|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was immediately drawn to the book because it’s partly set in my stamping ground of Norfolk. The protagonist Tristan is on his way to Norwich at the beginning to meet a mysterious someone or other which is nicely protracted until it needs to be reve...more
I was immediately drawn to the book because it’s partly set in my stamping ground of Norfolk. The protagonist Tristan is on his way to Norwich at the beginning to meet a mysterious someone or other which is nicely protracted until it needs to be revealed. There’s a irritating and lengthy section in his boarding house which achieved nothing other than to tell the reader “oh no, homosexuality is verboten in England” as if they wouldn’t know and “people don’t like it” which of course they know too. It all serves to hint that, “hello readers, Tristan might be a homosexual” which was a bit heavy handed.
I enjoyed the story being told–it’s told in two major time frames, that of Tristan in the present, in Norwich and what transpires there and because of that–and Tristan in the past, going through basic training at Aldershot and then shipping to France. It also dips into other flashbacks here and there. I found the tenses annoying, but that’s probably because–again–I thought it unnecessary and rather self-conscious for the author to have past tense in the present section and then present tense in the past section. It wasn’t confusing, it just struck me as “author being authory.” Personally, the more immediate time line would seem more natural to be present tense, but what do I know.
As for the book in general, it wasn’t mind-blowing. For the most part it read no better and no worse than most gay historicals that I read for this blog. The ARC I had from NetGalley didn’t have the author’s name on it so it wasn’t until I finished it that I sought out the publisher and then the author. Firstly I was gobsmacked that it was published by Doubleday and I thought “surely I would have heard if someone I knew had got such a prestigious publisher?” because I thought it must have been written by someone I knew, or knew of. It wasn’t until I went further that I found it was by Boyne, author of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.
This did amuse me because I had judged the book without knowing that the author was famous. And frankly, you can’t tell. It’s had (I have since seen, as I don’t allow myself to look at reviews until after I’ve read a book) some amazing reviews but I wouldn’t call the book amazing. It’s a good read, absorbing, interesting etc, but for someone well-versed in gay historicals, you won’t find anything particularly new here, and if Doubleday are publishing this, then they certainly should be publishing Heidi Cullinan and Jessica Faraday, Alex Beecroft and many others, people who are writing fresher material. It’s not a bad story, it’s just nothing new.
The protagonists are all nicely bonkers, in as much as they deny their feelings left right and centre and act irrationally at every given opportunity but that’s simply par for the course, particularly for something set at this time and place. Although I do understand a desperate gay man’s desire for companionship, particularly in a world where this is hard to achieve, I found it difficult to believe in Tristan’s clinging loyal affection when Will is such a self-deluded nasty piece of work, using Tristan for his own selfish ends, and then not only dropping him but cutting him out of his life so completely.
There comes a point where you know that Tristan has lost faith in everything: the government, the war–all he knows exists is this particular moment of horror which leads on to the next one and I thought “yes! now he’ll tell Will to drop dead” but it never really happened.
Boyne writes very cinematically–which probably explains why his books are optioned by Hollywood–and the description and research is lightly done, but with just enough detail to anchor you entirely to a place. You see what the protagonist sees, you eat and drink what he does, and it’s not done in a “got to fill in four pages here, let’s have some tea” kind of way.
Some of the dialogue is annoyingly modern and deeply anachronistic e.g. “We were an item” and “teenager” which was quite jarring, and the characters all speak each others names all the time which an editor really should have lessened as people just don’t do that. There’s a smidge of overwriting here and there with conversations dragged out to the point when I shouted “oh for God’s sake, he’s told you that already!” One of these however is deliberate (I’m pretty sure, as Tristan denies his close friendship with Will three times to his superior officer and it rather smacked of Gethsemane and it was then I knew how the book was going to end.
The secondary flash back, which deals with Tristan’s first love, Peter, is rather confusing. We are introduced to Peter as being a very early childhood friend, and then to Sybil, the Yoko to their John and Paul, and it’s all a bit skated over–I don’t know if this is because this is a mainstream publisher, but this is the first indication that Tristan is homosexual and I was left thinking “what?” after I read it.
As my sixteenth birthday approached I grew more tormented. My feelings towards Peter had clarified themselves in my head by now—I recognized them for what they were—and they were only amplified by my inability to verbalize or act upon them. I would lie in bed at night, curled into a tight ball, half encouraging the most lurid fantasies to energize the dark hours, half desperate to dismiss them out of pure fear of what they implied.
Which is all very well, but this is literally the first time any feelings for Peter have been mentioned, in fact, Peter has not been introduced other than as “the reason Tristan left home.” We are told that they were friends from the cradle, and two pages later, we have this “I recognized them for what they were.” It would have been less rushed if we’d been allowed to see the affections changing from boyhood chums to love from Tristan’s perspective. This smacks rather of coding–if you weren’t aware of what he’s on about it’s possible you could misunderstand, although unlikely. It’s just that coded sexuality belongs to another century, not this one. Plus this boy is fifteen, I’d like to know what these feelings mean to him, but we aren’t shown that either. In a world where there would be nothing but negative implications to discover you were homosexual you’d think he’d be a bit more disturbed.
He’s not a Gary-Stu exactly, but I do think that the author has imbued him with a lot more maturity and knowledge than perhaps he would have had in real life. He was born in a flat in Chiswick and his father was a butcher. Therefore he couldn’t have gone to any really decent school, and he was forced to leave his school at sixteen anyway, so his education is woefully incomplete. He went to work on a builder’s site until he was 17 – so about a year. As the book begins he’s twenty but he thinks and speaks with the deep sophistication of a thirty year old Oxbridge graduate discussing morality and philosophy with all and sundry. He’s working for a publishers, who took him on after the war. This rather baffled me because where did he get the education for that?
It’s most definitely not a romance, and I’m afraid that the ending left me pretty cold. I didn’t even well up over it because although Tristan calls Will “his lover” there’s no way in earth anyone else but Tristan could have labelled him thusly. Tristan then eschews ALL human contact from then on, and lives 60 odd years all alone and martyred and frankly I wanted to bop him one on the nose.
I think that a gay historical these days can reflect more than self-loathing, and although what happened to Will was tragic (and I should stress that, as expected, the war sections are all tragic and horrible and well written) I found the whole “I’m gay and so I shall never touch another man for the rest of the my life” thing tired and trite. And rather last century.
But all in all–although it was nothing much to write home about, it kept me reading, and although I know it was pretty pointless, I wished Tristan well. But if I had known who it was by and who published it before I’d read it, I probably would have expected something a lot better, and not so old-fashioned in terms of dead, suffering gays.(less)
|
|
|
I’m in two minds about this book.
While I have to say I appreciated most of the writing–which is deliberately done in an old-fashioned, if not quite Victorian style–this book annoyed me quite a lot for various reasons.
Firstly nothing much happens and...more
I’m in two minds about this book.
While I have to say I appreciated most of the writing–which is deliberately done in an old-fashioned, if not quite Victorian style–this book annoyed me quite a lot for various reasons.
Firstly nothing much happens and while some may say that it’s simply a gentle, old-fashioned style it takes more than an old-fashioned style to create an old fashioned book. Emma, Jane Eyre and books like that had plenty of things happening. Instead of things happening, this book contained what seemed like nothing much more than filler in many places–there’s a section where Hillier’s manager is getting old and gets replaced which is entirely pointless and dull for example and goes on for pages.
The problem is that much of this filler is relatively pointless or if it seems to have a point, then it’s never followed up.
It takes the protagonists an endless age to get together, and that’s not exactly filled with angst filled nights, or rivals for affections, or anything particularly interesting. It’s simply because Hillier doesn’t find Ashton attractive until quite late in the day. To be honest, I can’t see what on earth Ashton saw in Hillier because his behaviour and attitude is pretty unpleasant–although he’s like that with more than Ashton. He’s much loved in the village which puzzled me because he wasn’t shown as doing anything for them other than at one point attending another pointless scenario–a ball on behalf of a campaign for laying drains. Other than that he does nebulous work “writing letters” and attending Parliament.
There’s an overuse of the hurt/comfort trope which raises its head not once, not twice but a colossal three times throughout the book, each time Hillier getting ill and Ashton running around getting him well and getting literally no thanks for it. This, aside from them having an argument, is the main use of conflict and together with lack of plot made for pretty dull reading.
However, although not very exciting–and we can’t always have post-chaise chases and gun fights in every book, it’s quite readable, and if it wasn’t for the final problem that had me grinding my teeth it would have got a 3.(rated 2½)
It’s epithets. There are a record winning number of epithets in this book and I got to the stage of bursting into laughter when I found a new one. It’s like the author had had a rule sheet which said “you must never use the character’s name more than once on a page.”
Hillier is known as the lawyer, alternately, but Ashton wins the prize as “the broader man” “the gardener”, “the secretary” “the former gardener”, “the former secretary” and many many others. When there’s a scene with just the two of them it’s like there’s six people in the room. I hope, should Parkinson do another book, they will–or their editor will–ruthlessly red-pen this habit as it’s annoying as hell.
So while I appreciated the writing–mostly–the story didn’t so much grab me as much as mire me in treacle and I found it a heavy going read. But you might enjoy it more than I.(less)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.
I very rarely read contemporaries, for various reasons: I live in the now, so I'm not really interested in reading about a world I live in, and also many gay contemps that i read are filled with soppy cowboys, weeping cops and girlie vampires.
I was i...more
I very rarely read contemporaries, for various reasons: I live in the now, so I'm not really interested in reading about a world I live in, and also many gay contemps that i read are filled with soppy cowboys, weeping cops and girlie vampires.
I was intrigued by a friend's post about this so I bought a copy and frankly it's pretty damned good--one of the better contemps by a long shot at least. The writing is well done and the characterisations are excellent. What annoys me is that if it was marketed out of the m/m field and featured on the gay lit sites, and more importantly written by a biological man (yes yes I know that's a pot of worms, but you know what I mean) this would have been embraced and enjoyed hugely by the gay literati.
but what makes it stand out is the fact that it has a PLOT. Plot is sadly lacking in m/m these days, it's just a case of "guy sees guy, insta love, minor conflict to prevent them getting together, getting together lots of sex, hea." This is plottier than an entire season of CSI. And that's what kept me reading because there were other things that put me off. I was so impressed by the Marlowe-esque twisty turny manner of the plot that I decided to give up doing a complicated plot in my WIP because I'll never manage it like this. Despite the other things that I didn't like about this book, it's Alexander's plotting that will encourage me to try another of his books.
What I didn't like much was the main protagonist, he really annoyed me and at times I wanted to smack him. This isn't a draw back to the book, I should point out, because he's deliberately written to be an annoying bastard. EVERYONE finds him annoying, from his love interest to the cops he works with and so on. What I didn't like was that he didn't have any redeeming features, like - for example, Harry Dresden, who is just as annoying, but has a warm side - and is just 100 percent irritating and I wouldn't have spent five minutes in his company. The danger with creating a deliberately annoying character is that your readers might not then care what happens to him, and whether he gets his HEA - and I'm afraid that i couldn't care less whether he did or not. But he is written that way--and I applaud Alexander for being brave about that. Austin needs to grow up, and I can't say that he did throughout the book, although he learned a hell of a lot about himself.
The secondary characters, Cai, Peter, Luis - even Darryl, although he would have earned a good ear-flicking from me too - I liked immensely. It's Peter that carries this book for me - broken, Austin calls him at the beginning,and although that's true in many ways and for many reasons, he's actually the most mature and has the biggest core of strength throughout, holding everyone else up when they are all falling around him.
The action is great, too, and hugely cinematic. When Alexander writes about violence, it's almost as if he's been there done that, very believable and not at all prettified up. Bullets cause a LOT of damage, not just pretty holes in teeshirts, and this is graphically portrayed. There's a bit where I actually went OH MY GOD NO HE DIDN'T and you'll get to that point too.
Sex - yes, there's a fair amount of it, and this book is required reading because of it. It somehow strides the line between porn and romance, and I don't mean by going down the erotica route. It's kind of romance sex for men, if that makes any sense. Senses probably being the key point, because emotions are firmly repressed here until they are forced kicking and screaming into the daylight. Then shoved back down again. Maleness and masculinity and what roles men play and how and when and how others perceive them are a major theme and quite rightly, aren't solved.
The other thing that galled me was the ending action sequence, because it should really have included Austin and Peter and by having Peter taken to hospital took the heart out of it -- and then there was a HUGELY intrusive scene where everyone was squabbling for about ten (Kindle) pages which drove me mad. (There's a lot of squabbling which drove me mad, throughout, but this end section made me scream with frustration.) If I'd been Austin, I'd have knocked out the irritating kid and got on with what I had to do.
So - in summation(!)I enjoyed this book about 100% times more than I was expecting to, the prose was great and as the first person narration of a irritating git was very good. (Although there was one scene where the POV slipped to Peter's memory which was jarring and didn't work, not in a first person narration book) The sex scenes were a revelation for me, and the action was great. The problems that I didn't like are likely to be things that DO work for others, so don't let that put you off.
get it, read it. It's good.(less)
|
|
|
|
|