Goodreads | FicusFan's review

FicusFan's review

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10692.The_Historian?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="The Historian" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1170833655m/10692.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10692.The_Historian?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">The Historian</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5918.Elizabeth_Kostova">Elizabeth Kostova</a> 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/21602020?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 2 of 5 stars I found this book to be a slog. I really didn't care much about the characters, in fact I disliked the main narrator, and I didn't care what happened to them for most of the book. I didn't find the search or mystery to be compelling reading. I thought the book was way too long, and didn't really need the teenage daughter as the narrator. The book had several levels, but only the past ones: the father's search, and his mentor's search were interesting. I didn't feel that the issue of the mystery book was ever really explained in enough depth to make it valid, and I thought the ending was weak for an almost 700 page read. My problem with the main narrator was that she was not really needed to tell the story. On top of that she was way too passive. She never challenged her father to complete or continue his story. It was all too pat, that every time the book got interesting, the story would break off. It was a cheap and obvious manipulation by the author to create cliffhangers. It backfired. I wasn't hooked, only made more and more angry by the waste of my time. The other issue with the narrator was the set-up at the start of the book. The way she tip-toed around the whole concept of Vampires. Later in the book it could be explained, but not at the start. As a vampire Aficionado I know that back in the 70s, the subject exploded. There were books, magazine articles and TV programs about them, about Dracula, about Vlad Tephes (SP?), about the legends, and the historical truth. But though the book was set in the 70s, the narrator acted like Vampires were a dirty secret. It seemed to me as I read that the author was trying to rewrite or update Dracula for the modern day. She did reference Dracula and Bram Stoker, so she wasn't pretending that his idea never existed. She was taking his story, indirectly, and moving on after the events in London. But it was boring. The slow dragging pace of the story also seemed as though she was trying to emulate the 19th century style of writing. I did like her writing style, it was smooth and she did a good job with the information, the description, the new locals and the minor characters. Her story telling was also not bad, once the daughter was pushed into the background. She just didn't construct an overall story arc that was worthy in terms of the journey and the ending to carry such a long book, and such an investment in the readers' times. I am a complete-ist and almost always finish a book I start. I also own the book so I feel the need to read it because I want to recoup my investment. Finally the book was a choice for my real life fiction book group so I needed to keep reading so I could discuss it with the others. I can't say that I would read anything else by her. I wouldn't reject it outright, but would be very cautious and test read it before committing my time and money. 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1104480?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

FicusFan's review
rating:
bookshelves: fiction, historical-mystery, read-2008

** spoiler alert ** I found this book to be a slog. I really didn't care much about the characters, in fact I disliked the main narrator, and I didn't care what happened to them for most of the book. I didn't find the search or mystery to be compelling reading.

I thought the book was way too long, and didn't really need the teenage daughter as the narrator. The book had several levels, but only the past ones: the father's search, and his mentor's search were interesting. I didn't feel that the issue of the mystery book was ever really explained in enough depth to make it valid, and I thought the ending was weak for an almost 700 page read.

My problem with the main narrator was that she was not really needed to tell the story. On top of that she was way too passive. She never challenged her father to complete or continue his story. It was all too pat, that every time the book got interesting, the story would break off. It was a cheap and obvious manipulation by the author to create cliffhangers. ...more I found this book to be a slog. I really didn't care much about the characters, in fact I disliked the main narrator, and I didn't care what happened to them for most of the book. I didn't find the search or mystery to be compelling reading.

I thought the book was way too long, and didn't really need the teenage daughter as the narrator. The book had several levels, but only the past ones: the father's search, and his mentor's search were interesting. I didn't feel that the issue of the mystery book was ever really explained in enough depth to make it valid, and I thought the ending was weak for an almost 700 page read.

My problem with the main narrator was that she was not really needed to tell the story. On top of that she was way too passive. She never challenged her father to complete or continue his story. It was all too pat, that every time the book got interesting, the story would break off. It was a cheap and obvious manipulation by the author to create cliffhangers. It backfired. I wasn't hooked, only made more and more angry by the waste of my time.

The other issue with the narrator was the set-up at the start of the book. The way she tip-toed around the whole concept of Vampires. Later in the book it could be explained, but not at the start. As a vampire Aficionado I know that back in the 70s, the subject exploded. There were books, magazine articles and TV programs about them, about Dracula, about Vlad Tephes (SP?), about the legends, and the historical truth. But though the book was set in the 70s, the narrator acted like Vampires were a dirty secret.

It seemed to me as I read that the author was trying to rewrite or update Dracula for the modern day. She did reference Dracula and Bram Stoker, so she wasn't pretending that his idea never existed. She was taking his story, indirectly, and moving on after the events in London. But it was boring.

The slow dragging pace of the story also seemed as though she was trying to emulate the 19th century style of writing. I did like her writing style, it was smooth and she did a good job with the information, the description, the new locals and the minor characters. Her story telling was also not bad, once the daughter was pushed into the background. She just didn't construct an overall story arc that was worthy in terms of the journey and the ending to carry such a long book, and such an investment in the readers' times.

I am a complete-ist and almost always finish a book I start. I also own the book so I feel the need to read it because I want to recoup my investment. Finally the book was a choice for my real life fiction book group so I needed to keep reading so I could discuss it with the others.

I can't say that I would read anything else by her. I wouldn't reject it outright, but would be very cautious and test read it before committing my time and money.
...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it) flag

comments (showing 0-0 of 0)

newest »

date

all FicusFan's books »