Fingersmith
Jun. 13th, 2004 02:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lathanyA belated book club review of Fingersmith by Sarah Waters. The Beef Wellington and fruit salad have been (rightly!) praised elsewhere, so I will be sticking to the book criticism.
Unlike Charing Cross Road, Fingersmith really is a novel structured as three acts with the narrative swapping from Sue to Maud and then back to Sue again. We generally agreed that this was a useful form to tell the story in question and to also give the viewpoints and thoughts of the two main characters.
Within that structure, we all had criticisms.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
frax disliked the plot exposition at the end of act two. We agreed that it was heavy-handed and held the bulk of the plot within a few short paragraphs. I found the duplication in Maud and Susan's narratives somewhat tedious. Whilst some of the story was interesting to re-read from the other viewpoint I felt this scale of re-telling was not necessary.
We talked about other ways in which the story would have been retold. Diary form was suggested although, ascuthbertcross pointed out, Sue's illiteracy would have been a big stumbling block. Particularly as it is a crucial part of the plot. We considered the various minor characters as narrators, but only Mrs Sucksby or Gentleman particularly qualify as possibilities and in both cases they know too much and would ruin the suspense.
In general the plot went down well, although all of us felt it moved too slowly. Whilst Sarah Waters is famous for her lesbian sex scenes (author of Tipping the Velvet) we agreed that anyone buying Fingersmith for that aspect would have been sadly disappointed! Those scenes are brief, comparatively discrete and probably would not have been commented upon (by us) had they been written by another author.
We also felt that this was very much a concept book. That the author had come up with the concept of the identity swap and hung the rest of the story around it. The concept itself is a good one, although rather too close to The Woman in White to be called original.
Characterisation was the area which drew the most criticism. None of the characters were considered likable.cuthbertcross defended them as being merely selfish, although I made a case for them bordering on evil - mostly based on their willingness (of pretty much all of them) to send a sane woman to the madhouse to seize her inheritance. When it came to nominating a character that we most empathised with, there was much silence!
In terms of the two major characters, I think Sue drew more sympathy in total (fromfrax and cuthbertcross) than Maud did (only from me); although there was not much between them. Additionally we noted that, across the course of the book, the two characters seemed to become more and more alike. Perhaps this was a deliberate policy on behalf of the author; but none of us were that sure!
In terms of the minor characters, Marianne Lilly, drew the most sympathy despite being entirely "off-stage". Dainty was regarded as more or less OK, she at least wondered whether the act of sending Maud to a madhouse might be "wicked". However Charles was eventually rejected from the list of possibly bearable people as being too selfish and too concerned with getting into Gentleman's good books.
One interesting point was that, despite being set in Victorian times when a wife was almost completely at the mercy of her husband (hence the madhouse plan), Fingersmith's men are all under the control of women. Usually it is Mrs Sucksby who is in command, but only Mr Lilly could be argued to be his own person (and his house really belongs to his niece).
Overall, we all found the book readable and moderately entertaining. However, I'm not sure that any of us would necessarily recommend it to others. I would personally suggest the Woman in White if someone wants a historical identity mystery.
At the end of the meeting we decided that this would be the last time we ran without everyone present. As there are only four of us, we really notice absences and consequently will reschedule the next time someone can not make it.
Unlike Charing Cross Road, Fingersmith really is a novel structured as three acts with the narrative swapping from Sue to Maud and then back to Sue again. We generally agreed that this was a useful form to tell the story in question and to also give the viewpoints and thoughts of the two main characters.
Within that structure, we all had criticisms.
frax disliked the plot exposition at the end of act two. We agreed that it was heavy-handed and held the bulk of the plot within a few short paragraphs. I found the duplication in Maud and Susan's narratives somewhat tedious. Whilst some of the story was interesting to re-read from the other viewpoint I felt this scale of re-telling was not necessary.We talked about other ways in which the story would have been retold. Diary form was suggested although, as
cuthbertcross pointed out, Sue's illiteracy would have been a big stumbling block. Particularly as it is a crucial part of the plot. We considered the various minor characters as narrators, but only Mrs Sucksby or Gentleman particularly qualify as possibilities and in both cases they know too much and would ruin the suspense.In general the plot went down well, although all of us felt it moved too slowly. Whilst Sarah Waters is famous for her lesbian sex scenes (author of Tipping the Velvet) we agreed that anyone buying Fingersmith for that aspect would have been sadly disappointed! Those scenes are brief, comparatively discrete and probably would not have been commented upon (by us) had they been written by another author.
We also felt that this was very much a concept book. That the author had come up with the concept of the identity swap and hung the rest of the story around it. The concept itself is a good one, although rather too close to The Woman in White to be called original.
Characterisation was the area which drew the most criticism. None of the characters were considered likable.
cuthbertcross defended them as being merely selfish, although I made a case for them bordering on evil - mostly based on their willingness (of pretty much all of them) to send a sane woman to the madhouse to seize her inheritance. When it came to nominating a character that we most empathised with, there was much silence!In terms of the two major characters, I think Sue drew more sympathy in total (from
frax and cuthbertcross) than Maud did (only from me); although there was not much between them. Additionally we noted that, across the course of the book, the two characters seemed to become more and more alike. Perhaps this was a deliberate policy on behalf of the author; but none of us were that sure! In terms of the minor characters, Marianne Lilly, drew the most sympathy despite being entirely "off-stage". Dainty was regarded as more or less OK, she at least wondered whether the act of sending Maud to a madhouse might be "wicked". However Charles was eventually rejected from the list of possibly bearable people as being too selfish and too concerned with getting into Gentleman's good books.
One interesting point was that, despite being set in Victorian times when a wife was almost completely at the mercy of her husband (hence the madhouse plan), Fingersmith's men are all under the control of women. Usually it is Mrs Sucksby who is in command, but only Mr Lilly could be argued to be his own person (and his house really belongs to his niece).
Overall, we all found the book readable and moderately entertaining. However, I'm not sure that any of us would necessarily recommend it to others. I would personally suggest the Woman in White if someone wants a historical identity mystery.
At the end of the meeting we decided that this would be the last time we ran without everyone present. As there are only four of us, we really notice absences and consequently will reschedule the next time someone can not make it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-13 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-15 12:31 pm (UTC)