this book made me go through all seven stages of grief.
at first, the stupidity of its plot infuriated me. then, I became indifferent to the lack of logic behind its premise. but when I finally reached the point where I started to enjoy this funny little book with its story that could even be described as charming, the author's note stabbed me in the back (*I know, bad WW1 pun*)
First things first:
frederick Fredericks- or rather Fritz Durnesque- was a real man. In this book, he is the eloquent, charismatic, and sometimes sexualised potential secondary love interest of our protagonist, Fiona. while the real Fredericks did some really cool stuff in WW1, he later spied for the Nazis and supported them without question. tbf, as a Boer, he had reasons to hate the British, but to romanticise and sexualize a real person who later supported an inhuman ideology, whike fictionalizing quite a bit about his life just feels... morally wrong.
Would it have been so hard to write about a man inspired by Frederick's actions in WW1? that would have solved so many issues I had with this book.
Also, to go back to the beginning :
the premise is bonkers.
Fiona, who does not speak German or any other language spoken in Austria-Hungary, is sent into enemy territory in Vienna. oh, and the book doesn't get tired of reminding you that speaking English in public could get her executed any minute.
but what does she do? speak English with her spy partner Clifford everywhere. Clifford even refers to his title of Captain in the British army in front of Austrians multiple times and also speaks ill of Germany (in a pro British manner) on a crowded Viennese street. And the best part: They never face any consequences for it.
At this point I anticipated the plottwist to be that Fiona's boss was a German spy because no self-respecting British Officer could send these two buffoons on a mission into enemy territory (what I did like though was that Fiona is a low level spy, who never gets told... anything about the plan. having the protagonist be just a pawn in this war is refreshing)
Furthermore, the book can't decide whether it wants to be well researched or not.
Like, it gets the Sixtus affair and the international events mostly right (even if it does change the timeline a bit to make the book work), but then the book claims that emperor Franz Joseph was assassinated shortly after the Hofpavillon was built. surely, it meant Sisi's assassination?
then again, it was hard to determine whether "Frau Sacher" was supposed to be the real Anna Sacher or not because many aspects about her were fictionalized, while others were not (like her love for bulldogs, cigars, butcher origins and her importance in Viennese society. and yet, this rational businesswoman lets some impoverished mathematician (Mileva Maric, who did not even live in Vienna at this time (or ever at all), even though I can appreciate the way the book revealed what a douchebag Einstein was) stay in her noble hotel FOR FREE?
another thing I found quite weird: emperor Karl is always referred to as "Emperor Charles", while the German Kaiser is always referred to as... well, Kaiser Wilhelm, not emperor William.
I mean, it might have worked if she started referring to Karl as "Charles" after meeting him, befriending him (and that happens in the book) and seeing him as more than the enemy, showing her clear language bias and how propaganda has filled her with xenophobia?
especially since the book makes that point. it clearly sets Fiona up as a person influenced by anti-German and anti-Austrian propaganda (I think it does that quite well, especially when she later states that she could not even explain properly why and how the war started and that she notices that she herself is only repeating phrases. or when she realises both sides are using mustard gas)
yet, one line confuses me a little. regarding the bread situation in Austria specifically, Fiona states that: "If the bloody Germans had their way, eating bread would be a crime."
girl, the British sea blockade is one of the main reasons people in Germany and Austria-Hungary are starving to death. and she never gets confronted with that?
I think the hunger induced by the British would have been a wonderful way to challenge her pro-war worldview.
but we never even see the real effects of rations and starvation? like, there are off- hand comments, but Fiona is so wrapped up in privilege by her proximity to the royal family and the book never confronts her with the situation of your normal Austrian guy.
like, already in may of1916 food riots occurred in Vienna. the situation was worse than "Oh, we can't eat Sachertorte everyday and the dogs of that lady over there aren't that well fed"
but the biggest problem of all is... I really liked Fiona somehow. and Clifford. and fredericks. and archie. There were moments where I actually enjoyed myself. the book was even funny most of the time (even though often in unintended ways)
so yes, I don't regret buying the E-Book
also: Shout out that empress Zita (according to this book) just casually walks around in some fancy dress shops during a war. a few years after Franz F got assassinated. and while people loathe her for being a foreigner. while being a member of the strict Austrian court. yeah.