David Schwinghammer's Blog - Posts Tagged "class-conflict"
Things in Jars
The setting of THINGS IN JARS is Victorian England circa 1840 and 1860. If you've ever read about the Jack the Ripper murders you'll get the same vibe. There was a huge distinction between the rich and the poor. The poor would do virtually anything to get by.
Bridie Devine was an Irish orphan employed by a gaffer, Gan Murphy, who was a grave robber by trade. He sold Bridie to Dr. John Eames for a guinea, and she became the doctor's assistant until his wife objected, and she was demoted. Dr. Eames was an amiable sort, but his wife and son were villainous in the extreme. And Gideon was violent. Dr. Eames was into “curiosities,” one of which was the Mermaid in a jar, a dead baby with a fish-like tail. When there was a conflict with Gideon, she was sent to work for another doctor, Dr. Prudhoe, a chemist, toxicologist, and expert in medical jurisprudence who would become a reliable mentor into her adulthood.
Then there's a jump cut to the 1860s's and Bridie is a grown woman, a detective with a ghost as a sidekick and a seven foot tail maid, protector, Cora, whom she saved from an exploitive circus. The ghost is an ex-prize fighter named Ruby, who claims to have known her but won't tell her where he knew her from.
All of these fantasy elements create a need for suspension of disbelief that's hard to overcome. In other respects this is a kind of mystery. Bridie is hired by her former childhood friend inspector Rose to find out who kidnapped Christabel, Edmund Athelstan Berwick's strange child, another one of the “curiosities” rampant in this novel. Berwick had kept the child hidden and for a good reason. She resembled the baby with the tail in the jar and she had sharp little teeth that she didn't hesitate to use. Christabel had an impact on nature. The halls were wet and snails and newts as well as seagulls clamored to be around the girl. And she impacted the weather. London was about to be submerged by the rains.
The pace slows as Bridget tries to find the girl. And she's not as tough as she seems. At one point she has her incisors knocked out.
I never got lost in the nineteenth century, and I never believed that mermaids were possible. In other words I didn't experience suspension of disbelief. I know that the author's world existed, and that more people then did believe in ghosts, but children with fish tails who can only live in water? Nope.
Bridie Devine was an Irish orphan employed by a gaffer, Gan Murphy, who was a grave robber by trade. He sold Bridie to Dr. John Eames for a guinea, and she became the doctor's assistant until his wife objected, and she was demoted. Dr. Eames was an amiable sort, but his wife and son were villainous in the extreme. And Gideon was violent. Dr. Eames was into “curiosities,” one of which was the Mermaid in a jar, a dead baby with a fish-like tail. When there was a conflict with Gideon, she was sent to work for another doctor, Dr. Prudhoe, a chemist, toxicologist, and expert in medical jurisprudence who would become a reliable mentor into her adulthood.
Then there's a jump cut to the 1860s's and Bridie is a grown woman, a detective with a ghost as a sidekick and a seven foot tail maid, protector, Cora, whom she saved from an exploitive circus. The ghost is an ex-prize fighter named Ruby, who claims to have known her but won't tell her where he knew her from.
All of these fantasy elements create a need for suspension of disbelief that's hard to overcome. In other respects this is a kind of mystery. Bridie is hired by her former childhood friend inspector Rose to find out who kidnapped Christabel, Edmund Athelstan Berwick's strange child, another one of the “curiosities” rampant in this novel. Berwick had kept the child hidden and for a good reason. She resembled the baby with the tail in the jar and she had sharp little teeth that she didn't hesitate to use. Christabel had an impact on nature. The halls were wet and snails and newts as well as seagulls clamored to be around the girl. And she impacted the weather. London was about to be submerged by the rains.
The pace slows as Bridget tries to find the girl. And she's not as tough as she seems. At one point she has her incisors knocked out.
I never got lost in the nineteenth century, and I never believed that mermaids were possible. In other words I didn't experience suspension of disbelief. I know that the author's world existed, and that more people then did believe in ghosts, but children with fish tails who can only live in water? Nope.
