What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mechanist
Essie Gray just wanted to be a thief. And she was damned good at it.
Issington is a city under a century-long siege from the air. A curfew and blackout have driven many citizens underground for business and pleasure. Automatons originally designed for war patrol the dark streets of the city at night, now used as a means of keeping the uneasy domestic peace.
When a job goes horribly wrong, Essie finds herself on the wrong side of both the criminals she once thought allies and the law. Now Essie faces a difficult task: to find out what she stole, and who hired her.
That may be a more daunting task than she realizes. With the criminals, the constabulary, and a major corporation leveraging power against her, the chance of success appears thin. But then she might find allies in unexpected places....
Issington is a city under a century-long siege from the air. A curfew and blackout have driven many citizens underground for business and pleasure. Automatons originally designed for war patrol the dark streets of the city at night, now used as a means of keeping the uneasy domestic peace.
When a job goes horribly wrong, Essie finds herself on the wrong side of both the criminals she once thought allies and the law. Now Essie faces a difficult task: to find out what she stole, and who hired her.
That may be a more daunting task than she realizes. With the criminals, the constabulary, and a major corporation leveraging power against her, the chance of success appears thin. But then she might find allies in unexpected places....
344 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 18, 2012
9 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
April 8, 2012
I got this book through the First Reads Giveaway.
I think this book has the potential to be one of the better books I've read in the steampunk genre. However - it's not quite finished.
It starts rather awkwardly, to the point where, on the first page, I almost felt like, "oh no, what have I gotten myself into?" However, as it goes along, the writing gets a lot smoother, and as the characters develop and the plot develops, I found myself liking the book quite a lot.
However, due to the writing's uneven quality, I strongly felt like this was a first draft - like the author got to the end of the story and said, "Woo-hoo! I'm done! Off to the printer with you, book!" From a copy-editor's perspective, I had four problems with the first paragraph. To me, that says that no one even read over the manuscript before it went to print. It's also going to turn off anyone at a publisher who's looking at this - which is a shame, because this is really A GOOD BOOK!
First paragraph:
"Essie Gray crouched beside a ruined rise of stone steps. Mortar crumbled from beneath the weather-cracked stones and dissolved into fine powder. Had the street lamps been lit - as they hadn't been in living memory - they'd have illuminated nothing but great glowing orbs of mist and fog in the night. Instead, the only light filtering down to the street through the overcast sky came from the waning gibbous moon above. That modest lizght glinted wanly off the slick cobbled streets."
OK, the main problem here is time.
#1. The mortar has probably been crumbling and gradually dissolving into powder for decades. Essie is "crouching" NOW. This creates an instant disconnect as to how the reader is supposed to be viewing the scene. How about keeping the whole thing current? Maybe have her descending the steps, and the dust crumbling out as her feet shift the loose stones?
#2. If the street lamps haven't been lit in "living memory," Essie's probably not THINKING about how they're not lit, or what she would see if they were. Skip what we're not seeing, and tell us just what we DO see. The moonlight can illuminate the broken globes of the streetlights.
#3. If it's that misty, foggy, and overcast, can we really tell that the moon is "waning gibbous"? That's awfully specific.
#4. Typo! "lizght" - OK - these happen! But in the first paragraph? Again, this says, "no one proofread this manuscript."
It also needs a general going-over, overall, just for small things. The number of sentence fragments interrupts the flow of the writing at points, and then there are nitpicky (but important) things like the differences between "leeching"/"leaching" and "taking the piss" vs. "pissing someone off." There's an overuse of the word "brutes," and places where a better word choice could really make things snap - for example, on page 13 a place is a haven for "crooks, criminals and thieves." Those are all synonyms. How about "a haven for pickpockets, bully-boys and flesh-mongers?"
I'm not usually (if ever) so specific in a review. I'm saying this because I really feel that if a professional editor revised this manuscript, there is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be picked up by a major publisher. I don't think I've ever said that about a self-published novel before. It's better than some books that have already been published by the mainstream SF press this year.
The characters are engaging and colorful, and the mystery/adventure plot is well-crafted, suspenseful and action-filled. The setting is vague-but-evocative. (An alternate England after a WWI that turned out differently?) It's a well-realized and original world which really captures the underground, DIY, gritty aspect of steampunk - it follows from the cyberpunk aesthetic, exploring nightlife, marginalization and subcultures, unlike some newer 'steampunk' books that are just like, "well, let's make it vaguely old-timey, and then throw in an automaton." Nope. Essie is a worthy steampunk counterpoint to cyberpunk's bad-ass hackers - she's a mechanist hacker, always tinkering with parts, smart, talented, on the wrong side of the law in order to survive, kicking ass on her motorcycle and doing what needs to be done.
I'd recommend this to fans of Cherie Priest's 'Boneshaker.'
I think this book has the potential to be one of the better books I've read in the steampunk genre. However - it's not quite finished.
It starts rather awkwardly, to the point where, on the first page, I almost felt like, "oh no, what have I gotten myself into?" However, as it goes along, the writing gets a lot smoother, and as the characters develop and the plot develops, I found myself liking the book quite a lot.
However, due to the writing's uneven quality, I strongly felt like this was a first draft - like the author got to the end of the story and said, "Woo-hoo! I'm done! Off to the printer with you, book!" From a copy-editor's perspective, I had four problems with the first paragraph. To me, that says that no one even read over the manuscript before it went to print. It's also going to turn off anyone at a publisher who's looking at this - which is a shame, because this is really A GOOD BOOK!
First paragraph:
"Essie Gray crouched beside a ruined rise of stone steps. Mortar crumbled from beneath the weather-cracked stones and dissolved into fine powder. Had the street lamps been lit - as they hadn't been in living memory - they'd have illuminated nothing but great glowing orbs of mist and fog in the night. Instead, the only light filtering down to the street through the overcast sky came from the waning gibbous moon above. That modest lizght glinted wanly off the slick cobbled streets."
OK, the main problem here is time.
#1. The mortar has probably been crumbling and gradually dissolving into powder for decades. Essie is "crouching" NOW. This creates an instant disconnect as to how the reader is supposed to be viewing the scene. How about keeping the whole thing current? Maybe have her descending the steps, and the dust crumbling out as her feet shift the loose stones?
#2. If the street lamps haven't been lit in "living memory," Essie's probably not THINKING about how they're not lit, or what she would see if they were. Skip what we're not seeing, and tell us just what we DO see. The moonlight can illuminate the broken globes of the streetlights.
#3. If it's that misty, foggy, and overcast, can we really tell that the moon is "waning gibbous"? That's awfully specific.
#4. Typo! "lizght" - OK - these happen! But in the first paragraph? Again, this says, "no one proofread this manuscript."
It also needs a general going-over, overall, just for small things. The number of sentence fragments interrupts the flow of the writing at points, and then there are nitpicky (but important) things like the differences between "leeching"/"leaching" and "taking the piss" vs. "pissing someone off." There's an overuse of the word "brutes," and places where a better word choice could really make things snap - for example, on page 13 a place is a haven for "crooks, criminals and thieves." Those are all synonyms. How about "a haven for pickpockets, bully-boys and flesh-mongers?"
I'm not usually (if ever) so specific in a review. I'm saying this because I really feel that if a professional editor revised this manuscript, there is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be picked up by a major publisher. I don't think I've ever said that about a self-published novel before. It's better than some books that have already been published by the mainstream SF press this year.
The characters are engaging and colorful, and the mystery/adventure plot is well-crafted, suspenseful and action-filled. The setting is vague-but-evocative. (An alternate England after a WWI that turned out differently?) It's a well-realized and original world which really captures the underground, DIY, gritty aspect of steampunk - it follows from the cyberpunk aesthetic, exploring nightlife, marginalization and subcultures, unlike some newer 'steampunk' books that are just like, "well, let's make it vaguely old-timey, and then throw in an automaton." Nope. Essie is a worthy steampunk counterpoint to cyberpunk's bad-ass hackers - she's a mechanist hacker, always tinkering with parts, smart, talented, on the wrong side of the law in order to survive, kicking ass on her motorcycle and doing what needs to be done.
I'd recommend this to fans of Cherie Priest's 'Boneshaker.'
May 15, 2012
What I liked: Essie. As the book progressed, I became more and more invested in her life. I wanted her to have a happy ending. I thought the atmosphere of the book was great. It was a fully realized, fully believable alternate world. It was also a pretty depressing world, with food shortages, never-ending wars, high crime, etc. In a world where it is hard to trust anyone, Essie found some true friends.
What I didn't like: there were some awkwardly constructed sentences, especially noticeable in the first chapter. When I first started reading, I found myself rereading sentences over again to make sense of the grammar. Luckily, this problem either got better, or stopped bothering me, and I was able to read the majority of the book without problem.
I received this book for free from the goodreads first reads program.
What I didn't like: there were some awkwardly constructed sentences, especially noticeable in the first chapter. When I first started reading, I found myself rereading sentences over again to make sense of the grammar. Luckily, this problem either got better, or stopped bothering me, and I was able to read the majority of the book without problem.
I received this book for free from the goodreads first reads program.
February 20, 2012
The Mechanist is one of those books where, once the last few words were read, I was so satisfied and pleased that I wanted to read it from the beginning again just to relive it and make sure I caught everything that went on. The world in which it takes place is very well put together - a war ridden country where people have had to adjust to living underground at night; where a single light left on can lead to entire city blocks turned to rubble by enemy bombs. And yet this is their norm - it has been this way for so long, that most people were born into it and know no different life.
But this is only the setting. The main character, Essie, is believable, likeable, and entertaining. The characters she gathers around her as she works to get out of the trouble she has fallen into all add their own unique charm to the story. The story itself is excellent and completely drew me in, but I will let you discover it for yourself. It is one you deserve to hear directly from the author, unwrapped bit by bit just as he created it.
But this is only the setting. The main character, Essie, is believable, likeable, and entertaining. The characters she gathers around her as she works to get out of the trouble she has fallen into all add their own unique charm to the story. The story itself is excellent and completely drew me in, but I will let you discover it for yourself. It is one you deserve to hear directly from the author, unwrapped bit by bit just as he created it.
April 2, 2012
My real rating is 3.5. Here's why:
First off: spelling errors. Immediately on page 1 I catch a spelling mistake: "modest lizght." And (much) further in, there's another one- "they light". What? These are small errors, but seriously? Granted, I'm in a rather pissy mood, but my regard for the book dropped lower with each mistake. It's a pet peeve of mine, but no one's perfect, so I let it slide.
But then comes another problem. In the summary of the book, it says that Essie Gray is a "damned good" thief. No, she's not. She's a good LOCKPICK, not a thief; thief just happens to be the only profession that goes with lockpicking, besides being a locksmith. She's not a good thief because for one thing, the book says that back when it was constables patrolling the streets and not mechanical wardens, she caught got quite a lot. Thiefs are suppose to be good at stealth, especially around humans. Strike one, Miss Gray. Another thing is that while the constables were investigating the scene of crime, they discovered quite a lot of evidence to figure out everything except her face and her name. And yet while she was robbing, she was just so sure of her abilities, and so convinced that the disturbed dust could be contributed to a "squatter." There's strike 2, because good thieves make sure to not leave a single piece of evidence behind. Strike 3 is for streaking down the street without anything to cover your identity in any way. I mean, sure you're in a hurry to escape the flames, but it kill you to at least wrap a piece of cloth around your head or something? That way, if people saw you, all they can say is that the saw a FIGURE on a spring bike speeding away, making it much harder to find you. Seriously, Essie, you are just about one of the dumbest thieves I ever met.
What the book should be saying is that Essie Gray is a damned good lockpick, because machines are her thing. She's a horrible thief because she's a goddamn mechanist. So the story is fine, don't change anything, just change the summary because you're not a good thief just because you're great at picking locks. That's like saying you're a great swimmer because you can hold your breath underwater for 30 minutes. It just doesn't work that way.
Now another thing: the emotions in this book...yeah, I just don't feel it. When Essie and Ash was fighting, I just couldn't feel their anger. I didn't feel Ash's pain at Essie's words. I just knew he was hurt and angry because the book told me so. The book freaking tells me everything. Oh, there's steel in her voice. Oh, his anger flaring. Blah, blah, blah, you're using too much words! Shorten it up, snap up the sentences. When you're mad, time goes by. Words are exchanged in a flurry of fury. There is no long monolouge of deep thought in between each retort. When people are mad, they don't think, they spit out the first thing on their minds. Then someone says something stinging and things start to slow down as their minds come back in control. That's when you can finally start telling me about how Ash was always Mr. Selfish, blah, blah, blah. Moving on.
Those expecting a complicated mystery in which the culprit of it all is revealed only until the very end: nope. The culprit is revealed near the the beginning, (you have GOT to be an idiot to miss it) and the rest of the story is pretty much just the clueless pawns trying to figure it and then put a stop to it. There's not much of a reason to keep reading, except to see what they'll do once they finally figure it out. (Characters: It was you all along?! DUN DUN DUUUN Reader: Yea, TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH. Now kill him!)
Okay, I'm done ranting about the bad side. Now let's look at the good side.
1) Essie has brain, oh thank god, she's independent but not one of those if-I-rely-on-someone-I'll-die hardcore chicks. Okay, she's a little bit of that, but you really can't blame her: life in the Tubes is hard and dangerous. Trust should be guarded and given out sparingly if one wants to live to see tomorrow, shitty as it is.
2) Mechanists, giving this book a bit of a steampunk feel. While the idea of making machines based on gut feelings may seem totally stupid to some, it made perfect sense to me. Sometimes you just know what to do, even if you don't know the fancy names for it.
3) Homosexuality, prostitues, and drugs everywhere! Whee! Welcome to the dark side of realistic ghettos! Population: not avaliable, because someone's probably getting murdered as we speak.
4)The line between daylighters and nightlifers, and no, I do NOT mean vampires. Shoo, you little emos, shoo! I was talking about what is basically the rich and the poor. The mansions and the ghettos. The stable and the unstable. And do not forget the ones that are in-between. There will always be something seperating the people from each other, making groups and creating tension. Whoop.
5) The magic of machinery. Just think steampunk. It's freaking awesome, that's all I got to say.
6) SI JONATHON IS...?! I did NOT see that coming! I was surprised, and then delighted as I went, Ooooh, that's why he taught her to identify metals. It was brilliant, but a bit unneccasry to me. Unless you plan to make a sequel, tie up all loose endings. It's like watching a movie, when everything's resolved, and all of a sudden if shoots a brief scene with the supposedly dead villian opening his eyes. It makes you go WHAT and drives you insane as you wonder WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT, SOMEONE TELL ME.
Hm, the pro list looks a lot shorter than the con list. But do not be fooled! The books IS good, I just like to rant, and I'm not really one for praises. It's a bit confusing (I've never liked politics very much, and the book consisted of 50-70% of it), but I managed. It was pretty good, and I seriously hope for a sequel. The book just doesn't feel finished; I'm not satisfied yet. There has to be a sequel, Mr. Nelson. I WANT a sequel.
I received the book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
First off: spelling errors. Immediately on page 1 I catch a spelling mistake: "modest lizght." And (much) further in, there's another one- "they light". What? These are small errors, but seriously? Granted, I'm in a rather pissy mood, but my regard for the book dropped lower with each mistake. It's a pet peeve of mine, but no one's perfect, so I let it slide.
But then comes another problem. In the summary of the book, it says that Essie Gray is a "damned good" thief. No, she's not. She's a good LOCKPICK, not a thief; thief just happens to be the only profession that goes with lockpicking, besides being a locksmith. She's not a good thief because for one thing, the book says that back when it was constables patrolling the streets and not mechanical wardens, she caught got quite a lot. Thiefs are suppose to be good at stealth, especially around humans. Strike one, Miss Gray. Another thing is that while the constables were investigating the scene of crime, they discovered quite a lot of evidence to figure out everything except her face and her name. And yet while she was robbing, she was just so sure of her abilities, and so convinced that the disturbed dust could be contributed to a "squatter." There's strike 2, because good thieves make sure to not leave a single piece of evidence behind. Strike 3 is for streaking down the street without anything to cover your identity in any way. I mean, sure you're in a hurry to escape the flames, but it kill you to at least wrap a piece of cloth around your head or something? That way, if people saw you, all they can say is that the saw a FIGURE on a spring bike speeding away, making it much harder to find you. Seriously, Essie, you are just about one of the dumbest thieves I ever met.
What the book should be saying is that Essie Gray is a damned good lockpick, because machines are her thing. She's a horrible thief because she's a goddamn mechanist. So the story is fine, don't change anything, just change the summary because you're not a good thief just because you're great at picking locks. That's like saying you're a great swimmer because you can hold your breath underwater for 30 minutes. It just doesn't work that way.
Now another thing: the emotions in this book...yeah, I just don't feel it. When Essie and Ash was fighting, I just couldn't feel their anger. I didn't feel Ash's pain at Essie's words. I just knew he was hurt and angry because the book told me so. The book freaking tells me everything. Oh, there's steel in her voice. Oh, his anger flaring. Blah, blah, blah, you're using too much words! Shorten it up, snap up the sentences. When you're mad, time goes by. Words are exchanged in a flurry of fury. There is no long monolouge of deep thought in between each retort. When people are mad, they don't think, they spit out the first thing on their minds. Then someone says something stinging and things start to slow down as their minds come back in control. That's when you can finally start telling me about how Ash was always Mr. Selfish, blah, blah, blah. Moving on.
Those expecting a complicated mystery in which the culprit of it all is revealed only until the very end: nope. The culprit is revealed near the the beginning, (you have GOT to be an idiot to miss it) and the rest of the story is pretty much just the clueless pawns trying to figure it and then put a stop to it. There's not much of a reason to keep reading, except to see what they'll do once they finally figure it out. (Characters: It was you all along?! DUN DUN DUUUN Reader: Yea, TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH. Now kill him!)
Okay, I'm done ranting about the bad side. Now let's look at the good side.
1) Essie has brain, oh thank god, she's independent but not one of those if-I-rely-on-someone-I'll-die hardcore chicks. Okay, she's a little bit of that, but you really can't blame her: life in the Tubes is hard and dangerous. Trust should be guarded and given out sparingly if one wants to live to see tomorrow, shitty as it is.
2) Mechanists, giving this book a bit of a steampunk feel. While the idea of making machines based on gut feelings may seem totally stupid to some, it made perfect sense to me. Sometimes you just know what to do, even if you don't know the fancy names for it.
3) Homosexuality, prostitues, and drugs everywhere! Whee! Welcome to the dark side of realistic ghettos! Population: not avaliable, because someone's probably getting murdered as we speak.
4)The line between daylighters and nightlifers, and no, I do NOT mean vampires. Shoo, you little emos, shoo! I was talking about what is basically the rich and the poor. The mansions and the ghettos. The stable and the unstable. And do not forget the ones that are in-between. There will always be something seperating the people from each other, making groups and creating tension. Whoop.
5) The magic of machinery. Just think steampunk. It's freaking awesome, that's all I got to say.
6) SI JONATHON IS...?! I did NOT see that coming! I was surprised, and then delighted as I went, Ooooh, that's why he taught her to identify metals. It was brilliant, but a bit unneccasry to me. Unless you plan to make a sequel, tie up all loose endings. It's like watching a movie, when everything's resolved, and all of a sudden if shoots a brief scene with the supposedly dead villian opening his eyes. It makes you go WHAT and drives you insane as you wonder WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT, SOMEONE TELL ME.
Hm, the pro list looks a lot shorter than the con list. But do not be fooled! The books IS good, I just like to rant, and I'm not really one for praises. It's a bit confusing (I've never liked politics very much, and the book consisted of 50-70% of it), but I managed. It was pretty good, and I seriously hope for a sequel. The book just doesn't feel finished; I'm not satisfied yet. There has to be a sequel, Mr. Nelson. I WANT a sequel.
I received the book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 5, 2016
This book took me forevvvvver to read. The story itself was interesting and I wanted to find out what happened, but the writing just seemed so plodding at times that I had a hard time picking the book back up again.
May 1, 2021
Great twists and turns make this book hard to figure out the ending. Until the last page could you figure out what the ending was going to be. Great descriptions made for easy visualization. There were times I could even feel the atmosphere. Very enjoyable read.
November 8, 2018
Unexpectedly good
When I began reading I was a wee bit incredulous. As I read on, the story became more interesting. Good read.
When I began reading I was a wee bit incredulous. As I read on, the story became more interesting. Good read.
November 15, 2012
The description of this book sounded intriguing so I picked it up on a whim. I'd never read this particular author before and I'm always looking to add new ones to my ever growing list so I pulled the trigger. It was reviewed pretty favorably, although sparingly, so I had a good feeling when I tore into it.
It didn't live up to expectations.
Essie is a thief, and according to the narrative she's a very good one. She takes a job for a questionable gang leader and it turns into a whole lot of trouble when she sets off a series of events that have the law and some other shady characters after her. Whatever it was she stole was important enough to bring a building down on top of her in an attempt to stop her.
Now, that sounds pretty interesting. But the execution is what I had the biggest issue with in this book.
The story takes place in a place called Issington, which apparently is in the UK. Issington is supposedly a war torn city and has been for the last century. The problem is, there's never a mention of what the war was about, just that there was one and that the city's been under curfew for about a century. The characters make reference to the war and to the military and the 'enemy' but that's as deep as it goes.
It's also uncertain if this is in the future or an alternate universe or what. They talk about things that happened 'centuries' ago so I'm assuming it's in the future? In a way it's a cross between a WWII scenario (blackouts to keep airships from bombing the city at night) and steampunk. They don't seem to have an electricity. Things seem to run on steam and spring power. Essie in fact has a spring powered bike.
The Machinists are apparently those who, over the centuries, have been very gifted with machinery. At one point they seemed to be mistrusted, much like many women during the Salem Witch trials, but this is also not really explained. They have these war robots called Wardens that run on some type of spring power but not electricity. I found it hard to believe they could react to the outside world or even be programmed for that matter to do anything without even rudimentary electronics.
There are many inconsistencies as well. At one point in the story two police officers saw lightbulbs and thought it was some type of amazing sight but then they talk about hearing things over wireless radios? As for Essie, she's a 'fantastic thief' but then it's told through the narrative that she's 'not good at sneaking around'?
This is also a very very slow read. It's nearly 340 pages but in kindle land, three clicks still leave you on the same page. That and the way the story is told with over narrative where it doesn't need it and not enough where it is needed (how the city got in its predicament, why there's no electricity, what's up with the war) it can get uneven. There are only a few characters in the whole book and many times it follows Essie around with hardly a word of dialogue between anybody. It doesn't help matters much that it's told in a dry prose both in narrative and the characters who mostly read the same.
In addition, the characters all sort of fell flat to me. There wasn't much about them that made any of them likeable. Even the 'villain' isn't one that I liked to hate. And furthermore, that card is shown too early and when it comes time for the big reveal, the villain's motivations don't really add up. There was also no sense of urgency. I never felt as if I did or didn't want something to happen to the characters. I wasn't rooting for or against anybody.
Sometimes I hate writing bad reviews because it's hard not to come off as snarky or scathing, neither which is my intention. I know how difficult it is to be creative in any capacity, especially in writing where you have to paint a portrait in the reader's mind's eye but I'm just being honest. It took me nearly a week and a half to grind my way through this one and it never takes me that long to read most novels.
I liked some of the ideas but I felt it was uneven. The things I wanted to know about went unexplained (why are there 'nightlifers and 'propers' and 'part timers'?) and things that weren't germane to the story were expounded upon for page after page. And in the end, I didn't much care for any of the characters.
Not my cup of tea.
It didn't live up to expectations.
Essie is a thief, and according to the narrative she's a very good one. She takes a job for a questionable gang leader and it turns into a whole lot of trouble when she sets off a series of events that have the law and some other shady characters after her. Whatever it was she stole was important enough to bring a building down on top of her in an attempt to stop her.
Now, that sounds pretty interesting. But the execution is what I had the biggest issue with in this book.
The story takes place in a place called Issington, which apparently is in the UK. Issington is supposedly a war torn city and has been for the last century. The problem is, there's never a mention of what the war was about, just that there was one and that the city's been under curfew for about a century. The characters make reference to the war and to the military and the 'enemy' but that's as deep as it goes.
It's also uncertain if this is in the future or an alternate universe or what. They talk about things that happened 'centuries' ago so I'm assuming it's in the future? In a way it's a cross between a WWII scenario (blackouts to keep airships from bombing the city at night) and steampunk. They don't seem to have an electricity. Things seem to run on steam and spring power. Essie in fact has a spring powered bike.
The Machinists are apparently those who, over the centuries, have been very gifted with machinery. At one point they seemed to be mistrusted, much like many women during the Salem Witch trials, but this is also not really explained. They have these war robots called Wardens that run on some type of spring power but not electricity. I found it hard to believe they could react to the outside world or even be programmed for that matter to do anything without even rudimentary electronics.
There are many inconsistencies as well. At one point in the story two police officers saw lightbulbs and thought it was some type of amazing sight but then they talk about hearing things over wireless radios? As for Essie, she's a 'fantastic thief' but then it's told through the narrative that she's 'not good at sneaking around'?
This is also a very very slow read. It's nearly 340 pages but in kindle land, three clicks still leave you on the same page. That and the way the story is told with over narrative where it doesn't need it and not enough where it is needed (how the city got in its predicament, why there's no electricity, what's up with the war) it can get uneven. There are only a few characters in the whole book and many times it follows Essie around with hardly a word of dialogue between anybody. It doesn't help matters much that it's told in a dry prose both in narrative and the characters who mostly read the same.
In addition, the characters all sort of fell flat to me. There wasn't much about them that made any of them likeable. Even the 'villain' isn't one that I liked to hate. And furthermore, that card is shown too early and when it comes time for the big reveal, the villain's motivations don't really add up. There was also no sense of urgency. I never felt as if I did or didn't want something to happen to the characters. I wasn't rooting for or against anybody.
Sometimes I hate writing bad reviews because it's hard not to come off as snarky or scathing, neither which is my intention. I know how difficult it is to be creative in any capacity, especially in writing where you have to paint a portrait in the reader's mind's eye but I'm just being honest. It took me nearly a week and a half to grind my way through this one and it never takes me that long to read most novels.
I liked some of the ideas but I felt it was uneven. The things I wanted to know about went unexplained (why are there 'nightlifers and 'propers' and 'part timers'?) and things that weren't germane to the story were expounded upon for page after page. And in the end, I didn't much care for any of the characters.
Not my cup of tea.
April 6, 2012
I really, really liked this one, but also think this particular review should come with a ‘your mileage may vary’ warning. This book’s what I would consider description heavy – the first half of the first chapter has exactly one line of dialogue of like four words, though it gets better, and there’s a TON of science and engineering related stuff - background and details, more than enough I imagine to bore or scare off people who dislike steampunk.
On the other hand, I’m a sci-fi fan, and was really impressed by the dilapidated city feel of everything and the complex descriptions of inventions, machines, wires, metals, and the like. Although I do think Nelson went a little bit overboard and could’ve cut a few lines here and there, once I got into the groove of things I think I stopped noticing the descriptions dragging the book and really went along with this awesome image of a ruined wartime city that they created. Nelson obviously also did his homework, the mechanical inventions and the various characters discussing device construction and metallurgy were intriguing whenever they appeared and really believable.
Character and plot wise, this book is a little weaker but still really enjoyable. Essie’s of course this thief trying to survive in this ruined city by stealing stuff, and one of the things she steals gets her into trouble with the law. As the plot unfolds, I like how Essie is independent and really knows what she’s doing, and watching her trying to figure out what’s really going on and working her various contacts while the investigators try to close in on her was really fun. It takes awhile for the plot and all the facts to come together, though, and there’s a lot of that technical description in between, but I didn’t really mind, though I guess it could be considered kind of slow. There’s also an of-course-I-saw-that-coming game changing moment when the hunt turns to who hired Essie to steal that thing in the first place, and while it took me awhile to get to that point I really enjoyed how everything came together. Unfortunately, I didn’t really get the ending, though I’m fairly sure that’s just to set up a possible sequel. (Also, it’s strange that the airships only bombed the city at night by looking for light sources and never during the day when the pilots could see everything, but I chalked that up to unmentioned anti-aircraft guns that could also shoot them down during the day.)
So yeah, if you get a thrill out of watching characters trying to figure out how a steampunk version of a lie detector works, this book’s right up your alley. Otherwise, it’s still a good detective story with some twists to the plot but might want to skim now and then.
On the other hand, I’m a sci-fi fan, and was really impressed by the dilapidated city feel of everything and the complex descriptions of inventions, machines, wires, metals, and the like. Although I do think Nelson went a little bit overboard and could’ve cut a few lines here and there, once I got into the groove of things I think I stopped noticing the descriptions dragging the book and really went along with this awesome image of a ruined wartime city that they created. Nelson obviously also did his homework, the mechanical inventions and the various characters discussing device construction and metallurgy were intriguing whenever they appeared and really believable.
Character and plot wise, this book is a little weaker but still really enjoyable. Essie’s of course this thief trying to survive in this ruined city by stealing stuff, and one of the things she steals gets her into trouble with the law. As the plot unfolds, I like how Essie is independent and really knows what she’s doing, and watching her trying to figure out what’s really going on and working her various contacts while the investigators try to close in on her was really fun. It takes awhile for the plot and all the facts to come together, though, and there’s a lot of that technical description in between, but I didn’t really mind, though I guess it could be considered kind of slow. There’s also an of-course-I-saw-that-coming game changing moment when the hunt turns to who hired Essie to steal that thing in the first place, and while it took me awhile to get to that point I really enjoyed how everything came together. Unfortunately, I didn’t really get the ending, though I’m fairly sure that’s just to set up a possible sequel. (Also, it’s strange that the airships only bombed the city at night by looking for light sources and never during the day when the pilots could see everything, but I chalked that up to unmentioned anti-aircraft guns that could also shoot them down during the day.)
So yeah, if you get a thrill out of watching characters trying to figure out how a steampunk version of a lie detector works, this book’s right up your alley. Otherwise, it’s still a good detective story with some twists to the plot but might want to skim now and then.
June 26, 2012
The old adage goes never judge a book by its cover. To that I add the same goes for its blurb.
When I read the blurb for this I knew the potential for a good read existed with a steampunk backdrop and mechanical wardens and hey there's a war going on you know.
The author is a pretty good writer per se, but when it comes to telling the tale there's lots of room for improvement. First of all, if you are going to write about the police know how they act. If they stake out a house and see the suspect enter and then go in to arrest her, they do not all leave when they can't find her and know she's still in the building. If two officers are about to go into a hazardous situation they have backup. Now for the plot: the characters didn't have enough development, especially the antagonist. Nothing is revealed about the war beyond the fact there is one. The wardens don't do much beyond breaking down and not being able to fit down small alleys. And the plot moves like molasses at the north pole in January. During a cold spell.
I won't even get into the typographical and grammatical errors. Even if you are a real steampunk fiend you'll be disappointed.
When I read the blurb for this I knew the potential for a good read existed with a steampunk backdrop and mechanical wardens and hey there's a war going on you know.
The author is a pretty good writer per se, but when it comes to telling the tale there's lots of room for improvement. First of all, if you are going to write about the police know how they act. If they stake out a house and see the suspect enter and then go in to arrest her, they do not all leave when they can't find her and know she's still in the building. If two officers are about to go into a hazardous situation they have backup. Now for the plot: the characters didn't have enough development, especially the antagonist. Nothing is revealed about the war beyond the fact there is one. The wardens don't do much beyond breaking down and not being able to fit down small alleys. And the plot moves like molasses at the north pole in January. During a cold spell.
I won't even get into the typographical and grammatical errors. Even if you are a real steampunk fiend you'll be disappointed.
June 18, 2012
I think the author had an interesting idea, but it was very poorly executed. The story didn't move (it took me a month to finish the book - it never takes me that long!), there was no character growth, and suddenly I had reached the end of the book but nothing had happened. I couldn't pinpoint a geographic area for the story, there were so many references that are at completely opposite ends of everything; I think the author wanted that to be a cool feature, but it was disorienting. There were grammar and punctuation issues that were highly distracting; unnecessary repetition; too much telling and not enough showing. I wonder if an editor ever saw the manuscript before it was published; I really have my doubts. I bought this book cheap, and I still want my money back. And all the time I spent trying to get through it.
December 28, 2015
Very very good!
I have only just finished reading the "Mechanist" and will need to read it again a few times, before rating it higher. The world building in "The Mechanist" is first rate, the characters are well developed, believable, and likable. The violence is well timed and sufficiently varied to stay entertaining, while avoiding a puerile graphic morbidity. This is a foundational book that I would love to see become a series. The author leaves an opening for future exploration without a cliffhanger.
I could easily move this book up to a four star rating. It is memorable and has many of the features of a book that can stand the test of time. I will be following this author for many years to come.
I have only just finished reading the "Mechanist" and will need to read it again a few times, before rating it higher. The world building in "The Mechanist" is first rate, the characters are well developed, believable, and likable. The violence is well timed and sufficiently varied to stay entertaining, while avoiding a puerile graphic morbidity. This is a foundational book that I would love to see become a series. The author leaves an opening for future exploration without a cliffhanger.
I could easily move this book up to a four star rating. It is memorable and has many of the features of a book that can stand the test of time. I will be following this author for many years to come.
July 30, 2013
I tried my very hardest to like this book, but it was really taking a while to get through. I feel like this could have been a really great book. The synopsis sounded pretty good (I was excited that the setting is in a steampunk type world), but when you actually start reading The Mechanist, it comes across as a bit dull. Sadly, I don't think I will be finishing it. I am at 63% on my Kindle and am still pretty bored.
April 14, 2012
Very ambitios story. Setting is sorta post apocalyptic steam punk. Took me about 70 pages to embrace the characters and world. But the author is clearly gifted and passionate about his characters. A la hunger games the hero is an incredibly resident young woman - tho a few years older than Catniss and instead of archery has lock picking and overall mechanical wizardry as her weapons.
June 4, 2012
I found this book for free on amazon and figured I'd download it to my kindle because it would take up some time. I started it and didn't think I'd be into it, but then I hit about the 3rd chapter and loved it. I stayed up all night reading it! I normally don't like steam punk sort of scifi books, but this was great! I recommend this strongly to anyone reading this. Read this book.
November 8, 2012
I got this as a freebie. For the most part I enjoyed this book, but it was kinda slow sometimes and it had a lot of cussing including the f-bomb which I felt was unnecessary. There are storyline flaws but the main character was likeable and the solving a mystery part was interesting.
June 4, 2012
Steampunk, not my usual genre.
Very good held my interest right from the beginning.
Very good held my interest right from the beginning.
March 29, 2013
greatly enjoyed it but it left me wanting more. great world building and characters.
August 24, 2013
Quite liked it.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews