Cecily's Reviews > The Book of Strange New Things

The Book of Strange New Things by Michel Faber
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1199525


Alienation

We’re the aliens here.

This book can easily be (mis)taken as generic sci-fi, exploring the impact of colonialism on the existing inhabitants, as well as the newcomers: in the near future, a Christian minister leaves his beloved wife and travels through hyperspace to a human colony on another planet, where his role is to evangelise to alien beings.

That is the medium, but it’s not the message. The message isn’t even the Biblical one that saved Peter from drugs and homelessness, and led him to this mission. There is no message.

This is not a preachy book, even though it’s about a preacher. Rather than a message, it’s an open-minded, open-ended exploration of separation, dislocation, translation, miscommunication, God, faith, truth, addiction, madness, scars, healing (“the technique of Jesus”), loss, and what it means to be human. Alienation, in every sense, of every sense.

It is profound and disturbing without being horrific. It’s a slowly-told story that’s nevertheless a page-turner. Like physics, it focuses on the big (Bea’s situation on Earth) and the small (Peter’s on planet Oasis). Ultimately, there are few answers - is that like physics, too?!

There was a red button on the wall labelled EMERGENCY, but no button labelled BEWILDERMENT.

Alienation by Miscommunication

He opened his mouth to reply, but found the part of his brain where he went to fetch the answers was filled with incomprehensible babble.

Most of us take language for granted, except when we’re abroad, or if we have an impairment. But there are many ways to be misunderstood. Problems with language of all kinds are at the heart of the alienation pumped through the veins of this book. Although some of the examples seem extreme, they all have implications for ordinary lives on Earth.

Oasans have no identifiable eyes, no readable facial expressions, and no discernible variations of intonation to indicate their mood. Peter can’t tell what gender they are - or even how many genders they have. They look so similar, the only way he can distinguish them is by the unique colour of each one’s garments (hooded robe, soft boots, and gloves) - although eventually, he can recognise some by their voices. Of course, he finds this bewildering, with very little idea of how he’s being received and understood. But on the phone, online, or if talking to a woman in a burqa, we cope without facial expressions and body language.

The Oasans' language “sounded like a field of brittle reeds and rain-sodden lettuces being cleared by a machete”. Some can speak reasonable English, though they all struggle to pronounce ‘T’ and ‘S’ sounds. They are reluctant for Peter to learn their language, let alone translate the Bible into it: “In foreign phrases, exotic power lurked”.

Thus Peter embarks on a Bible paraphrase in English that omits ‘T’ and ‘S’ sounds as much as possible, as well as eliminating things they have no experience of, such as fish, sheep, and money!

But can truth survive through multiple translations and paraphrases, conducted over millennia, through the lenses of different cultures? Peter notes that the Old Testament phrase for “of old” or “long ago” is closer to “from afar”, which is apt for an intergalactic missionary.

Distance, reliance on technology, and consequent time delays, are a huge source of alienation and misunderstanding. Much of the story is epistolary - messages between Peter and Bea - and the gradual, but seemingly inevitable increase in misunderstanding foreshadows their deepening alienation from each other.

Alienation from Others

He was not ready to face her, not even through the veil of the written word… He needed to adjust to the complicated trivia of human intercourse.

When communication is impaired, relationships change, invariably for the worse. If you’re alienated from one group, perhaps the only way is to integrate with others. What then is “otherness”? Who is the alien?

USIC, the corporation that created and runs the colony, is suitably mysterious, as is the base on planet Oasis, and its bland, unemotional staff. There is rudimentary email, but no internet or phones (not even phones within the base), photography is “not practicable”, and there are no locks on personal quarters.

The planet itself has a strange climate and beauty that only Peter appreciates, and the native inhabitants are welcoming, but mysterious, strange and new.

The result is a benign but sinister setting, veiled in secrecy and evasion, that numbs the mind.

Some aspects are gradually revealed, but much of importance is never explained. If this is sci-fi, it’s very light on the “sci”, and even on the socio-political angle. It’s the medium, not the message.

One striking feature is that Peter comments on the (presumed) race of everyone - literally everyone - he encounters. And yet he’s by far the most accepting of the Oasans. Maybe he’s excessively difference-aware, rather than anything worse, though “variations in pigment aside, humans were all part of the same species” and some dubious observations about gender and sexuality don’t really clarify matters. Maybe it’s just another aspect of his own otherness.

Alienation from Self

The pain of useless empathy.

When you’ve lost your partner, home, culture, language, food, and climate, and you’re even doubting your faith, what’s left but your sanity? And how can you keep that in the absence of the others?

Watching a disintegrating mind is probably the most painful vicarious experience, as anyone who’s had a loved one with Alzheimer’s or mental illness knows. The helplessness of the observer, and the seeming inevitability of the decline is agony. (I’m not suggesting that applies in all cases, with all conditions.)

For me, that was the most powerful aspect of the book. It is gradual, unsentimental, sympathetic, powerful. Faber wrote it while his wife was dying, but he’s not, and never has been, religious. He asks where God is when tragedy strikes, but suggests no answer.

Quotes
Long-Distance Relationship via Email
• “I miss living through the visible moments of life with you.”
• “To his wife, these messages were already history. To him, they were a frozen present.”
• “His heart and mind were trapped in his body, and his body was here.”
• The rains “were indescribable… but seeing them would leave a mark on him that would not be left on her.”
Humid Climate
• “The rain wasn’t falling in straight lines, it was… dancing!... elegant arcs… a leisurely sweeping from one side of the sky to the other.”
• “He was enveloped in a moist warm breeze, a swirling balm… The air lapped against his cheeks, tickled his ears, flowed over his lips and hands.”
• “The air here was a presence, a presence so palpable that he was tempted to believe he could let himself fall and the air would simply catch him like a pillow… As it nuzzled his skin it almost promised that it would.”
• “The air currents, so similar to water currents, could not move silently, but must churn and hiss like ocean waves.”
• “The warm air embraced them with balmy enthusiasm.”
• The moist atmosphere “was enjoyable… but also an assault: the way the air immediately ran up the sleeves of his shirt, licked his eyelids and ears, dampened his chest.”
• “They truly were rains, plural… The air all around him was ecstatic with water, bursting with it. Silvery lariats of droplets lashed against the ground, lashed against him.”
Oasans
• “The Oasan settlement wasn’t what you’d call a city. More like a suburb, erected in the middle of a wasteland.”
• “Where the ‘S’ should have been, there was a noise like a ripe fruit being thumbed into two halves.”
• King James “Bible verses were like a particularly mellow alcoholic drink”, whereas Peter’s paraphrases were like “local home-brew, a moonshine compromise”. So “maybe he shouldn't dilute its strangeness”.
• Trying to explain the Oasans is “like trying to explain what a smell looks like or what a sound tastes like”.
Corporate Outpost and its Personnel
• “The bigger the company, the less you can figure out what it does.”
• “A curious absence of any image that evoked a specific, currently existing spot on Earth, or a passionate emotion.” That, of a corridor plastered in a wide variety of posters.
• "You cannot create a thriving community, let alone a new civilisation, by putting together a bunch of people who are no fucking trouble . . . You want to build Paradise, you gotta build it on war, on blood, on envy, on naked greed."
• “Her boringness was so perfect that it had transcended itself to become a kind of eccentricity.”
• “He did not lose his temper. He had no temper to lose. That was his tragedy, and his mark of dignity too.”
• “His calmness had impressed them… Without knowing it, he’d always been an honorary alien.”
Other
• “The pungent odour of Tartaglione’s loneliness dispelled some of the fog in Peter’s brain.”
• Scars “were not suffering but triumph: triumph against decay, triumph against death… not a disfigurement, a miracle”.
• “Belief was a place that people didn’t leave until they absolutely must. The Oasans had been keen to follow him to the Kingdom of Heaven, but they weren’t keen to follow him into the valley of doubt.”

Easter Eggs?

The Book of Strange New Things is what the Oasans call the Bible. However, in Faber’s short story collection, Some Rain Must Fall (published in 1998 and reviewed HERE), there’s a piece called Toy Story, about God’s childhood. It includes the line "His eyes would goggle at the strange new things he found there [in the abandoned universe]... bottled gases which plumed out in the shape of a star when smashed free, huge fluffs of sliver fibre spilling out of the bins like foam... enigmatically specific crystal implements... and... broken engines of paradox."

Perhaps in a nod to Under The Skin, reviewed HERE, on the second page, Peter and Bea discuss whether to pick up a hitchhiker.

One of the characters is called Billy Graham - but not the minister. In the Acknowledgements, Faber says many of the names are from, or loosely based on, Marvel Comics, but surely Billy Graham conjures an early televangelist in most people’s minds.

I wonder if the ubiquitous and multi-purpose whiteflower is a nod to the Wompom of Flanders and Swann. Lyrics HERE and F&S singing it HERE.


For a very different take on the missionary experience, as suggested by Caroline in the comments, see Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible, reviewed HERE.


Picture source for man in space suit in ruined church:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static...
161 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Book of Strange New Things.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

February 6, 2016 – Started Reading
February 6, 2016 – Shelved
February 7, 2016 –
page 78
13.31% "Why does Peter clock the (presumed) race of everyone he encounters?"
February 7, 2016 –
page 91
15.53% "A community in the near future with no need for phones! Food for thought - especially as I'm posting this status from my phone."
February 8, 2016 –
page 180
30.72% "Intriguing, unsettling, enticing.
I was initially a little uncomfortable about the detail of Peter and Bea's Christian conviction, but I'm trusting Faber (rather than Jesus).
It's also just occurred to me that I have picked up yet another book about loss."
February 8, 2016 –
page 317
54.1% "Storming through this, thanks to a stupid kitchen accident (don't worry), which meant I had lots of reading time, waiting to be patched up."
February 10, 2016 –
page 364
62.12% "Profound, disturbing, yet very readable: observing the disintegration of a mind, and probably a relationship as well, in a benign but sinister setting, gently told."
February 11, 2016 –
page 433
73.89% "End of Part II. A slow-burn page-turner. There may be strange new things."
February 12, 2016 –
page 500
85.32% "Well, I was expecting... [that].
But not [that]."
February 14, 2016 –
page 585
99.83% "That will take some mulling over. (Which is a good thing.)"
February 14, 2016 – Finished Reading
February 20, 2016 – Shelved as: scifi-future-speculative-fict
February 23, 2016 – Shelved as: god-religion-faith
February 26, 2016 – Shelved as: landscape-location-protagonist
February 26, 2016 – Shelved as: language-related
June 8, 2017 – Shelved as: solitary-protagonist
December 29, 2020 – Shelved as: colonialism-exploration-empires

Comments Showing 1-50 of 64 (64 new)


message 1: by Sookie (new)

Sookie One of those rare moments when a book intimidates me. Will look forward for your review for this :)


Cecily Oh, why's that? The author, subject, length, or something else?


message 3: by Sookie (new)

Sookie Cecily wrote: "Oh, why's that? The author, subject, length, or something else?"

More on the lines of being disappointed I suppose. In fact I enjoy reading this subject matter and that was why I purchased this as soon as it was made available.


Cecily At 3/4 through, this is looking promising. I have hopes that it will be worth your while picking up your copy.


message 5: by Apatt (new)

Apatt My SF Bookclub read this in January, true to form, I didn't! Perhaps I should just copy / paste your review into the bookclub and amaze the members with my newly acquired analytical skills, no doubt triggered by gravitational waves.


message 7: by Cecily (last edited Feb 12, 2016 11:01PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cecily Ha ha. You've liked this zero-word review: feel free to use it widely!
;)


(Of course, when I actually write the review, I may rescind that.)


message 8: by Tom (new)

Tom I've been meaning to tackle this when I feel ambitious enough.


Cecily I finished it today and will try to review it in the next few days. I suppose it's an ambitious book in terms of writing (themes, scope, length), but it didn't feel ambitious to read.


Lynai I just finished this last night and I had dreams of the Oasis. Looking forward to your thoughts about the book. :)


Cecily Hi Lyani. I'm glad you liked it, and seeing your 5*, I'll try not to feel the pressure on me! I'm still gathering my thoughts, but I'm currently thinking 4.5*, and unsure whether to round up or down until I commit some words to screen.


Dianne Great review, Cecily. I loved this book.


Cecily Thanks, Diane. I really enjoyed it, despite its unsettling atmosphere. Now that I've finally written my review, I'm to read other people's reviews...


Holly Bought this a few weeks ago, can't wait to read it!


Cecily It is strange, but really good, and unlike anything else I've read. I hope you enjoy it and I look forward to your thoughts in due course.


message 16: by Caroline (new)

Caroline A great review!

Your description reminds me a bit of The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. A book about a demented preacher in an alien culture. Your preacher sounds much, much more gentle and civilized, but he too seems to be feeling quite disturbed by the gap between his perceptions and the perceptions of the intelligent life on this planet.


Cecily Thanks, Caroline. Kingsolver is someone I intend to read more of, and The Poisonwood Bible is a strong contender.

This preacher is indeed very gentle and very sincere, but... you can read the book for more.


message 18: by Apatt (last edited Feb 21, 2016 04:34PM) (new)

Apatt Reminds me of The Sparrow, and A Case of Conscience, also Grease.
The same author wrote the superweird Under the Skin, I haven't read it but the "Scar Jo" film is ultra-weird.

for the review!


message 19: by Cecily (last edited Feb 21, 2016 07:35PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cecily Apatt wrote: "Reminds me of The Sparrow, and A Case of Conscience, also Grease."

I love the way your mind works, or whatever it is, even when I don't always follow the precise peregrinations.

Apatt wrote: "The same author wrote the superweird Under the Skin, I haven't read it but the "Scar Jo" film is ultra-weird."

Yes, I've read and watched both. The film is more of an "inspired by" than an adaptation. Both are good, and both have some similarities with this this.

Thanks for the thumbs up. Wrong hand, though. Maybe it was photographed in a mirror.
;)


message 20: by Dolors (new)

Dolors How funny that a "sci-fi" book would arise so many existential, even philosophical questions about the nature of communication and the meaning of life. I should broaden my horizons and start scouting this unknown territory for me...
A very juicy, complete review, Cecily.


Cecily Good sci-fi has always addressed existential and philosophical questions. The trouble is, there's an awful lot of bad sci-fi to distract from the good.

However, the sci-fi label doesn't sit easily on this novel, though I'm not sure how else to categorise it. That does mean that it's a potentially good read for those who don't normally find the genre appealling.

Thanks, Dolors.


message 22: by Wastrel (new)

Wastrel Dolors wrote: "How funny that a "sci-fi" book would arise so many existential, even philosophical questions about the nature of communication and the meaning of life. I should broaden my horizons and start scouti..."

That's what sci-fi is for! It may not always have three-dimensional characters, realistic dialogue, elegant prose or a compelling plot, but questions and ideas about the meaning of life, plenty of those...


message 23: by Wastrel (new)

Wastrel Cecily wrote: "Good sci-fi has always addressed existential and philosophical questions. The trouble is, there's an awful lot of bad sci-fi to distract from the good.

However, the sci-fi label doesn't sit easily..."


Not having read it, I'm curious why you feel the sci-fi label doesn't fit on it easily? The blurbs make it sound like something intentionally harking back to classic sci-fi...


message 24: by Apatt (last edited Feb 22, 2016 08:30AM) (new)

Apatt Wastrel wrote: "Cecily wrote: "Good sci-fi has always addressed existential and philosophical questions. The trouble is, there's an awful lot of bad sci-fi to distract from the good.

However, the sci-fi label doe..."


You are my hero defending our beloved genre Wastrel , sci-fi is so flexible and the canvas so large it can encompass anything.
Even bakery.


Cecily Wastrel wrote: "That's what sci-fi is for! It may not always have three-dimensional characters..."

Wittily - and truthfully - put.


Wastrel wrote: "Not having read it, I'm curious why you feel the sci-fi label doesn't fit on it easily?..."

The setting is sci-fi, but there is no science, which puts it more in Atwood's speculative fiction category. What I also meant, but failed to say, was that it needs other labels as well, but I'm not sure what.


message 26: by Cecily (last edited Feb 22, 2016 08:50AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cecily Apatt wrote: "...sci-fi is so flexible and the canvas so large it can encompass anything.
Even bakery. "


Home baking, too.
;)


message 27: by Apatt (new)

Apatt Cecily wrote: "The setting is sci-fi, but there is no science, which puts it more in Atwood's speculative fiction category...."

Well, I call a spade a spade!

Cue Oscar Wilde ;)


Cecily I am glad to say, I have never seen a spade.

(Happy now, Apatt?)


message 29: by Wastrel (new)

Wastrel Cecily wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "That's what sci-fi is for! It may not always have three-dimensional characters..."

Wittily - and truthfully - put.


Wastrel wrote: "Not having read it, I'm curious why you feel th..."


'Science' is a very optional part of sci-fi, and is absent from most classic sci-fi. Is this really any less scientific than Childhood's End, or A Case of Conscience?
And everyone other than Atwood and her clique of literary snobs recognises that she writes sci-fi. The only difference between her sci-fi and everyone else's sci-fi is that she's friends with a different set of people.


message 30: by Judy (new) - rated it 3 stars

Judy It sounds like you liked this one more than I did.


Cecily Wastrel wrote: "'Science' is a very optional part of sci-fi...
And everyone other than Atwood and her clique of literary snobs recognises that she writes sci-fi."


Yes, it's optional, but call me a literary snob if you must, I like Atwood's terminology.


Cecily Judy wrote: "It sounds like you liked this one more than I did."

Yes, apparently, but I enjoyed your review.


message 33: by Carol (new)

Carol Excellent review, Cecily. I was reminded of The Sparrow...maybe because that might be the only sci-fi book that I've read.


message 34: by Wastrel (new)

Wastrel Cecily wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "'Science' is a very optional part of sci-fi...
And everyone other than Atwood and her clique of literary snobs recognises that she writes sci-fi."

Yes, it's optional, but call me a..."


I have no objection to the term "speculative fiction". It's a term with a long history, popularised first by legendary sci-fi author Robert Heinlein, and then by legendary sci-fi author Harlan Ellison and his colleagues.

But spec fic is normally taken to be a broad term, encompassing sci-fi, fantasy, alternate history, weird stuff, and everything else. Whereas Atwood promoted its use as a gatekeeping method to keep out unfashionable people. Sure, she suggest specific definitions: science fiction is all about "talking squids in outer space", and contains "intergalactic space travel", "Martians", and "teleportation", and "science fiction is where you have rockets and chemicals". But of course, if she'd ever actually read science fiction (which she pointedly refused to do), she'd have noticed that virtually no sci-fi has talking squids in outer space, and that the other things she mentions are likewise rather peripheral to, and often absent from, the genre. While examples that DO include these things - this book you reviewed apparently DOES have aliens and DOES have space travel! - are excused and allowed into the spec-fic enclave anyway.

So in practice the only distinction is "fiction by people Margaret Atwood feels comfortable at dinner parties with" and "fiction by weirdoes who We Shouldn't Talk About". The former - the Atwoods, the Ishiguros, the Mitchells, and of course the García Márquezes - are allowed prominent reviews, literary awards, and large advances, on the understanding that they not admit to writing sci-fi (lest, like Iain M Banks, they be demoted, or forced to adopt a dual personality), while the latter ought not to be read, not not discussed in polite company.


Apparently, like Ishiguro, Atwood has been forced to back down on some of the polemic - in the era of social media, it must be difficult being a canadian feminist science fiction writer while trying to simultaneously insult and distance herself from canadians, feminists, and science fiction fans. But a lot of the damage has already been done. She's taken what was a useful term, "speculative fiction", and turned it into something poisonous and divisive that it's become difficult to use non-politically.


I mean just look at the core canon of SF. The SF Masterworks hardback edition, for instance, was of ten novels: Dune, The Left Hand of Darkness, The Man in the High Castle, The Stars My Destination, A Canticle for Leibowitz, Childhood's End, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Ringworld, The Forever War, and The Day of the Triffids. Probably only 'Ringworld' and 'Dune' definitely fall into Atwood's official definition of sci-fi, and some of them (Leibowitz, High Castle) quite clearly don't. The fan-voted-for anniversery hardback edition adds titles like Flowers for Algernon, I Am Legend, and The Book of the New Sun.
If a definition of 'science fiction' doesn't include most of what sci-fi fans consider to be the core exemplars of science fiction - doesn't at least clear cover most of the careers of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke for a start - then it is an inaccurate definition...


...ok, sorry for the rant. The whole "it's not sci-fi because it's good (and I don't read sci-fi)", which is basically what it comes down to, just irritates me. Ditto Rowling et al on fantasy.


Cecily Carol wrote: "Excellent review, Cecily. I was reminded of The Sparrow...maybe because that might be the only sci-fi book that I've read."

Thanks, but I haven't read The Sparrow (though I know of it, and it's on my TBR), so can't say how similar this may or may not be.


Cecily Wastrel wrote: "I have no objection to the term "speculative fiction"...

in practice the only distinction is "fiction by people Margaret Atwood feels comfortable at dinner parties with" and "fiction by weirdoes who We Shouldn't Talk About".

...ok, sorry for the rant. The whole "it's not sci-fi because it's good (and I don't read sci-fi)", which is basically what it comes down to, just irritates me. Ditto Rowling et al on fantasy."


Rant away. It was informative and entertaining. I bow to your far greater knowledge of the genre(s), labels and their history. Thanks.


message 37: by Jason (new)

Jason Very well-put, Wastrel. And I share your need to rant about that. Atwood in particular has been unforgivably ignorant about the genre she herself writes in, and the whole attempt to distinguish "mainstream" writers of "speculative fiction" from "genre" writers of "science fiction" has long since revealed itself to be a whole lot of nonsense. I happen to agree with Heinlein that "speculative fiction" is a better name for the genre. In fact, the term "science fiction" for the genre is sort of an accident of history. As Brian Aldiss famously said, science fiction is not for scientists any more than ghost stories are for ghosts. The vast majority of the best science fiction in the field, the stuff generally agreed to be science fiction, has little or nothing at all to do with science.


message 38: by Wastrel (new)

Wastrel I'd agree that "speculative fiction" is better in some ways. But not MUCH better. It's a great description of, say, much of Isaac Asimov, where the story concept clearly begins with a what-if, and then speculates on what that would entail. "Nightfall" is pretty much a speculation of what would happen if a civilisation experienced night for the first time. "The Bicentennial Man" is a speculation of what would happen if an intelligent machine wanted to be treated as a human being. And it applies to many other classics too. Leibowitz speculates about what would happen if the world were almost destroyed in nuclear war, but some knowledge were saved and preserved by the Catholic Church. Flowers for Algernon speculates about what would happen if intelligence could be artificially increased. The Left Hand of Darkness speculates on how the world might look if a) there were only one sex, and b) it was very cold.

But there's a lot of SF that can't really be described as speculation in this way. The Stars My Destination isn't really 'what might happen if people could teleport?' - it's really about revenge, humanity, identity, faith, etc. It could be told without the teleportation: it has been, it's called The Count of Monte Cristo. The Affirmation isn't "what if a writer in London were maybe mad, or maybe a figment of the imagination of someone about to become immortal on an entirely different planet?"; the Pern novels aren't "what if there were teleporting dragons and the world were being attacked by an inimical deadly space-fungus?". The idea particularly breaks down if you want the name to encompass all of SF&F - there are clearly speculative fantasy works, but they're very much the minority.

Personally, for my GR shelves I use the umbrella term 'fantastika' for all SF&F and adjacent genres and subgenres. But I admit that that's not exactly a perfect solution either.


Cecily (Feeling inadequate to respond to comments on my own review!)


Cecily (That's not a complaint, though, so feel free to talk among yourselves. I'll pop back in a bit.)


Cecily Jason wrote: "science fiction is not for scientists any more than ghost stories are for ghosts"

True.

Wastrel wrote: "Personally, for my GR shelves I use the umbrella term 'fantastika' for all SF&F and adjacent genres and subgenres."

I like that (but until it catches on, I probably won't rename my shelf).


message 42: by Apatt (new)

Apatt Cecily wrote: "(That's not a complaint, though, so feel free to talk among yourselves. I'll pop back in a bit.)"

A good time to go Bunburying ;)


Cecily Apatt wrote: "A good time to go Bunburying ;)"

There are buns in the offing (but NOT in the oven)!


message 44: by Lily (new) - added it

Lily I've heard a lot about this book, but your review makes the most compelling case for it that I've seen! I love the way you've analyzed the themes.


Cecily Lily wrote: "I've heard a lot about this book, but your review makes the most compelling case for it that I've seen! I love the way you've analyzed the themes."

Thanks, Lily. It is a rather strange book, but in a very good way. I hope you enjoy it, and that my mention of themes is useful but not spoilerish.


message 46: by Steve (new)

Steve I see this is yet another review featuring your characteristic thoroughness and insight. Terrific job, Cecily! I've still only read Crimson Petal, but am very open to more. (I might be one of the few people on GR to rival you in your love for Faber's masterpiece.)

How sad that Faber's wife was dying when he wrote this one. It couldn't help but influence his message. Plus, once we know about that fact, it would alter the way we read it.


Cecily Steve wrote: "I see this is yet another review featuring your characteristic thoroughness and insight. Terrific job, Cecily! I've still only read Crimson Petal..."

Thanks, Steve. This is utterly different from Crimson Petal. If you read them without knowing the author, I doubt you'd guess it was the same one. This is almost as good: the atmosphere is vivid, but not quite as captivating, and the plot is simpler, but on the other hand, I think there is more depth to the ideas here.


message 48: by Steve (new)

Steve Sounds appealing even if quite different. Thanks, Cecily.


Cecily As long as you're prepared for something very different from Crimson Petal, I think there's a good chance you'll enjoy it.


message 50: by Cindy (new) - added it

Cindy Newton What an intriguing and thoughtful review, Cecily. And the language of the quotes you've included is just lovely. I will definitely check this one out. Thanks!


« previous 1
back to top