What do you think?
Rate this book
Mister Creecher
Billy is a street urchin, pickpocket and petty thief. Mister Creecher is a monstrous giant of a man who terrifies all he meets. Their relationship begins as pure convenience. But a bond swiftly develops between these two misfits as their bloody journey takes them ever northwards on the trail of their target ...Victor Frankenstein. Friendship, trust and betrayal combine to form a dangerous liaison in this moving and frightening new book from Chris Priestley.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
27 people are currently reading
1092 people want to read
About the author
Chris Priestley
58 books397 followersHis father was in the army and so he moved around a lot as a child and lived in Wales. He was an avid reader of American comics as a child, and when he was eight or nine, and living in Gibraltar, he won a prize in a newspaper story-writing competition. He decided then “that my ambition was to write and illustrate my own book”.
He spent his teens in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, before moving to Manchester, London and then Norfolk. He now lives in Cambridge with his wife and son where he writes, draws, paints, dreams and doodles (not necessarily in that order). Chris worked as an illustrator and cartoonist for twenty years, working mainly for magazines & newspapers (these include The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist and the Wall Street Journal) before becoming a writer. He currently has a weekly strip cartoon called 'Payne's Grey' in the New Statesman.
Chris has been a published author since 2000. He has written several books for children & young-adults, both fiction and non-fiction, and
has been nominated for many awards including the Edgar Awards, the UKLA Children's Book Award and the Carnegie Medal. In recent years he has predominantly been writing horror.
Ever since he was a teenager Chris has loved unsettling and creepy stories, with fond memories of buying comics like 'Strange Tales' and 'House of Mystery', watching classic BBC TV adaptations of M R James ghost stories every Christmas and reading assorted weirdness by everyone from Edgar Allen Poe to Ray Bradbury. He hopes Uncle Montague's Tales of Terror will haunt his readers in the way those writers have haunted him.
He spent his teens in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, before moving to Manchester, London and then Norfolk. He now lives in Cambridge with his wife and son where he writes, draws, paints, dreams and doodles (not necessarily in that order). Chris worked as an illustrator and cartoonist for twenty years, working mainly for magazines & newspapers (these include The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist and the Wall Street Journal) before becoming a writer. He currently has a weekly strip cartoon called 'Payne's Grey' in the New Statesman.
Chris has been a published author since 2000. He has written several books for children & young-adults, both fiction and non-fiction, and
has been nominated for many awards including the Edgar Awards, the UKLA Children's Book Award and the Carnegie Medal. In recent years he has predominantly been writing horror.
Ever since he was a teenager Chris has loved unsettling and creepy stories, with fond memories of buying comics like 'Strange Tales' and 'House of Mystery', watching classic BBC TV adaptations of M R James ghost stories every Christmas and reading assorted weirdness by everyone from Edgar Allen Poe to Ray Bradbury. He hopes Uncle Montague's Tales of Terror will haunt his readers in the way those writers have haunted him.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
February 23, 2012
So…
On the back of this book a lovely reviewer from The Times has stated that this book is a “Beautifully written gothic metafiction.”
I, silly little reader, didn’t realise actually how meta this book would be. But I’m getting too far ahead of myself, I’ll talk about the end later.
Let’s start at the beginning seeing as I’ve heard it’s a very good place to start.
The beginning of this book was ok. Mr Priestley did a great job of setting the scene; murky,Victorian Regency London (Mr Priestley kindly got in touch about this error, thank you! Apologies for my horrible history skillz!). I, for one, don’t think there is a better setting in any book. I just love it.
The writing was a little grating, however.
The weather was “as cold as a hangman’s heart”. The frost formed “like a white mould”. Billy, the main character, felt like “One big scar”. Nefarious men slinked into the shadows “like lizards into a crack in a wall.”
o.O
But once I got into the story, I was able to ignore those little niggles. It’s obvious that Mr Priestley knows what he’s doing with a horror story. The setting was grim, the characters were dastardly and the baddies were truly baddies. Also, Mr Priestley isn’t afraid of writing the bloody and gutty bits of the story. Which I loved. If you’re going to write a horror story, you can’t be squeamish.
I really enjoyed the middle part of the story too. It seemed that Priestley really got into his stride at this point. The interactions between the characters, particularly between Billy and Mister Creecher, were incredibly well-thought out and the conversations seemed realistic. Or, at least, they seemed like the kind of things of 8ft monster and a weedy London scally-wag would talk about. I’ll admit I’ve not really thought about it that much.
And the ending.
*sigh*
Wow.
It was... um.
Wow.
And this is where I go back to my metafiction comment.
My first reaction was: Whaaaaaaaat?
Followed quickly by laughter.
I’m all for twists, in fact, I love twists. I love when everything you think is right turns out to be wrong and you can imagine the author sat on a red velvet chair in a dusty castle turret, laughing like a pantomime villain* at all the silly readers who thought they were so clever.
Within reason.
I would happily eat my reviewer’s bonnet if anyone who read this book can honestly say they guessed that ending.
But I’m not saying anything else because, if you ever read this book (you should- you might like it more than I did!), I would love to see your reaction at it.
Maybe it’s just me being incredibly dense and not seeing the signs and clues, but I was a flabbergasted.
Kudos to Mr Priestley for having the guts to write it but I’m just not sure.
Also, while I’m grumbling, I feel a bit let down by the ending. No questions were really answered and there were so many things, important things, that I wanted to be resolved. I’m not saying that everything in a book should be resolved but…. At least a few things should be.
I honestly thought there was going to be more chapters but when I turned the page it was full of author’s notes (which are actually really interesting, by the by.)
I wonder if there will be a sequel?
Um… oh wait, there is a sequel.
And you may have heard of it.
*cough*
*laughs maniacally*
All in all, this book wasn't for me. But, seeing as it’s obvious from this book alone that Mr Priestley can definitely write his way out of a horror paper bag (and, probably one of those Bag for Life bags), I will definitely be reading more of his books. I’ve had The Dead Of Winter lurking on my Kindle for a while now and I can’t wait to read it.
*This may or may not be how Mr Priestley writes his books. I kind of hope so, though.
I received a copy of this book from Bloomsbury. Thank you!
On the back of this book a lovely reviewer from The Times has stated that this book is a “Beautifully written gothic metafiction.”
I, silly little reader, didn’t realise actually how meta this book would be. But I’m getting too far ahead of myself, I’ll talk about the end later.
Let’s start at the beginning seeing as I’ve heard it’s a very good place to start.
The beginning of this book was ok. Mr Priestley did a great job of setting the scene; murky,
The writing was a little grating, however.
The weather was “as cold as a hangman’s heart”. The frost formed “like a white mould”. Billy, the main character, felt like “One big scar”. Nefarious men slinked into the shadows “like lizards into a crack in a wall.”
o.O
But once I got into the story, I was able to ignore those little niggles. It’s obvious that Mr Priestley knows what he’s doing with a horror story. The setting was grim, the characters were dastardly and the baddies were truly baddies. Also, Mr Priestley isn’t afraid of writing the bloody and gutty bits of the story. Which I loved. If you’re going to write a horror story, you can’t be squeamish.
I really enjoyed the middle part of the story too. It seemed that Priestley really got into his stride at this point. The interactions between the characters, particularly between Billy and Mister Creecher, were incredibly well-thought out and the conversations seemed realistic. Or, at least, they seemed like the kind of things of 8ft monster and a weedy London scally-wag would talk about. I’ll admit I’ve not really thought about it that much.
And the ending.
*sigh*
Wow.
It was... um.
Wow.
And this is where I go back to my metafiction comment.
My first reaction was: Whaaaaaaaat?
Followed quickly by laughter.
I’m all for twists, in fact, I love twists. I love when everything you think is right turns out to be wrong and you can imagine the author sat on a red velvet chair in a dusty castle turret, laughing like a pantomime villain* at all the silly readers who thought they were so clever.
Within reason.
I would happily eat my reviewer’s bonnet if anyone who read this book can honestly say they guessed that ending.
But I’m not saying anything else because, if you ever read this book (you should- you might like it more than I did!), I would love to see your reaction at it.
Maybe it’s just me being incredibly dense and not seeing the signs and clues, but I was a flabbergasted.
Kudos to Mr Priestley for having the guts to write it but I’m just not sure.
Also, while I’m grumbling, I feel a bit let down by the ending. No questions were really answered and there were so many things, important things, that I wanted to be resolved. I’m not saying that everything in a book should be resolved but…. At least a few things should be.
I honestly thought there was going to be more chapters but when I turned the page it was full of author’s notes (which are actually really interesting, by the by.)
I wonder if there will be a sequel?
Um… oh wait, there is a sequel.
And you may have heard of it.
*cough*
*laughs maniacally*
All in all, this book wasn't for me. But, seeing as it’s obvious from this book alone that Mr Priestley can definitely write his way out of a horror paper bag (and, probably one of those Bag for Life bags), I will definitely be reading more of his books. I’ve had The Dead Of Winter lurking on my Kindle for a while now and I can’t wait to read it.
*This may or may not be how Mr Priestley writes his books. I kind of hope so, though.
I received a copy of this book from Bloomsbury. Thank you!
August 29, 2012
I stumbled across Chris Priestleys books a while ago and have been fascinated with them ever since. He blends accessible and fast paced stories with the essence of the classic gothic terror and suspense story. And as such this story is no different to his earlier books however its style is totally new. This book is one continuous story as it follows the travels of Billy and mister Creecher and their relationship to each other. The book is a fascinating tale of what they experience and see and how they both grow to the characters you eventually recognise and know. Its an interesting read not only for the story but how so familiar characters are woven together to create something totally new and different.
October 29, 2012
Mister Creecher is being pitched as a gateway drug to the classics—and it should be pitched as such.* Familiarity with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist deepens the impression of awe with what Priestley is doing here in Mister Creecher. He creates more than a mash-up of Dickens and Shelley, but an intersection; less a reinvention or re-imagination but acts more of an imaginer alongside these two great literary texts. He fills in some blanks in the creation of his own monster story.
Mister Creecher would have been a failure, however precious the attempt if not for Priestley’s caliber of writing. He is not new to the horror genre. He has had readers peeing their pants from horror and delight for a while now. He can keep up with Shelley and Dickens. I had only read his short stories with the heavy thread that he employs in his Tales of Terror series so I was curious how he did in sustaining character and atmosphere at length. He is painfully consistent, by the way.
Billy is a bit of a — difficult one. And while charming in the way rebellious boys on the streets can be in literature, nobility does not come easy, if at all; which we are unused to in our young people stories today. The bond that develops between Mister Creecher and Billy is hard-won even though their mutual need is fairly evident from the beginning. And note that absence of the word friendship in the publisher’s synopsis. Friendship is an uneasy word, and the search for an easier word to describe the two’s relationship is part of what makes the book so marvelous.
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein there are spans of time where the creature is away, having run off and then waiting, waiting for the doctor to construct a bride so he won’t be alone. What was going on with the created while Shelley contemplated the creator? Priestley wonders, too, and so he writes. We spy on Frankenstein (with Henry Clerval) as he travels because Mister Creecher has made arrangements with Billy to watch and follow the doctor and his companion as they tour London and beyond, moving northward toward a final confrontation between–?–. Priestley minds the intersections and holds fast to his characterization of Frankenstein’s monster. Those familiar with Frankenstein know the inevitable and Priestley uses this to enhance that forboding, that sweet anticipation of collision. And for those unfamiliar with where Frankenstein’s dilemma culminates, the dilemma Billy gnaws on for the sake of the reader (and his own characterization)? They are hardly short-changed as Priestley manages horror of diverse types and multiple levels. There is also the part where the two’s company is ever being tested, moving toward a culminating decision that you can bet holds some heartbreak and some horrifying revelations (and results).
I believe this book is recommended 12 & up and that makes sense as Billy age 11/12 and streetwise to the world wonders about anatomy and sexuality and procreation, though hardly gratuitously (e.g. “He had no navel,” 298); the older audience will get how the wonderings play thematically/philosophically. Priestley also includes things Frankenstein thinks about, transporting its observations into Mister Creecher’s own, like Billy noting how Mister Creecher looked like he might have been made beautiful before animation took hold of his features.
Mister Creecher is a lovely lovely character whom Priestley does not rob of some pretty terrible aspects. But any compassion gifted adds to the reader’s torment, and Billy’s, and this works to illustrate the struggles Mister Creecher wrestles with, as well as its reference materials. Yet for all the references that add weight and texture, this really is Priestley’s creation and Mister Creecher sees it through to its own ends. Ends that should have reader’s looking for other endings—and other beginnings.
A benefit of even a passing familiarity with Oliver Twist is the dread it brings, that dawning horror as clues begin to shed subtlety nearing the end of the book. Confirmation is the cold bit of ice to the spine and that churn in the stomach you’d hoped to avoid. Then you realize that you’ve been mourning the boy Billy was throughout the book and not in these final pages alone. Those unfamiliar are in for an unsuspected horror as they crack the pages of Dickens’ classic, not that Priestley doesn’t offer a blood-soaked taste of him first.
There is a complexity to that which horrifies us and I like Priestley’s implementation and exploration of it. I like the focus on companionship and the relationships that shape us. I like how he could make me feel sad, and hopeful though I am a bit pissed he couldn’t change some endings there… Priestley does creepy really well, which involves knowing just when to relent and allow a peek of sunshine which serve a breather even if only to cast the deeper shadows to come. His pacing pulls the reader in deeper even as one really should look away. Christ Priestley in Mister Creecher creates dread and dreadful anticipation that is so very very beautiful.
—–
*I adore the inclusion of the character, Bradbury whose stage name in the carnival of freaks is “The Illustrated Man.” It is a gorgeous use of Ray Bradbury’s story, too (p268)—very haunting actually (279). There are many references in keeping with the novel’s themes and its historical period with meetings of actual historical persons (to include Mr. and Mrs. Shelley packing for their move to Italy; a Mr. [Pen] Browning (the son of famous Browning parents (?), etc), also reading works available at the time, like Jane Austen novels and poems by Keats and Coleridge, as well as paintings/artists of that inclination.
of note: the author offers a note about Shelley and Dickens. It would be great for an accompanying glossary of reference, a bibliography. Must see if there is one.
L (omphaloskepsis)
http://contemplatrix.wordpress.com/20...
Mister Creecher would have been a failure, however precious the attempt if not for Priestley’s caliber of writing. He is not new to the horror genre. He has had readers peeing their pants from horror and delight for a while now. He can keep up with Shelley and Dickens. I had only read his short stories with the heavy thread that he employs in his Tales of Terror series so I was curious how he did in sustaining character and atmosphere at length. He is painfully consistent, by the way.
Billy is a bit of a — difficult one. And while charming in the way rebellious boys on the streets can be in literature, nobility does not come easy, if at all; which we are unused to in our young people stories today. The bond that develops between Mister Creecher and Billy is hard-won even though their mutual need is fairly evident from the beginning. And note that absence of the word friendship in the publisher’s synopsis. Friendship is an uneasy word, and the search for an easier word to describe the two’s relationship is part of what makes the book so marvelous.
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein there are spans of time where the creature is away, having run off and then waiting, waiting for the doctor to construct a bride so he won’t be alone. What was going on with the created while Shelley contemplated the creator? Priestley wonders, too, and so he writes. We spy on Frankenstein (with Henry Clerval) as he travels because Mister Creecher has made arrangements with Billy to watch and follow the doctor and his companion as they tour London and beyond, moving northward toward a final confrontation between–?–. Priestley minds the intersections and holds fast to his characterization of Frankenstein’s monster. Those familiar with Frankenstein know the inevitable and Priestley uses this to enhance that forboding, that sweet anticipation of collision. And for those unfamiliar with where Frankenstein’s dilemma culminates, the dilemma Billy gnaws on for the sake of the reader (and his own characterization)? They are hardly short-changed as Priestley manages horror of diverse types and multiple levels. There is also the part where the two’s company is ever being tested, moving toward a culminating decision that you can bet holds some heartbreak and some horrifying revelations (and results).
I believe this book is recommended 12 & up and that makes sense as Billy age 11/12 and streetwise to the world wonders about anatomy and sexuality and procreation, though hardly gratuitously (e.g. “He had no navel,” 298); the older audience will get how the wonderings play thematically/philosophically. Priestley also includes things Frankenstein thinks about, transporting its observations into Mister Creecher’s own, like Billy noting how Mister Creecher looked like he might have been made beautiful before animation took hold of his features.
Mister Creecher is a lovely lovely character whom Priestley does not rob of some pretty terrible aspects. But any compassion gifted adds to the reader’s torment, and Billy’s, and this works to illustrate the struggles Mister Creecher wrestles with, as well as its reference materials. Yet for all the references that add weight and texture, this really is Priestley’s creation and Mister Creecher sees it through to its own ends. Ends that should have reader’s looking for other endings—and other beginnings.
A benefit of even a passing familiarity with Oliver Twist is the dread it brings, that dawning horror as clues begin to shed subtlety nearing the end of the book. Confirmation is the cold bit of ice to the spine and that churn in the stomach you’d hoped to avoid. Then you realize that you’ve been mourning the boy Billy was throughout the book and not in these final pages alone. Those unfamiliar are in for an unsuspected horror as they crack the pages of Dickens’ classic, not that Priestley doesn’t offer a blood-soaked taste of him first.
There is a complexity to that which horrifies us and I like Priestley’s implementation and exploration of it. I like the focus on companionship and the relationships that shape us. I like how he could make me feel sad, and hopeful though I am a bit pissed he couldn’t change some endings there… Priestley does creepy really well, which involves knowing just when to relent and allow a peek of sunshine which serve a breather even if only to cast the deeper shadows to come. His pacing pulls the reader in deeper even as one really should look away. Christ Priestley in Mister Creecher creates dread and dreadful anticipation that is so very very beautiful.
—–
*I adore the inclusion of the character, Bradbury whose stage name in the carnival of freaks is “The Illustrated Man.” It is a gorgeous use of Ray Bradbury’s story, too (p268)—very haunting actually (279). There are many references in keeping with the novel’s themes and its historical period with meetings of actual historical persons (to include Mr. and Mrs. Shelley packing for their move to Italy; a Mr. [Pen] Browning (the son of famous Browning parents (?), etc), also reading works available at the time, like Jane Austen novels and poems by Keats and Coleridge, as well as paintings/artists of that inclination.
of note: the author offers a note about Shelley and Dickens. It would be great for an accompanying glossary of reference, a bibliography. Must see if there is one.
L (omphaloskepsis)
http://contemplatrix.wordpress.com/20...
April 11, 2013
Billy schlägt sich als Taschendieb durch. Die nebeligen Straßen des Londons von 1818 sind sein Zuhause. Bei einem seiner nächtlichen Beutezügen entdeckt er eine leblose Gestalt. Die vermeintliche Leiche stellt sich als furchteinflößendes Monster heraus, dass Billy aus einer bedrohlichen Situation hilft, ab diesem Moment gehen der kleine Dieb und Mister Creecher eine ungewöhnliche Partnerschaft ein.
Wer kennt die Geschichte von Frankenstein und seinem Monster nicht? Dieser Stoff hat die Fantasie unzähliger Menschen angeregt. In diesem Buch treffen ein junger Taschendieb und Frankensteins Monster, genannt Mister Creecher, zusammen. Sie rauben gemeinsam Leute aus und heften sich an die Fersen von Frankenstein und seinem Begleiter Henry Clerval. Billy ist durch das harte Leben als Dieb ziemlich abgebrüht, aber die Geschichte von Mister Creecher und die grausigen Entdeckungen, die er im Verlauf der Geschichte macht, erschüttern ihn zutiefst. Mister Creecher sieht aus wie das typische Monster – Ein Oger, der nicht zögert zu töten, wenn er es für richtig hält oder wenn ihn die Wut packt. Auf der anderen Seite ist dieses Gruselgeschöpf ein belesenes Wesen, dass eine Vorliebe für Gedichte hat, kein Fleisch verzehrt und eine tiefe Sehnsucht nach Liebe in sich spürt.
Mister Creecher wirft Fragen auf, die gerade heute im Zeitalter von Clonen und immer fantastischeren Möglichkeiten der Medizin, sehr aktuell ist. Der Autor hat grausige, schöne und auch sehr einfühlsame Momente eingefangen. Besonders gut gefallen hat mir auch das Nachwort von Chris Priestley, der verrät, wie er zu dieser Geschichte inspiriert wurde, Hintergrundinfos gibt und weiterführende Bücher empfiehlt.
Dieses Jugendbuch richtet sich an Leser, die sich für Monster interessieren und die Geschichte von Frankensteins Geschöpfs aus den Augen von Oliver Twist erleben möchten. Ein düsteres Lesevergnügen, dass den Leser durch die holprigen Straßen eines längst vergangenen Englands führt.
Wer kennt die Geschichte von Frankenstein und seinem Monster nicht? Dieser Stoff hat die Fantasie unzähliger Menschen angeregt. In diesem Buch treffen ein junger Taschendieb und Frankensteins Monster, genannt Mister Creecher, zusammen. Sie rauben gemeinsam Leute aus und heften sich an die Fersen von Frankenstein und seinem Begleiter Henry Clerval. Billy ist durch das harte Leben als Dieb ziemlich abgebrüht, aber die Geschichte von Mister Creecher und die grausigen Entdeckungen, die er im Verlauf der Geschichte macht, erschüttern ihn zutiefst. Mister Creecher sieht aus wie das typische Monster – Ein Oger, der nicht zögert zu töten, wenn er es für richtig hält oder wenn ihn die Wut packt. Auf der anderen Seite ist dieses Gruselgeschöpf ein belesenes Wesen, dass eine Vorliebe für Gedichte hat, kein Fleisch verzehrt und eine tiefe Sehnsucht nach Liebe in sich spürt.
Mister Creecher wirft Fragen auf, die gerade heute im Zeitalter von Clonen und immer fantastischeren Möglichkeiten der Medizin, sehr aktuell ist. Der Autor hat grausige, schöne und auch sehr einfühlsame Momente eingefangen. Besonders gut gefallen hat mir auch das Nachwort von Chris Priestley, der verrät, wie er zu dieser Geschichte inspiriert wurde, Hintergrundinfos gibt und weiterführende Bücher empfiehlt.
Dieses Jugendbuch richtet sich an Leser, die sich für Monster interessieren und die Geschichte von Frankensteins Geschöpfs aus den Augen von Oliver Twist erleben möchten. Ein düsteres Lesevergnügen, dass den Leser durch die holprigen Straßen eines längst vergangenen Englands führt.
April 8, 2015
I'm going to start out by saying there are S Because there are moments of good writing in this book. Unfortunately, they are only moments.
I found this one in the YA section, which was a mistake on the library's part. This is not a YA book, not because of the content, which is pretty standard, or because of the language, which is fairly YA. No, issue is the stuffing of literary and historical figures into its scenery, none of whom have a bearing on the plot except "oh, look, it's a literary figure!"
Now, this is not a bad thing if their presence has something to do with the plot. Unfortunately, it doesn't. And while the appearance of Mary Shelley in a book about Frankenstein and his monster is an amusing conceit, I had real difficulty with her husband being the one who sees the monster.
Also, the ending is a clever literary ploy, which I didn't feel was quite justified. Won't spoil it, but upon reading it I thought, "Oh. Cute." And that was it.
I found this one in the YA section, which was a mistake on the library's part. This is not a YA book, not because of the content, which is pretty standard, or because of the language, which is fairly YA. No, issue is the stuffing of literary and historical figures into its scenery, none of whom have a bearing on the plot except "oh, look, it's a literary figure!"
Now, this is not a bad thing if their presence has something to do with the plot. Unfortunately, it doesn't. And while the appearance of Mary Shelley in a book about Frankenstein and his monster is an amusing conceit, I had real difficulty with her husband being the one who sees the monster.
Also, the ending is a clever literary ploy, which I didn't feel was quite justified. Won't spoil it, but upon reading it I thought, "Oh. Cute." And that was it.
September 27, 2012
I was completely prepared to give Mister Creecher a 4 but then the ending just didn't agree with me.
Mister Creecher is a retelling? of Frankenstein. Personally I don't really know much about Frankenstein apart from the obvious 'I-am-the-result-of-a-bunch-of-hacked-body-bits' and so I was really excited to dig into the story. As always Chris Priestley didn't disappoint and I was sucked into the writing. The plot was kind of simplistic and the end felt really uncompleted to me. It wasn't as scary as I was hoping it to be but I learnt some new things about Frankenstein - namely that the scientist, not the monster, was called Frankenstein. Beautiful writing, spooky cover and gritty characters. 3.5 stars.
Mister Creecher is a retelling? of Frankenstein. Personally I don't really know much about Frankenstein apart from the obvious 'I-am-the-result-of-a-bunch-of-hacked-body-bits' and so I was really excited to dig into the story. As always Chris Priestley didn't disappoint and I was sucked into the writing. The plot was kind of simplistic and the end felt really uncompleted to me. It wasn't as scary as I was hoping it to be but I learnt some new things about Frankenstein - namely that the scientist, not the monster, was called Frankenstein. Beautiful writing, spooky cover and gritty characters. 3.5 stars.
August 8, 2019
A really clever story that intertwines with the events of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Billy meets 'Mister Creecher', Frankenstein's creation, during the time that Victor and Clerval are in Britain. They strike up an unlikelya alliance as they follow Victor around the country. A great way to introduce younger readers to Frankenstein.
September 25, 2013
Another spin on the Frankenstein tale... Loved it.
December 28, 2014
*Worum geht's?*
London, 1818: Der Straßenjunge Billy kämpft ums nackte Überleben. Bloß durch Diebstähle schafft er es, sich über Wasser zu halten. Als die Lage brenzlig wird und Billys Leben auf dem Spiel steht, wird er unverhofft von einem Riesen gerettet. Billy ist der groteske Mann nicht geheuer, doch er steht eindeutig in seiner Schuld. Als Gegenleistung bittet das Ungetüm, das sich als Mister Creecher vorstellt, Billy darum, zwei Männer in London zu beschatten. Eigentlich will der Straßenjunge lieber verschwinden und nichts weiter mit Creecher zu tun haben, aber er weiß genau, dass er bei dem Riesen sicher ist. Mehr aus Angst um die eigene Sicherheit als aus Nächstenliebe geht Billy Creechers Bitte nach. Doch je länger die beiden miteinander zu tun haben, desto stärker entwickelt sich aus dem ursprünglichen Handel eine tiefe Freundschaft. Gemeinsam machen sie sich auf eine blutige Reise in Richtung Norden, wo Creecher endlich demjenigen zu begegnen hofft, der untrennbar mit ihm verbunden ist: Viktor Frankenstein. Denn der hat Mister Creecher vor langer Zeit ein wichtiges Versprechen gegeben; ein Versprechen, das um jeden Preis eingehalten werden muss...
*Kaufgrund:*
Auch "Mister Creecher" ist mir in der bloomoon-Verlagsvorschau aufgefallen. Ich bin ein großer Fan von Chris Priestley und seinen Schauergeschichten und konnte deshalb selbstverständlich nicht auf sein neues Buch verzichten!
*Meine Meinung:*
"Mister Creecher", das neue Buch des Gruselautors Chris Priestley, geht in eine ganz andere Richtung als seine berühmten Schauergeschichten. Dunkel und düster bleibt es, aber diese Geschichte ist keine Ansammlung von furchteinflößenden Gruselgeschichten, sondern eine sonderbare Erzählung über eine noch viel sonderbarere Freundschaft zwischen dem Straßenjungen Billy und dem riesigen Ungetüm Mister Creecher. Es ist eine zusammenhängende Geschichte, die einen ab der ersten Seite fesselt und nicht mehr loslässt. Obwohl das Cover eher an ein Kinder- als an ein Jugendbuch erinnert, kann ich jungen Lesern nur dringend davon abraten. Es gibt einige grausame Szenen, es wird sehr schaurig und außerdem bietet Chris Priestley tiefe Einblicke in die menschliche Psyche, die für Kinder noch gar nicht greifbar sind. "Mister Creecher" ist eine bezaubernde und zugleich melancholische Geschichte, die ihren Lesern zwar versucht, Moralvorstellungen zu übermitteln, aber gleichzeitig zeigt sie auch, wie ignorant, egoistisch und intolerant Menschen sein können. Der Roman hat humorvolle und witzige, berührende und emotionale Seiten, ist zugleich aber auch dunkel und düster, schrecklich und erschreckend.
Chris Priestley hat sich von verschiedenen Klassikern zu "Mister Creecher" inspirieren lassen. Sowohl Mary Shelleys "Frankenstein" als auch Charles Dickens "Oliver Twist" haben die Geschichte mitbestimmt, aber auch Robert Louis Stevensons "Dr. Jekyll und Mr. Hyde" und die Gedichte von John Keats spielen eine Rolle. Während sich Priestleys Geschichte mehr oder weniger genau an die Begebenheit aus Shelleys "Frankenstein" hält, gar komplett auf ihr basiert, und sogar einige Figuren aus Shelleys Feder übernommen wurden, hat sich Priestley aus "Oliver Twist" bloß ein paar Figuren geliehen.
Wie genau "Mister Creecher" und die Klassiker, die das Buch begründen, zusammenhängen und welche Absichten der Autor dabei hegte, erläutert Priestley in seinem ausführlichen Nachwort. Dabei geht er nicht nur auf die Handlungsstränge und Charaktere ein, die er übernommen hat, sondern auch auf die Hintergrundgeschichten der Autoren und ihrer Geschichten. Erst hier wird deutlich, wie viel Liebe zum Detail Chris Priestley in "Mister Creecher" beweist und welch großartige Recherchearbeit er geleistet hat. Wer "Frankenstein" und/oder "Oliver Twist" bereits selbst gelesen hat, wird in diesem Roman ob der Parallelen einige Male Schmunzeln müssen.
Der Abschluss der Geschichte entspricht in keinster Weise dem, was man im Verlauf der Geschichte erdacht haben könnte, und wird die Meinungen der Leser sicherlich spalten. Ich persönlich finde das offen gehaltene Ende toll und absolut passend für den gesamten Roman. Hier kommt wieder der Chris Priestley an die schreiberische Oberfläche, der mich bereits in seinen Kurzgeschichtensammlungen von sich überzeugen konnte. Obwohl ich zugeben muss, dass auch ich mir ein anderes Ende gewünscht hätte, konnten mich die letzten Seiten auf eine traurige Art und Weise begeistern. Trotz der vielen unbeantworteten Fragen ist eine Fortsetzung wohl ausgeschlossen, denn der Autor verweist in seinem Nachwort auf "Frankenstein" und "Oliver Twist", falls man auf der Suche nach Antworten ist.
Der fünfzehnjährige Billy ist der Protagonist der Geschichte. Er ist ein liebenswerter Junge, den man sofort ins Herz schließt, auch wenn er nicht unbedingt das Herz am rechten Fleck trägt. Er ist ein Waisenjunge, der sein Leben mehr schlecht als recht durch Taschendiebstähle finanziert, und hat trotz seines jungen Alters schon einiges mitmachen müssen. Kein Wunder also, dass er deshalb sehr vorsichtig ist und in erster Linie an sich selbst denkt. Denn Billy weiß genau: Wenn er nicht an sich denkt, dann tut es niemand. All das ändert sich jedoch, als er dem Riesen Mister Creecher begegnet. Was als Zweckbeziehung beginnt, entwickelt sich mehr und mehr zu einer tiefen Freundschaft, an der Billy wachsen kann.
Frankensteins Monster, genannt Mister Creecher, ist die zweite Hauptfigur der Geschichte und eine Person voller Gegensätze. Er ist riesig, furchteinflößend, stark und hässlich, doch in seinem Inneren ist er ein liebenswertes Geschöpf, das sich an der Literatur erfreut, das Leben schätzt und sich bloß nach Anerkennung und Liebe sehnt. Man kann gar nicht anders - man MUSS Mister Creecher mögen! Auch wenn man manchmal nicht ganz weiß, wie man ihn und seine Taten einschätzen soll. Creecher ist ein komplizierter Charakter mit vielen Facetten, den man nicht auf "Frankensteins Monster" reduzieren kann, den man kennenlernen und entdecken muss.
Die Nebencharaktere spielen in "Mister Creecher" kaum eine Rolle, trotzdem hat sich Chris Priestley viel Mühe mit ihnen gegeben. Obwohl sie recht oberflächlich bleiben, mochte ich sie gern. Sie fügen sich perfekt in das Geschehen ein und verleihen ihr den letzten Schliff, den die Geschichte gebraucht hat. Besonders toll fand ich, dass sich Priestley sehr genau an Shelleys Romanvorlage gehalten hat und genau die Figuren in "Mister Creecher" einfließen lässt, die es in "Frankenstein" tatsächlich gegeben hat. Aber auch Mary Shelley und ihr Mann hat der Autor einen Gastauftritt in seiner Neuerzählung geschenkt. Mit solchen Aufmerksamkeiten hat Priestley seine Nebencharaktere einzigartig gemacht, ohne ihnen sonderlich viel Beachtung zu schenken.
Chris Priestleys Schreibstil ist und bleibt ein Highlight, denn kaum ein Autor schafft es, mit so viel Witz und Charme zu schreiben und zugleich eine so düstere Atmosphäre mit seinen Worten zu erschaffen, dass man eine Gänsehaut bekommt. Sein Schreibstil ist flüssig und einfach und reißt einen in einen aufregenden Lesefluss, aus dem man sich nicht mehr befreien kann. Mich hat die Sprache absolut gepackt und deshalb habe ich "Mister Creecher" mit seinen 400 Seien in einem Rutsch durchgelesen. Es hat einfach zu viel Spaß gemacht, als dass ich das Buch hätte beiseite legen können. Was mir allerdings spürbar gefehlt hat, waren die beeindruckenden Illustrationen von David Roberts, der auch Priestleys Schauergeschichten begleitete. Seine Illustrationen hätten sicherlich auch gut in "Mister Creecher" gepasst; warum er diesmal jedoch nicht mitwirkte, ist mir nicht bekannt.
*Cover:*
Mister Creecher und Billy vor dem riesigen Mond - wenn das nicht klasse aussieht und Blicke auf sich zieht, was dann?! Ich bin ein riesiger Fan dieses Covers und kann mich gar nicht daran sattsehen! Was ich allerdings ein wenig schade finde, ist, dass die Silhouette von Mister Creecher dem Monster von Frankenstein ähnelt, was man aus den Filmen kennt. Denn das Film-Monster hat eigentlich nur wenig mit Shelleys Original zu tun, was auch in Priestleys Roman mitspielt.
*Fazit:*
"Mister Creecher" von Chris Priestley ist ein wundervoller Roman über eine sonderbare Freundschaft. Die Geschichte basiert sowohl auf Shelleys "Frankenstein" als auch auf Dickens "Oliver Twist" und vereint damit zwei Klassiker, die auf den ersten Blick nicht zu einander passen, aber eigentlich großartig harmonieren. In Priestleys Neuerzählung liegt der Fokus auf Mister Creecher, der so gar nichts mit dem Wesen gemein hat, das die Horrorverfilmungen immer wieder darstellen. Die Freundschaft zwischen dem Straßenjungen Billy und Frankensteins Monster ist dunkel und düster, begeistert aber auch mit viel Witz und Charme und einer großen Portion Melancholie. Ein wunderbarer Roman, der mich absolut begeistern konnte. Ich kann "Mister Creecher" allen Frankenstein-Fans nur dringend ans Herz legen und vergebe 4 Sterne.
London, 1818: Der Straßenjunge Billy kämpft ums nackte Überleben. Bloß durch Diebstähle schafft er es, sich über Wasser zu halten. Als die Lage brenzlig wird und Billys Leben auf dem Spiel steht, wird er unverhofft von einem Riesen gerettet. Billy ist der groteske Mann nicht geheuer, doch er steht eindeutig in seiner Schuld. Als Gegenleistung bittet das Ungetüm, das sich als Mister Creecher vorstellt, Billy darum, zwei Männer in London zu beschatten. Eigentlich will der Straßenjunge lieber verschwinden und nichts weiter mit Creecher zu tun haben, aber er weiß genau, dass er bei dem Riesen sicher ist. Mehr aus Angst um die eigene Sicherheit als aus Nächstenliebe geht Billy Creechers Bitte nach. Doch je länger die beiden miteinander zu tun haben, desto stärker entwickelt sich aus dem ursprünglichen Handel eine tiefe Freundschaft. Gemeinsam machen sie sich auf eine blutige Reise in Richtung Norden, wo Creecher endlich demjenigen zu begegnen hofft, der untrennbar mit ihm verbunden ist: Viktor Frankenstein. Denn der hat Mister Creecher vor langer Zeit ein wichtiges Versprechen gegeben; ein Versprechen, das um jeden Preis eingehalten werden muss...
*Kaufgrund:*
Auch "Mister Creecher" ist mir in der bloomoon-Verlagsvorschau aufgefallen. Ich bin ein großer Fan von Chris Priestley und seinen Schauergeschichten und konnte deshalb selbstverständlich nicht auf sein neues Buch verzichten!
*Meine Meinung:*
"Mister Creecher", das neue Buch des Gruselautors Chris Priestley, geht in eine ganz andere Richtung als seine berühmten Schauergeschichten. Dunkel und düster bleibt es, aber diese Geschichte ist keine Ansammlung von furchteinflößenden Gruselgeschichten, sondern eine sonderbare Erzählung über eine noch viel sonderbarere Freundschaft zwischen dem Straßenjungen Billy und dem riesigen Ungetüm Mister Creecher. Es ist eine zusammenhängende Geschichte, die einen ab der ersten Seite fesselt und nicht mehr loslässt. Obwohl das Cover eher an ein Kinder- als an ein Jugendbuch erinnert, kann ich jungen Lesern nur dringend davon abraten. Es gibt einige grausame Szenen, es wird sehr schaurig und außerdem bietet Chris Priestley tiefe Einblicke in die menschliche Psyche, die für Kinder noch gar nicht greifbar sind. "Mister Creecher" ist eine bezaubernde und zugleich melancholische Geschichte, die ihren Lesern zwar versucht, Moralvorstellungen zu übermitteln, aber gleichzeitig zeigt sie auch, wie ignorant, egoistisch und intolerant Menschen sein können. Der Roman hat humorvolle und witzige, berührende und emotionale Seiten, ist zugleich aber auch dunkel und düster, schrecklich und erschreckend.
Chris Priestley hat sich von verschiedenen Klassikern zu "Mister Creecher" inspirieren lassen. Sowohl Mary Shelleys "Frankenstein" als auch Charles Dickens "Oliver Twist" haben die Geschichte mitbestimmt, aber auch Robert Louis Stevensons "Dr. Jekyll und Mr. Hyde" und die Gedichte von John Keats spielen eine Rolle. Während sich Priestleys Geschichte mehr oder weniger genau an die Begebenheit aus Shelleys "Frankenstein" hält, gar komplett auf ihr basiert, und sogar einige Figuren aus Shelleys Feder übernommen wurden, hat sich Priestley aus "Oliver Twist" bloß ein paar Figuren geliehen.
Wie genau "Mister Creecher" und die Klassiker, die das Buch begründen, zusammenhängen und welche Absichten der Autor dabei hegte, erläutert Priestley in seinem ausführlichen Nachwort. Dabei geht er nicht nur auf die Handlungsstränge und Charaktere ein, die er übernommen hat, sondern auch auf die Hintergrundgeschichten der Autoren und ihrer Geschichten. Erst hier wird deutlich, wie viel Liebe zum Detail Chris Priestley in "Mister Creecher" beweist und welch großartige Recherchearbeit er geleistet hat. Wer "Frankenstein" und/oder "Oliver Twist" bereits selbst gelesen hat, wird in diesem Roman ob der Parallelen einige Male Schmunzeln müssen.
Der Abschluss der Geschichte entspricht in keinster Weise dem, was man im Verlauf der Geschichte erdacht haben könnte, und wird die Meinungen der Leser sicherlich spalten. Ich persönlich finde das offen gehaltene Ende toll und absolut passend für den gesamten Roman. Hier kommt wieder der Chris Priestley an die schreiberische Oberfläche, der mich bereits in seinen Kurzgeschichtensammlungen von sich überzeugen konnte. Obwohl ich zugeben muss, dass auch ich mir ein anderes Ende gewünscht hätte, konnten mich die letzten Seiten auf eine traurige Art und Weise begeistern. Trotz der vielen unbeantworteten Fragen ist eine Fortsetzung wohl ausgeschlossen, denn der Autor verweist in seinem Nachwort auf "Frankenstein" und "Oliver Twist", falls man auf der Suche nach Antworten ist.
Der fünfzehnjährige Billy ist der Protagonist der Geschichte. Er ist ein liebenswerter Junge, den man sofort ins Herz schließt, auch wenn er nicht unbedingt das Herz am rechten Fleck trägt. Er ist ein Waisenjunge, der sein Leben mehr schlecht als recht durch Taschendiebstähle finanziert, und hat trotz seines jungen Alters schon einiges mitmachen müssen. Kein Wunder also, dass er deshalb sehr vorsichtig ist und in erster Linie an sich selbst denkt. Denn Billy weiß genau: Wenn er nicht an sich denkt, dann tut es niemand. All das ändert sich jedoch, als er dem Riesen Mister Creecher begegnet. Was als Zweckbeziehung beginnt, entwickelt sich mehr und mehr zu einer tiefen Freundschaft, an der Billy wachsen kann.
Frankensteins Monster, genannt Mister Creecher, ist die zweite Hauptfigur der Geschichte und eine Person voller Gegensätze. Er ist riesig, furchteinflößend, stark und hässlich, doch in seinem Inneren ist er ein liebenswertes Geschöpf, das sich an der Literatur erfreut, das Leben schätzt und sich bloß nach Anerkennung und Liebe sehnt. Man kann gar nicht anders - man MUSS Mister Creecher mögen! Auch wenn man manchmal nicht ganz weiß, wie man ihn und seine Taten einschätzen soll. Creecher ist ein komplizierter Charakter mit vielen Facetten, den man nicht auf "Frankensteins Monster" reduzieren kann, den man kennenlernen und entdecken muss.
Die Nebencharaktere spielen in "Mister Creecher" kaum eine Rolle, trotzdem hat sich Chris Priestley viel Mühe mit ihnen gegeben. Obwohl sie recht oberflächlich bleiben, mochte ich sie gern. Sie fügen sich perfekt in das Geschehen ein und verleihen ihr den letzten Schliff, den die Geschichte gebraucht hat. Besonders toll fand ich, dass sich Priestley sehr genau an Shelleys Romanvorlage gehalten hat und genau die Figuren in "Mister Creecher" einfließen lässt, die es in "Frankenstein" tatsächlich gegeben hat. Aber auch Mary Shelley und ihr Mann hat der Autor einen Gastauftritt in seiner Neuerzählung geschenkt. Mit solchen Aufmerksamkeiten hat Priestley seine Nebencharaktere einzigartig gemacht, ohne ihnen sonderlich viel Beachtung zu schenken.
Chris Priestleys Schreibstil ist und bleibt ein Highlight, denn kaum ein Autor schafft es, mit so viel Witz und Charme zu schreiben und zugleich eine so düstere Atmosphäre mit seinen Worten zu erschaffen, dass man eine Gänsehaut bekommt. Sein Schreibstil ist flüssig und einfach und reißt einen in einen aufregenden Lesefluss, aus dem man sich nicht mehr befreien kann. Mich hat die Sprache absolut gepackt und deshalb habe ich "Mister Creecher" mit seinen 400 Seien in einem Rutsch durchgelesen. Es hat einfach zu viel Spaß gemacht, als dass ich das Buch hätte beiseite legen können. Was mir allerdings spürbar gefehlt hat, waren die beeindruckenden Illustrationen von David Roberts, der auch Priestleys Schauergeschichten begleitete. Seine Illustrationen hätten sicherlich auch gut in "Mister Creecher" gepasst; warum er diesmal jedoch nicht mitwirkte, ist mir nicht bekannt.
*Cover:*
Mister Creecher und Billy vor dem riesigen Mond - wenn das nicht klasse aussieht und Blicke auf sich zieht, was dann?! Ich bin ein riesiger Fan dieses Covers und kann mich gar nicht daran sattsehen! Was ich allerdings ein wenig schade finde, ist, dass die Silhouette von Mister Creecher dem Monster von Frankenstein ähnelt, was man aus den Filmen kennt. Denn das Film-Monster hat eigentlich nur wenig mit Shelleys Original zu tun, was auch in Priestleys Roman mitspielt.
*Fazit:*
"Mister Creecher" von Chris Priestley ist ein wundervoller Roman über eine sonderbare Freundschaft. Die Geschichte basiert sowohl auf Shelleys "Frankenstein" als auch auf Dickens "Oliver Twist" und vereint damit zwei Klassiker, die auf den ersten Blick nicht zu einander passen, aber eigentlich großartig harmonieren. In Priestleys Neuerzählung liegt der Fokus auf Mister Creecher, der so gar nichts mit dem Wesen gemein hat, das die Horrorverfilmungen immer wieder darstellen. Die Freundschaft zwischen dem Straßenjungen Billy und Frankensteins Monster ist dunkel und düster, begeistert aber auch mit viel Witz und Charme und einer großen Portion Melancholie. Ein wunderbarer Roman, der mich absolut begeistern konnte. Ich kann "Mister Creecher" allen Frankenstein-Fans nur dringend ans Herz legen und vergebe 4 Sterne.
January 25, 2018
This continuation of the story of Frankenstein is fun but silly. I didn't like it as much as Priestley's short stories, but it's an enjoyable read.
December 28, 2022
2.5 stars
The book was decent, at the beginning is actually had a very high hope for a wholesome story and friendship between Creature and Billy. But as soon as we got introduced to characters of Victor and Clerval, the story became a repeating formula that happened three-four more times with minor change of location and new characters until the… very sudden and anticlimactic ending.
As other reviews say, there’s a dash here and there of references to Victorian era classics, such as Dickens’ novels. What bugged me was very obvious inspiration and historical research mainly for late 19th century, instead of 1818, when this book is set in…
(also why was there Mary Wolfsonecraft and her husband Percy Shelley? did they add anything to the story other than shock value? maybe i misread something but i didn’t find the point…)
Is it a good book? If you’re like me and enjoy reading Frankenstein book adaptations, only to haunt my girlfriend and Frankenstein Discord server with how funny/horrible some of them are, then yes! i mist say i enjoyed it, and surprisingly, if we overlook some… elements (like Creature bathing with Billy in a river and… that chapter left me with weird aftertaste, to here’s that), it was truly one of the better adaptations i read (i see you both Dark Descent and Angelika Frankenstein)
however if you haven’t read Frankenstein nor are interested in reading cheesy B books, my answer is, unfortunately, no.
Rounding up my score to 3 stars, because it was easily one of better adaptations i’ve read (or maybe I’m getting desensitised by reading bad bad BAD books)
The book was decent, at the beginning is actually had a very high hope for a wholesome story and friendship between Creature and Billy. But as soon as we got introduced to characters of Victor and Clerval, the story became a repeating formula that happened three-four more times with minor change of location and new characters until the… very sudden and anticlimactic ending.
As other reviews say, there’s a dash here and there of references to Victorian era classics, such as Dickens’ novels. What bugged me was very obvious inspiration and historical research mainly for late 19th century, instead of 1818, when this book is set in…
(also why was there Mary Wolfsonecraft and her husband Percy Shelley? did they add anything to the story other than shock value? maybe i misread something but i didn’t find the point…)
Is it a good book? If you’re like me and enjoy reading Frankenstein book adaptations, only to haunt my girlfriend and Frankenstein Discord server with how funny/horrible some of them are, then yes! i mist say i enjoyed it, and surprisingly, if we overlook some… elements (like Creature bathing with Billy in a river and… that chapter left me with weird aftertaste, to here’s that), it was truly one of the better adaptations i read (i see you both Dark Descent and Angelika Frankenstein)
however if you haven’t read Frankenstein nor are interested in reading cheesy B books, my answer is, unfortunately, no.
Rounding up my score to 3 stars, because it was easily one of better adaptations i’ve read (or maybe I’m getting desensitised by reading bad bad BAD books)
July 9, 2012
CLASSICS CARNIVAL - REVIEW BY ANDY - THE PEWTER WOLF
In London 1818, Billy is many things. Street urchin, pick pocket, petty thief. So, when he is attacked by another, he is saved by a giant of a man who he names Mister Creecher. When Mister Creecher offers Billy a job, Billy takes it, purely as Mister Creecher promises to protect him. It was a deal of pure convenience. But the more time they spend together, they become friends as Billy follows Creecher’s target... one Victor Frankenstein.
Now, I have to admit something before I go on. First, I have never read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, so I can’t turn round and go “This happens alongside Frankenstein like a companion novel.”. It was after I read the book and reading the Book’s extras did I go “Oh, so you could read them side-by-side... Ok!”
My view on this book: I didn’t click with it. I just didn’t warm to this story, I’m afraid. I think it’s mainly because of the writing style for this book. It was trying so hard to fit the time period that it was jarring for me as a modern day reader to click with it.
Another problem I had was the characters. We were meant to be on Billy and Mister Creecher’s side, rooting for them to succeed. But I didn’t. I never had that connection to the characters that made me root for them. For me, this is a big thing. If I connect to a character – whether they be a hero of the story of the anti-hero – then I will be rooting for them or I would understand what has motivated them to do what they are doing.
However, with me going a bit negative on this book, I did like the subtle hints in this book. When Billy meet Mary Shelley and her husband, and then the twist in the final chapter that connects Frankenstein to another classic ... I like these tiny things.
But the story on the whole wasn’t my cup of tea. It was a struggle for me and when you threaten to stab it with a very sharp knife, that’s not a good sign... But because I found it a struggle doesn’t mean you will and I hope that, if this does interest you, you would read it and form your opinions on the book.
In London 1818, Billy is many things. Street urchin, pick pocket, petty thief. So, when he is attacked by another, he is saved by a giant of a man who he names Mister Creecher. When Mister Creecher offers Billy a job, Billy takes it, purely as Mister Creecher promises to protect him. It was a deal of pure convenience. But the more time they spend together, they become friends as Billy follows Creecher’s target... one Victor Frankenstein.
Now, I have to admit something before I go on. First, I have never read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, so I can’t turn round and go “This happens alongside Frankenstein like a companion novel.”. It was after I read the book and reading the Book’s extras did I go “Oh, so you could read them side-by-side... Ok!”
My view on this book: I didn’t click with it. I just didn’t warm to this story, I’m afraid. I think it’s mainly because of the writing style for this book. It was trying so hard to fit the time period that it was jarring for me as a modern day reader to click with it.
Another problem I had was the characters. We were meant to be on Billy and Mister Creecher’s side, rooting for them to succeed. But I didn’t. I never had that connection to the characters that made me root for them. For me, this is a big thing. If I connect to a character – whether they be a hero of the story of the anti-hero – then I will be rooting for them or I would understand what has motivated them to do what they are doing.
However, with me going a bit negative on this book, I did like the subtle hints in this book. When Billy meet Mary Shelley and her husband, and then the twist in the final chapter that connects Frankenstein to another classic ... I like these tiny things.
But the story on the whole wasn’t my cup of tea. It was a struggle for me and when you threaten to stab it with a very sharp knife, that’s not a good sign... But because I found it a struggle doesn’t mean you will and I hope that, if this does interest you, you would read it and form your opinions on the book.
July 22, 2017
2 stars
Billy meets Creecher, and they set off on an 'adventure', following Frankenstein, to get Creecher a mate. (Whether Billy wants to or not).
I have no idea what to really say about this book. The premise of which it was written on was fairly intriguing, but it only went downhill from there.
The whole story was not very griping. The pair ran around following this one guilt-ridden man, while fighting about theirrelationship/friendship.
Even the ending couldn't redeem the novel. If the author was going for a completely different ending, well that he did indeed, writing the most unsatisfying ending in history.
Personally, I think that the author could have given the plot and characters a more interesting turn. Clerval, despite seeming sort of intriguing has no whatsoever impact on the plot. .
Billy meets Creecher, and they set off on an 'adventure', following Frankenstein, to get Creecher a mate. (Whether Billy wants to or not).
I have no idea what to really say about this book. The premise of which it was written on was fairly intriguing, but it only went downhill from there.
The whole story was not very griping. The pair ran around following this one guilt-ridden man, while fighting about their
Even the ending couldn't redeem the novel. If the author was going for a completely different ending, well that he did indeed, writing the most unsatisfying ending in history.
Personally, I think that the author could have given the plot and characters a more interesting turn. Clerval, despite seeming sort of intriguing has no whatsoever impact on the plot. .
March 16, 2012
I really liked the premise behind this book (street urchin in Regency London meet's Frankenstein's monster). And the writing was fairly decent, though some of the passages were very YA in style.
The ending, however, left me very disappointed. I don't mind the surprise twist. What I do mind is the abrupt jolting conclusion, the lack of resolution, and the complete disregard for pacing. It feels like the author wasn't quite sure how to bring this one home and just stopped.
The ending, however, left me very disappointed. I don't mind the surprise twist. What I do mind is the abrupt jolting conclusion, the lack of resolution, and the complete disregard for pacing. It feels like the author wasn't quite sure how to bring this one home and just stopped.
December 2, 2012
Brilliant ... loved it. A tale about friendship and belonging, this is a twist on the Frankenstein story with some wonderful characters. Evocatively set in both London and the wilds of the North, Chris Priestley manages to set the scene for both locations - from murky fog-filled alleyways to the windswept moors, taking in a Victorian Oxford on the way. But don't get me wrong, this isn't just about a journey; there are some scary moments, some funny moments and a very clever ending!
January 23, 2016
Čtení ubíhalo opravdu pomalu. Nejen, že se mi zdálo, že kniha žádný děj nemá (nebo jich má mnoho spletitých dohromady), ale navíc se zde opakovala spousta slov a vět, že se pomalu začalo zdát, že čtete jednu a tu samou pasáž stále dokola (což se opravdu nedělo, to vás ujišťuji).
Kniha se tak nějak dala tedy přečíst a dostala jsem se až na konec. Dávám dvě hvězdičky.
Kniha se tak nějak dala tedy přečíst a dostala jsem se až na konec. Dávám dvě hvězdičky.
October 17, 2019
CONTAINS SPOILERS
I just finished reading Mister Creecher by Chris Priestley and I'm so satisfied because I realised the protagonist isn't just Billy. Turns out he's Bill Sikes on his way to meet Fagin. This is literally the story of how young thief Billy became the asshole he is in Oliver Twist.
Amazing.
I just finished reading Mister Creecher by Chris Priestley and I'm so satisfied because I realised the protagonist isn't just Billy. Turns out he's Bill Sikes on his way to meet Fagin. This is literally the story of how young thief Billy became the asshole he is in Oliver Twist.
Amazing.
August 22, 2011
http://librarianosnark.blogspot.com/2...
One thing I forget to mention: the only thing I could think of, by the cover and the description, was the old wrestler The Undertaker. That's apparently what Frankenstein's monster looks like to Chris Priestley.
One thing I forget to mention: the only thing I could think of, by the cover and the description, was the old wrestler The Undertaker. That's apparently what Frankenstein's monster looks like to Chris Priestley.
June 10, 2012
Really loved this alternative take on Frankenstein, thought it fitted really well with the Nick Dear / Danny Boyle version for the National Theatre. Thought the ending was brilliant, very unexpected and very pleasing.
January 23, 2013
It started out okay.
I didn't really like the rest of it. The two main characters sounded forced at times (especially the dialogue). Then I reached the end and the surprise twist flattened my impression of the book.
I didn't really like the rest of it. The two main characters sounded forced at times (especially the dialogue). Then I reached the end and the surprise twist flattened my impression of the book.
November 1, 2011
Hmmm. Characters that have absolutely no redeeming value. They started to round themselves out and become human, then sank back into misery. Some violence and swearing.
February 7, 2019
3.7 ~ Not really a 3 average, but also not so much a 4? So slightly above average, but not too much :)
The premise of Mister Creecher by Chris Priestly is about a young boy named Billy, who ends up in an unlikely bond with the titular character, "Mister Creecher". The setting of the book itself seems to be in 19th Century London (and then some other parts), which I found great as I still have fresh AC Syndicate images running through my mind. Besides that, the book sets itself as a sort of side story to Mary Shelley's famous Frankenstein, following Mister Creecher and Billy as they trace down Dr. Frankenstein.
The ending also serves to link yet another classic piece of literature, but that's for you to read and find out :)
All in all, having not read any of the two aforementioned books, I didn't really find the plot twist that surprising. Maybe I would have to read them to feel it, but it was just a "meh" to me.
Besides that, I found the overall book quite interesting. Chris Priestly's writing style definitely evokes one's imagination, and the book is very well written. However, I do find certain parts whereby things are not explained to it's fullest potential. And weirdly, most concerns Mister Creecher himself. There doesn't seem to be many descriptions of his emotions or actions, making certain parts of the story where Creecher does "things" seem bland and unnatural. Yet, maybe it is just a style of writing to show the character being apathetic or unemotional. Who knows?
Besides that, I really like the homage to the original monster, as most Frankenstein's monsters are usually portrayed in the image of Boris Karloff's classic on-screen character, large, mute and awfully brutish and clumsy. I liked that Creecher was intelligent, studious and nimble for his size. It makes the character seem much more dangerous and terrifying; suggesting that he can be kind, but at the same time willing to do things no ordinary people would do to get what he wants.
Billy as a character grew on me. I liked him more and more as I read through the book. That is to say: I couldn't really relate to any of Billy's frustrations or anger in the first few chapters as I didn't know any of his back stories, and neither did the book offer much about him. It is only through certain flashbacks can the reader relate to the boy's hopes and dreams and fears. I think that author is trying to write it in a way that serves the plot twist at the end, and a reader might better appreciate the book on a second read through (after having, of course, read the other two classic books). I may be wrong though but just a thought :)
Still, I really do not see the connection with Billy and the character he is supposed to turn into. The book shows that many things happened to Billy, and one traumatic event led him down the path into which he turns into "that" character, yet, the change seems so sudden that it feels like he's just turned into a different person. I found it quite unbelievable, and therefore I didn't really enjoy the ending.
Overall, I found the book premise and writing interesting. However, the story and scenes within the book failed to capture my attention for the most part. I found certain scenes well written and very interesting, but I felt that I could only read from chapter to chapter, without much enthusiasm for whatever happens next. The story also leaves much to the imagination, and ultimately, many questions went unanswered and many things left unsaid. I also didn't really feel like it was a horror book, but then again I am quite twisted inside so I'll leave it up to others to judge its genre.
The premise of Mister Creecher by Chris Priestly is about a young boy named Billy, who ends up in an unlikely bond with the titular character, "Mister Creecher". The setting of the book itself seems to be in 19th Century London (and then some other parts), which I found great as I still have fresh AC Syndicate images running through my mind. Besides that, the book sets itself as a sort of side story to Mary Shelley's famous Frankenstein, following Mister Creecher and Billy as they trace down Dr. Frankenstein.
The ending also serves to link yet another classic piece of literature, but that's for you to read and find out :)
All in all, having not read any of the two aforementioned books, I didn't really find the plot twist that surprising. Maybe I would have to read them to feel it, but it was just a "meh" to me.
Besides that, I found the overall book quite interesting. Chris Priestly's writing style definitely evokes one's imagination, and the book is very well written. However, I do find certain parts whereby things are not explained to it's fullest potential. And weirdly, most concerns Mister Creecher himself. There doesn't seem to be many descriptions of his emotions or actions, making certain parts of the story where Creecher does "things" seem bland and unnatural. Yet, maybe it is just a style of writing to show the character being apathetic or unemotional. Who knows?
Besides that, I really like the homage to the original monster, as most Frankenstein's monsters are usually portrayed in the image of Boris Karloff's classic on-screen character, large, mute and awfully brutish and clumsy. I liked that Creecher was intelligent, studious and nimble for his size. It makes the character seem much more dangerous and terrifying; suggesting that he can be kind, but at the same time willing to do things no ordinary people would do to get what he wants.
Billy as a character grew on me. I liked him more and more as I read through the book. That is to say: I couldn't really relate to any of Billy's frustrations or anger in the first few chapters as I didn't know any of his back stories, and neither did the book offer much about him. It is only through certain flashbacks can the reader relate to the boy's hopes and dreams and fears. I think that author is trying to write it in a way that serves the plot twist at the end, and a reader might better appreciate the book on a second read through (after having, of course, read the other two classic books). I may be wrong though but just a thought :)
Still, I really do not see the connection with Billy and the character he is supposed to turn into. The book shows that many things happened to Billy, and one traumatic event led him down the path into which he turns into "that" character, yet, the change seems so sudden that it feels like he's just turned into a different person. I found it quite unbelievable, and therefore I didn't really enjoy the ending.
Overall, I found the book premise and writing interesting. However, the story and scenes within the book failed to capture my attention for the most part. I found certain scenes well written and very interesting, but I felt that I could only read from chapter to chapter, without much enthusiasm for whatever happens next. The story also leaves much to the imagination, and ultimately, many questions went unanswered and many things left unsaid. I also didn't really feel like it was a horror book, but then again I am quite twisted inside so I'll leave it up to others to judge its genre.
August 19, 2020
I have to admit, I found this one by accident. I love Priestley's short stories so I had pretty high hopes for this one, especially considering my love of all things Frankenstein and his monster based.
The thing that got me about this book is that it wasn't badly written. It still had that easy going, almost lyrical flow that fans of Priestley love but for some reason, the novel just didn't work for me. Reviews called it 'meta' in its approach and to its credit, some of the scenes where it attempts this work really well. Other times, not so much. The ones that don't work end up taking you out of the story entirely and it's a struggle to get back in to it.
One of the things that annoyed me the most was the inclusion of real life historical figures. When done well, they can really add a whole new layer to the story. Here, they just seemed to be included for the shake of being able to say 'hey look, I have such and such a person in my story' and it creates a bit of a muddle towards the story itself.
Positives wise, I did like how the creature was written. He came across as very sympathetic in places without it being too over the top.
Not one I'm likely to read again to be honest.
The thing that got me about this book is that it wasn't badly written. It still had that easy going, almost lyrical flow that fans of Priestley love but for some reason, the novel just didn't work for me. Reviews called it 'meta' in its approach and to its credit, some of the scenes where it attempts this work really well. Other times, not so much. The ones that don't work end up taking you out of the story entirely and it's a struggle to get back in to it.
One of the things that annoyed me the most was the inclusion of real life historical figures. When done well, they can really add a whole new layer to the story. Here, they just seemed to be included for the shake of being able to say 'hey look, I have such and such a person in my story' and it creates a bit of a muddle towards the story itself.
Positives wise, I did like how the creature was written. He came across as very sympathetic in places without it being too over the top.
Not one I'm likely to read again to be honest.
April 4, 2023
This book is a tragedy-- as told by a juvenile.
Frankenstein-adjacent works are something of my specialty, and I was nearly as disappointed by this rambling patchwork of nearly-but-not clever references and descriptions as I was by the book Monster which featured lewd satanists and random vampires. (Don't ask.) True, it's written for teenagers, but so is This Dark Endeavor and This Monstrous Thing, two engaging and dark takes on Frankenstein that never compared a damp coat collar to a dead animal tongue (ugh) or used the word "cool" in the modern sense in a regency setting. It wrapped up too fast after struggling to keep my attention for a hundred pages and honestly did not need to end as badly as it did. I'll give it three stars for incorporating various classic literature references even I had to look up (I never read Oliver Twist, okay?) and an equally monstrous and sympathic Creature. But there's more of Cirque du Freak than Frankenstein about this mess-- and that is NOT a compliment.
Frankenstein-adjacent works are something of my specialty, and I was nearly as disappointed by this rambling patchwork of nearly-but-not clever references and descriptions as I was by the book Monster which featured lewd satanists and random vampires. (Don't ask.) True, it's written for teenagers, but so is This Dark Endeavor and This Monstrous Thing, two engaging and dark takes on Frankenstein that never compared a damp coat collar to a dead animal tongue (ugh) or used the word "cool" in the modern sense in a regency setting. It wrapped up too fast after struggling to keep my attention for a hundred pages and honestly did not need to end as badly as it did. I'll give it three stars for incorporating various classic literature references even I had to look up (I never read Oliver Twist, okay?) and an equally monstrous and sympathic Creature. But there's more of Cirque du Freak than Frankenstein about this mess-- and that is NOT a compliment.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 16, 2020
I'm setting this book aside without fully knowing how I feel about it.
I enjoyed it, very much so, but I also feel a little empty.
Maybe it's my dislike for Billy, even if I can sympathize with the complication of his situation. He started off okay and from there my feelings on him went up and down but rarely reached a level where I genuinely cared for him and his journey, I was more there for creature.
However, that could be my thing for stitchy-beings talking because I did like Creecher.
I don't know, all I know is that I enjoyed it enough to give it four stars and to recommend for a decent imagining (or 'companion') of Frankenstein.
Now, I feel kind of stupid because although I picked up on a minor hint in the end, I had to Google a specific part to understand it. Granted, it's a clever little hint towards another book, but overall the ending felt a little lackluster, though I can't say how I would have ended it myself.
Still a good book though.
I enjoyed it, very much so, but I also feel a little empty.
Maybe it's my dislike for Billy, even if I can sympathize with the complication of his situation. He started off okay and from there my feelings on him went up and down but rarely reached a level where I genuinely cared for him and his journey, I was more there for creature.
However, that could be my thing for stitchy-beings talking because I did like Creecher.
I don't know, all I know is that I enjoyed it enough to give it four stars and to recommend for a decent imagining (or 'companion') of Frankenstein.
Now, I feel kind of stupid because although I picked up on a minor hint in the end, I had to Google a specific part to understand it. Granted, it's a clever little hint towards another book, but overall the ending felt a little lackluster, though I can't say how I would have ended it myself.
Still a good book though.
December 17, 2025
I cannot say for sure how this will hit with a middle school audience unfamiliar with Frankenstein's novel story and the Dickens' knowledge that makes the ending so impactful. But as a long time Frankenstein devotee, I found this a macabre delight! Not knowing much of Dickens seems to be the lesser stumbling block, as we see Billy's self curdle and strive, trying to be more than a street urchin within the text itself. For him, this is an origin story as we see the vulnerability laid bare within one who must be cruel to survive and thrive.
This book is a character study above all else, so I would recommend it mainly to those who like me, always want more of the Creature! The plot is just a lot of "go here, watch this person and what they do," which i fine because it's in the thoughts, speech, and reactions of characters that this novel comes to life. It's a look at Creature, at Billy, at the great character of early 1800s London and to a lesser extent of Victor Frankenstein and numerous people that weave in and out of Billy's life.
This book is a character study above all else, so I would recommend it mainly to those who like me, always want more of the Creature! The plot is just a lot of "go here, watch this person and what they do," which i fine because it's in the thoughts, speech, and reactions of characters that this novel comes to life. It's a look at Creature, at Billy, at the great character of early 1800s London and to a lesser extent of Victor Frankenstein and numerous people that weave in and out of Billy's life.
August 16, 2022
I know this, and most of |Mr. Priestley's books are aimed at a YA audience, but it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of them. He is a very good writer - most people forget that back in the 1980s he was grouped together with all the other young luminaries of Britain as an author to watch. Although I am sure some might feel he hasn't lived up to that promise I would strongly disagree - not everyone can write Midnight's Children or The Remains of the Day but that doesn't mean you can't write good books. I think Mr. Priestley is an under appreciated master.
June 18, 2017
I was expecting this book to fill in the blanks of 'Frankenstein', which I think it did in a really imaginative and heart-rending way. I loved how towards the end we realised we were discovering the back stories of Fagin and Bill Sykes from Dickens' 'Oliver Twist'.
I would recommend this book to anyone who loved the original novels, but warn them not to take the plot too seriously (I.e. just ignore the bits that don't make sense in light of the origionals).
An interesting read ****
I would recommend this book to anyone who loved the original novels, but warn them not to take the plot too seriously (I.e. just ignore the bits that don't make sense in light of the origionals).
An interesting read ****
August 15, 2020
Comparing Mister Creecher to Priestley's earlier work, Dead of Winter, I have to say I'm mildly disappointed. I remember being ecstatic over Dead of Winter, it was a lovely Gothic, ghost story. Mr. Creecher had all the ingredients, but the ending seemed to me to be totally anticlimactic. The plot itself is quite good, but it just didn't come together right. The sprinkling of literary cameos was amusing at first, but the final reveal was a little confusing. Still, It's worth a read.
October 22, 2023
A bit slow in the beginning, and the ending was definitely not what I was expecting, but it turned out to be an amazing story. I walked away from this feeling a sense of closure at the end but also a sense of wonder and imagining what could have happened next. Truly a great piece of work for younger readers and introduces them to some Victorian classics in a way that would make them want to read more and hopefully do research into the literature of that time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews