Review: "Once Upon a River" by Diane Setterfield

"On a dark midwinter’s night in an ancient inn on the river Thames, an extraordinary event takes place. The regulars are telling stories to while away the dark hours, when the door bursts open on a grievously wounded stranger. In his arms is the lifeless body of a small child. Hours later, the girl stirs, takes a breath and returns to life. Is it a miracle? Is it magic? Or can science provide an explanation? These questions have many answers, some of them quite dark indeed.

Those who dwell on the river bank apply all their ingenuity to solving the puzzle of the girl who died and lived again, yet as the days pass the mystery only deepens. The child herself is mute and unable to answer the essential questions: Who is she? Where did she come from? And to whom does she belong? But answers proliferate nonetheless.

Three families are keen to claim her. A wealthy young mother knows the girl is her kidnapped daughter, missing for two years. A farming family reeling from the discovery of their son’s secret liaison, stand ready to welcome their granddaughter. The parson’s housekeeper, humble and isolated, sees in the child the image of her younger sister. But the return of a lost child is not without complications and no matter how heartbreaking the past losses, no matter how precious the child herself, this girl cannot be everyone’s. Each family has mysteries of its own, and many secrets must be revealed before the girl’s identity can be known." (blurb from goodreads.com) 

Rating: 2/5

I thought I was going to love this book. Gorgeous cover, compelling storyline, rave reviews... The first chapter had me hooked. I reflected that I liked the style. The characters seemed interesting. I was quite engrossed with the plot. I read it quite quickly. But...

There was a huge "but." A "but" so huge that I was rather disgusted with this book and its author by the time I'd finished. Some would say it's just a detail. Maybe it is. Maybe I'm just overreacting. But in my opinion, the detail in question should not have been found in a book published in 2018.

Now, what am I talking about? 

There is in this book a very varied cast of characters. So varied that it screams "politically correct" writing. 

So one of the characters has Down's syndrom. This character I found interesting. I expected him to play a bigger part. I wanted him to play a bigger part. I'd never read a book before when a main character had Down's syndrom. Except that he wasn't a main character in this book either. Just part of the supporting cast. Here, in the background. For the sake of diversity. But that's OK. That's the author's choice.

There is mention, "off-stage," of a gay character. Now that's great. Except that this character plays no role in the story and is killed off before the plot even begins. He's just there to show how open-minded and wonderful another character is. Again, it really seemed to be a way for the author to claim her open-mindedness. And that's lovely, but for a cast to be truly diverse, it should concern the main characters. To just stick references to people who are "different" is more insulting than anything. It's as if the author was saying that they couldn't be more than references. As if they couldn't play a real role. But again, that's just my opinion.

Then there's a Black character. And he's a main character. Hurray! I should be pleased. I was at first. Except... Each time this character was mentionned, each time his point of view was used, his skin was mentionned. Constantly. After ten times of reading that he was black (*gasp*) I did get it. I also did get that everyone was racist and scared of him, except that handful of wonderful, open-minded white main characters. 

That could have been OK. It could have been taken as a way to reflect the racist attitude of many people in the 19th century. And then I came across this sentence, which shocked me. I don't remember it exactly. I don't especially want to remember it. In this sentence, the narrator, after describing people's attitude towards this Black character, concluded by saying that his blackness was only superficial. What?! I guess the author's intentions were not to be racist. But this is so badly phrased... It bothered me, along with all the other little details I mentionned.  

So that's for what bothered me most. Other things about the characters bugged me. The female characters for instance. They could have been interesting but they weren't really. And, again, the author tried a bit too hard to portray some them (one especially) as strong and independent, when their actions show they're not. 

As for the plot, it started off being quite compelling. However, the ending ruined it all, because the author tried too hard to explain it all and tie it all nicely and give the characters who deserved it their happy ending. At the beginning, she tried to dabble with magical realism but it felt as if she did not dare take it too far. A bit like with the "diversity" of the characters. A few touches here and there but nothing really deep. 

All in all, I'd say the main problem in this book was the overbearing presence of the author herself. That might sound a bit odd because, after all, a novel doesn't write itself. But as a reader, I do not want to "hear" the author, I do not want to be analysing why she did this for that reason. I want to be carried away by the story and entranced by the characters. I wasn't really here, at least not for the whole book, in spite of the atmospheric writing style

Review: "The Last Runaway" by Tracy Chevalier

 

"Honor Bright is a sheltered Quaker who has rarely ventured out of 1850s Dorset when she impulsively emigrates to America. opposed to the slavery that defines and devides the country, she finds her principles tested to the limit when a runaway slave appears at the farm of her new family. In this tough, unsentimental place, where whisky bottles sit alongside quilts, Honor befriends two spirited women who will teach her how to turn ideas into action." (blurb from my edition of the novel)

Rating: 3.5/5

I found that The Last Runaway was an enjoyable book, easily read in a few sittings. I would not say that much happens in it but it was compelling enough to keep me turning the pages and wanting to know what would happen to the characters. 

I learnt several things while reading it. I had little to no knowledge of Quakers and their way of thinking, and even less of the "Underground railroad" through which escaped slaves tried to reach freedom and Canada. The "railroad" was composed of the people who helped them along the way. Some of those people were Quakers and the author does a great job at showing the conflict between moral and practical considerations, as well as the double standards at play. 

The Last Runaway was also very instructive on the subject of quilts and on the difference between English and American ones. I did find that interesting, again because I did not have any previous knowledge of it, if a tad repetitive. Sewing and making quilts are Honor's main occupations and a good part of her life is centred round this. This makes for some interesting observations on fabrics, patterns, etc. 

I enjoyed reading the descriptions of daily life in Ohio, where Honor ends up settling. They were quite vivid and I had no difficulty picture how the characters' life was. I really liked the attention to detail shown by the author, from food to clothes to buildings. 

There was maybe one thing that disappointed me a little: I had somehow been led to expect that the Underground railroad would play a greater part in the plot than it actually does. I would have liked to see more of this, and for some characters to be more developped. In a way, I felt the book could have been 100 pages longer than it is, to allow it to deepen some aspects of the plot. As for the ending, it left me wondering if there would be a sequel as well as wanting to know more.