4/5 stars on Goodreads
The Angel of Crows by Katherine Addison |
Sarah Monette is a fantasy author who blew my mind with
Mélusine and the Doctrine of Labyrinths series that followed fifteen years ago. Since then, I’ve kept
expecting new books from her, but it was years later until she returned to my
radar, now writing as Katherine Addison. The Goblin Emperor is waiting on my
to-be-read pile, but the sample chapters were truly interesting. When I noticed
The Angel of Crows on NetGalley, I instantly made a request for it, and to my
absolute delight, I was given an early copy.
The book description promised an alternate Victorian London
where angels rule and everyone lives in a constant fear of one of them falling,
which would be like “a nuclear bomb in both the physical and metaphysical
worlds”. Seldom has a book description been so off. What I got was a Sherlock Holmes retelling. I don’t like retellings
and Sherlock Holmes retellings are the most tired of them all. If I’d known it
was one, I probably would’ve skipped this, no matter how much I like the
author.
This is basically a collection of Holmes’ most famous cases
bound together with a superficial plot about Jack the Ripper—a case Holmes famously never tackled. There were
some minor changes, but none of them made the stories truly fresh. The newness,
therefore, rests solely on the world-building.
It’s an alternate Victorian London with everything. There
are both steampunk elements, like airships and automatons, and all manner of
supernatural creatures from vampires and werewolves to ghosts and hellhounds.
And angels. There are three kinds of angels: those bound to a building and thus
worthy of a name, the Nameless who wander about without a mind and purpose of
their own, and the Fallen who are vicious creatures who kill and inflict
supernatural diseases. We actually never meet the latter.
Holmes is an angel called Crow. He is different from other
angels because he is not bound to a building, but isn’t a Nameless or a Fallen
either—a fact that the author didn’t
fully explain until about midway to the book, which left me constantly baffled
with people’s reactions to him. He likes to solve crimes, and he is very good at
deductive reasoning. Unlike Holmes, he doesn’t have any vices—he doesn’t even eat—or
irritating habits, and he is actually very endearing in his constant awe of
humanity.
Dr Watson is Dr Doyle who has survived an attack by a Fallen
in Afghanistan and is suffering from the consequences, which will lead to a
metamorphosis. Since the actual flavour of the change is kept as a secret for a
while, I’ll discuss it in the spoiler section at the end of the post. It plays
some role in solving the cases; perhaps the only worthwhile alteration the
author has made to the stories. The good doctor has another secret too, even
more tightly guarded. Considering the importance given to it, I would’ve wished
it actually had some sort of impact—it definitely would’ve
opened the story to a whole new level—but
it was glossed over and life went on like it didn’t even exist. More about that
in the spoiler section.
Considering the interesting world the author has created, it
seems criminal that she’s wasted it on Sherlock Holmes. The angels had a
fascinating society that could’ve formed a basis to a completely unique plot,
and Crow had such an interesting backstory that he could’ve carried a book on
that alone. The alterations don’t even really influence the original stories.
It wasn’t until midway to the book that they started to have any effect on the
cases, and the suspects remained ordinary humans in pretty much all of them.
This being said, I found the book interesting enough to keep
reading. I even gave it four stars. The author has recreated the atmosphere of
Conan-Doyle’s originals well, the narrative style works and never wavers, and I
liked both Crow and Dr Doyle. If there’s ever a follow-up, I hope the author
goes to town with the world and gives the two a proper plot and a unique story.
And now to the spoilers.
***
You have been warned.
The first spoiler concerns what Dr Doyle is changing into. A
hellhound. It’s a somewhat helpful change, as it gives Doyle an ability to
smell both natural and supernatural traces. It also allows the author to play
with the story of the Hound of Baskerville and add fresh scenes about them trying to
find a cure for it with Crow. In the end, it allows the doctor to find Jack the
Ripper too. However, it reveals the secret to the police who rush in to arrest
Doyle, as unregistered creatures are illegal—though
the author fails to explain why this is.
Being a hellhound is surprisingly easy for Doyle. There’s
some pain and some shame, but at no point in the narrative does the doctor
mourn or berate the change. The author is too tied with the original Holmes
stories to give room to such ruminations. And just when the story got
interesting, a deus ex machina allows the doctor to remain free.
The other secret is bigger and an even greater wasted
opportunity for the author. At the mid-point of the book, out of the blue—there are literally no hints whatsoever—it turns out, that Dr Doyle is in fact a woman. I’d
say my mind was blown, and it kind of was, but it would’ve made a greater
impact if it had been at least hinted at.
And it would’ve mattered more, if this new reality had been
incorporated into the story somehow. But life goes on like before. We don’t
learn why Dr Doyle pretends to be a man. Is it for purely practical reasons, as
it’s the only way she can practice medicine? Or does she in fact identify as a
man? She seems to be attracted to women, but then nothing comes of that. And how
does it work? She’s spent decades as a military doctor on campaigns and no one
even guessed until she ended up in hospital after being attacked by the Fallen
angel. Does she have a naturally manly body? A low voice? And what about the
periods? How does she deal with them? So many questions and not a single answer
given. So I don’t understand why the author felt necessary to make such a
change. Being a hellhound was bad enough for the poor doctor. Why did he need
to be inflicted with being a woman too?
No comments:
Post a Comment