was then using her to try to lure in the Pimpernel gang. Because I think Chauvelin is cleverer than this book depicted him.
no subject
I'd wondered if Cogman was going to make Sir Percy et al more problematic than she did in the end. Not necessarily outright evil, but either more deeply wedded to aristocratic values and social hierarchy or more obviously just into it for the excitement and without any real humanitarianism.
I listened to the Invisible Library series during location, mostly via German audiobook which tends to make me respond to fiction in a different way. (Largely: OMG! I understand this!! Yay!!) I think over time I became more attuned to the humour and less bothered by the absence of emotional engagement that may be a common symptom of any writing set in a very artificial, meta universe. Plus, the lack of danger suited my mood at the time.
no subject