A little disappointing

[C.]

Did anyone else find this book was less than expected?

I found the characters lacking in depth, the plot overly sensational and far too convoluted (lots of twists do not necessarily make for a good book), and overall just that little bit unsatisfying.

I'm curious to know if anyone else feels the same, and if so why, since most of the reviews I've seen have been overwhelmingly positive.

[Margaret]

I have had a hard time getting into this book. I'm only at the beginning. I think I may have to put it up for a while and try again later.

[[deleted user]]

Well, hello other goodreaders! I really have to stand up for Sarah Waters because I thought Fingersmith quite one of the best reads around. I suppose one would call her an 'old-fashioned' read - an intricate plot, evocative of another time, lush in detail but not slow or ponderous. A real solid, gutsy story. As a writer myself, I find her writing is just superb.

[Moon Rose (M.R.)]

Perhaps you're referring to the usual flaw of most crime/mystery/suspense novels, upon mounting on a huge undertaking of creating twists and turns in the plot, suddenly fall short in its lack of dramatic effect in the end, failing to surpass or even match its intense and gripping beginning, but for this novel, it's only a slight flaw and doesn't make it an utter failure, for Sara Waters definitely shows her masterful skill in storytelling[ and there's no doubt about that]. In my opinion, it's still worth the read especially for those who like to remain on the edge of their seats.

[Wendy]

I love this book. Even thinking about it gives me a shiver. I think of the other Sarah Waters books I have read this is the best by far. I spent a lot of time going over the story in my head to make sure I actually understood what and how everything had happened. I think it is an ingenious piece of writing that everybody should read.

[Sabrina]

Hello all! I really liked this book in a creepy sort of way. And like Wendy, I still get the shivers when I think about it.

My problem with Sarah Waters is the same problem I have with other writers. I fall in love with one of their books so I expect to fall in love with them all. I loved loved Tipping the Velvet. I even downloaded the movie from Netflix.

But I did not feel the same way about the Fingersmith. The characters were more likeable in Tipping the Velvet. And I don't even want to talk about Affinity. I dragged myself through that one.


Having said that,I still remain a fan of Ms. Waters and will await her next novel.

[Lizzie]

I loved this book. There were a lot of twists I agree with the above views, but on re-reading it I enjoyed even more as it was easier to understand. Also, for once, the TV version was very good and true to the original story!

[Farah]

I have to completely disagree with what Miranda says. Implying that the lesbian community will just take what they can get because they don't have much choice is just wrong. And it shows a lack of current knowledge about established lesbian authors. But apart from that, let's not forget the fact that Fingersmith got shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize (and should have won in my opinion). You might think that Sarah Waters is not a good writer, but you're one of the few people in the world who do. Finally, it's also wrong to think that Sarah Waters gets all the attention just because she writes lesbian characters. I loved her new book The Little Stranger and it didn't have a single lesbian character in it. Most of her novels may have lesbians in them, but they're not lesbian novels. There's a difference.


As for what Choupette says about the book being overly sensational. I think that was intentionally done because she was trying to evoke a sense of the sensational Victorian crime novels by Wilkie Collins and Dickens, where the bad guys get what they deserve and everything gets neatly resolved in the end. I'm getting all this from her interviews where she says that she wanted to take what had already been done in those novels and give it a sort of naughty (for want of a better word) twist. Make the characters do things that would've been improper and, um, scandalous in the Victorian era.

[Xdyj]

I agree with Moon that the "sensational and convoluted" plot might be kind of intentional as an imitation of old fashioned Gothic/crime fiction. And I think Ms. Waters did a wonderful job in this aspect.

[Lori]

I have to agree with Miranda and Choupette. Unfortunately in trying to capture the essence of a Victorian novel in the spirit of Dickens, Waters falls short. The number of plot twists seem simply to be there as they are expected to be in this type of novel. The only twist, the lesbian storyline, seems forced to make it "edgey". Having also tried Tipping the Velvet, I do not find Waters a writer of substance.

[Susan]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, it delivered everything I wanted. I enjoyed it much more than Tipping the Velvet, I felt that Fingersmith had much more substance. I really loved the way the story went and couldn't fault it.

[Sandra]

I too loved this book and it's down on my list as an all-time favourite. Yes, the plot was sensational and somewhat convoluted but that's why I liked it! The fact that it was so totally unpredictable makes it a winner for me.

[Nichola]

Miranda wrote: "I agree completely, and I've felt the same way about each of Waters' books. It seems quantity outweighs quality in her novels. "

I couldn't agree more. I thought I was missing something given how a lot of people seem to rave about Sarah Waters but I find her books to be quite dry and arduous to get through.

[Julian]

Sabrina wrote: "Hello all! I really liked this book in a creepy sort of way. And like Wendy, I still get the shivers when I think about it.

My problem with Sarah Waters is the same problem I have with other writ..."

I'm with you entirely. Tipping the Velvet was great. Affinity, ugh. But Fingersmith, while not up to Tipping the Velvet, wasn't half bad.

[Susan]

C. wrote: "Did anyone else find this book was less than expected?

I found the characters lacking in depth, the plot overly sensational and far too convoluted (lots of twists do not necessarily make for a goo..." I agree that the plot is so full of twists as to become pretty implausible by the end. In my own review, I gave it a 7.5 on the implausibility scale, with a good history textbook as a 1 and a Dan Brown thriller like "Angels and Demons" as a 10. But the plot is a vehicle (and a very Victorian contrivance) for showing us the conditions of life for women, in the slums, in the "Great Houses" of the country, in lunatic asylums, which were probably used more than once as convenient repositories for inconvenient but perfectly sane women, and so on. And it does a brilliant job of unmasking the rot under the genteel veneers of Victorian society, as well as the class injustices. Face it, a page-turning thriller plot keeps your interest a lot more effectively than a recitation of the horrors of life in the slums or the abuses that went on in "madhouses."

[E.E.]

Sabrina wrote: "Hello all! I really liked this book in a creepy sort of way. And like Wendy, I still get the shivers when I think about it.

My problem with Sarah Waters is the same problem I have with other writ..."

That's funny, I had the opposite experience: I read Fingersmith first, absolutely loved it and found Tipping the Velvet very disappointing compared to the first one. :-) I guess the problem is that the books are so different that if you expect the same as the first one you read you end up being disappointed.

[Susan]

Miranda wrote: "I'm going to have to back up Choupette once again. "on the edge of their seats" is really only the case with writers who write well (unless you mean "inching towards the bathroom out of boredom," w..."

Ahem. I am a straight reader who loves Waters's novels, this one in particular.

[E.E.]

Susan wrote: "Miranda wrote: "I'm going to have to back up Choupette once again. "on the edge of their seats" is really only the case with writers who write well (unless you mean "inching towards the bathroom ou..."

Me too. Actually, this was the first book by Waters that I read and I didn't expect any romance in it at all, which is why I found the relationship between the two main characters to be yet another really well done twist. I've read many books with "predictable" twists, but this one was NOT one of them. It kept surprising me till the end and I loved it.

[Jim]

For the people who loved this book, I've one question (and I don't mean it to sound rude). How many of you read mysteries regularly?

I mean no offence by that, but I felt the story was.... pretty obvious. When I tried to work out why, I wondered if it was because I've read a lot of mysteries, which resulted if the "story part" of the book feeling formulaic. If you read those books lesson, you might enjoy it more.

[Kallie]

I enjoyed Fingersmith immensely. I do not like mysteries, which I find too genre-confined with characters flattened to fit. I don't think of this as a 'mystery novel' (Why would I??? Waters is not a mystery writer. Why should she be? Mystery writers not own suspense and mystery.) For me, it was more an historical novel about women in a Dickensian world and time, and cleverly riffed on and made contemporary D's plot devices without resorting to anachronisms (which you can't say of many modern writers of historical fiction; ugh). I also don't expect writers to hit a home-run every time and if they don't become disappointed in them. So although I did not enjoy 'Nightwatch' as much as 'Fingersmith' I still liked it and will definitely read more Sarah Waters.

[Gale]

Sandra wrote: "I too loved this book and it's down on my list as an all-time favourite. Yes, the plot was sensational and somewhat convoluted but that's why I liked it! The fact that it was so totally unpredict..."
I LOVED this book. I didn't think of it as lesbian fiction--not in the least no more than any book written by a woman is women's fiction. Damn good book--period!

[Susan]

Kallie, I do agree that you can't judge this by the standards of a mystery novel. I do find Agatha Christie's books entertaining, in the same way that crossword puzzles are fun, but you don't read them for character or depth. Waters does sometimes telegraph her punches, but she must be doing it intentionally. There's a scene (SPOILER ALERT for you guys who haven't finished reading it yet) while Sue is at Briar when she looks at Maud and "Gentleman" and wonders who knew what at that stage of the game. Obviously Waters is telling us to watch out -- that Sue may be more of a pigeon than she thinks. And when Maud starts trading clothes with Sue I definitely began to smell an identity switch in the near future. Other clues, however, are a lot more subtle and you do have to go back and look for them. Waters does play fair, however, and she doesn't write for dumb people. I will confess to being totally blindsided by Maud's actual parentage, although I shouldn't have been. Waters created just enough confusing obfuscation for me to miss that, but she did provide details that I found on second reading -- like Mrs. Sucksby's (great name!) reaction when Maud first arrived with Gentleman at the house on Lant Street.

[Nrtashi]

Part 3-huge disappointment, but the rest of the book is great. And even the shortcomings of the last chapters are to some extent balanced by unique ending.

If anything, overall, the book vastly exceeded my expectations.

[Dianna]

Farah wrote: "I have to completely disagree with what Miranda says. Implying that the lesbian community will just take what they can get because they don't have much choice is just wrong. And it shows a lack of ..."

I agree Farah. Her books are for everyone, and she is easily the best writer of historical fiction in my opinion. She hits on all cylinders. Writing, characterization, storyline, deep immersion. Hannah Kent, a debut author wrote a good one too, Burial Rites. I can't wait to read her next.

[Caitlin]

Personally... I think Fingersmith is Waters' best novel... or at least my favorite thus far.

In regards to the question that was asked about how many of us who liked the novel read mysteries regularly: I have read a number of mystery novels and I didn't at all feel that this particular novel by Waters was obvious... and I'm usually the type of person who is able to have a mystery novel figured out pretty quickly.

In regards to the comment about lesbian readers simply reading and settling for whatever they can get their hands on. I think that's complete bull, no offense. I tend to be very critical of lesbian novels but I go into them fully expecting the same quality that I might find in a non lesbian novel and I won't just grab whatever I can find off the shelf simply because it's the only thing I can find with lesbian characters. I'm just as picky with lesbian novels as I am with non lesbian novels and I'm certain I'm not the only one.

For those who say that Sarah Waters is not a good writer: I'm not trying to be rude or offensive in asking... but I'm curious who you would consider a good writer?

[Angela]

I LOVED this novel. I think about the story line and/or characters quite often. That library... Fascinating.

[Kallie]

Angela wrote: "I LOVED this novel. I think about the story line and/or characters quite often. That library... Fascinating."

I loved it too and so did two friends I recommended it to; the kind of book they wanted to discuss and we would talk about . . . one was disappointed because her group found it too complicated and hard to follow and complained about that rather than talking about the book.

[Paul]

My review: Not everybody picked my pocket . . . but how can we have a story where nearly everyone is a schemer, a betrayer, avaricious and ruthless, and we still love the story? Well, Sarah Waters, you’ve got the answer for that. How can one as a young girl be a reader and writer of pornography and we find her in nearly pristine innocence? Oh, it's Maud. How can one be raised and trained by thieves and be clueless and loveable? Oh, I get it: Susan is the answer. I knew the plot was going to have twists, even saw the little hints about what those were, and somehow I was still surprised and pleased at how the twists spun the tale. This is one tale with a wealth of the sleight of hand you would expect with a title like that.

[Kallie]

Good observations from Paula and Mary. Thanks.