![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juushikaTitle: Mistress of the Art of Death
Author: Ariana Franklin
Published: New York: G. P. Puntam's Sons, 2007
Rating: 3 of 5
Page Count: 384
Total Page Count: 47,514
Text Number: 137
Read For: personal enjoyment, checked out from the library
Short review: Children are being kidnapped in Cambridge, England, and one body has been found; local Jews are being blamed for their deaths. In order to identify the true murderer, a doctor specializing in autopsies comes to Cambridge from Salerno—but the doctor, Adelia, is female, and the year is 1171. A combination historical fiction and crime drama, Mistress of the Art of Death is a mediocre example of both: anachronisms litter the 12th Century setting, and the detective work is adequately plotted but unexceptional and forgettable. Hundreds of weaknesses dot the text, and as such I was neither pleased nor disappointed by this book: although readable, it's not good and it's far from memorable, and I don't recommend it.
There are a number of reviews that discuss the anachronisms that fill this book. I rarely read historical fiction and know little about this time period, but I still saw these inaccuracies and found them to be distracting. Adelia is intended to be a doctor before her time, whose education and perception have made her aware of things that others are far from realizing. When Adelia amazes us once or twice, she is an intelligent, compelling character; when there is a constant stream of minor miracles (boiling water, disinfecting wounds, bathing, eating salads, diagnosing cholera and obesity, using opiates as painkillers and sleep aids) the character is instead rendered foolishly impossible and the historical setting is destroyed. This is, on the whole, how Franklin writes her book: she makes attempts at various aspects—a historical setting, character creation, romance, a murder mystery—and then foils her own plans in a variety of little weaknesses and errors. No one of these foibles is huge, and even together they don't strictly ruin the book, but they do weaken it. The suspense of the mystery is mocked when the shadowy suspect is called "it" or the killer's face is revealed and recognized—but the killer's name is withheld until the last sentence of the chapter. The unlikely romance becomes entirely unbelievable after a mess of miscommunication and assumptions. Adelia is a forward-thinking female and an impeccable doctor despite her time period—except that viewing corpses still drives her to distraction. The villain is truly horrific, but that there is no motivation for his evil except than he is "sick." Even the writing style is on the whole competent, until it is interrupted by unexplained Latin and French phrases or changes in point of view or preposition use.
Despite all of these hundred little complaints, the book is not actually bad. The various aspects still function, the book is still readable and interesting, and on the whole it is competent if not wholly satisfying. In fact, if only one or two of the aspects were faulted, this book may even verge on good. After all, the premise has potential, and Adelia's (generally) rational, cool characterization makes her an unusual and compelling hero. Instead, the fact that every aspect lacks something, every aspect is somehow weak, makes this novel not good, not bad, but entirely mediocre. The strengths are perfectly balanced by these errors, and the result is a text so unmemorable that it is difficult to review—because I have no strong opinions one way or the other, and don't want to turn my thoughts to it. In a world with so many books that are worth reading and enjoying, I can't recommend one that I can barely think on two days after completing. By all means, if you want to, then do read this book. It goes swiftly and holds attention, and there is a certain amount of satisfaction in following the murder mystery to its conclusion (although even this is dampened by a too-long epilogue). It is wiser to borrow the book than buy it because it has limited reread potential. But I don't and can't recommend Mistress of the Art of Death, and ultimately I was disappointed—not because the book is poor, but because it is entirely mediocre, and left me with no redeeming factors to take away and enjoy.
Review posted here at Amazon.com.
Author: Ariana Franklin
Published: New York: G. P. Puntam's Sons, 2007
Rating: 3 of 5
Page Count: 384
Total Page Count: 47,514
Text Number: 137
Read For: personal enjoyment, checked out from the library
Short review: Children are being kidnapped in Cambridge, England, and one body has been found; local Jews are being blamed for their deaths. In order to identify the true murderer, a doctor specializing in autopsies comes to Cambridge from Salerno—but the doctor, Adelia, is female, and the year is 1171. A combination historical fiction and crime drama, Mistress of the Art of Death is a mediocre example of both: anachronisms litter the 12th Century setting, and the detective work is adequately plotted but unexceptional and forgettable. Hundreds of weaknesses dot the text, and as such I was neither pleased nor disappointed by this book: although readable, it's not good and it's far from memorable, and I don't recommend it.
There are a number of reviews that discuss the anachronisms that fill this book. I rarely read historical fiction and know little about this time period, but I still saw these inaccuracies and found them to be distracting. Adelia is intended to be a doctor before her time, whose education and perception have made her aware of things that others are far from realizing. When Adelia amazes us once or twice, she is an intelligent, compelling character; when there is a constant stream of minor miracles (boiling water, disinfecting wounds, bathing, eating salads, diagnosing cholera and obesity, using opiates as painkillers and sleep aids) the character is instead rendered foolishly impossible and the historical setting is destroyed. This is, on the whole, how Franklin writes her book: she makes attempts at various aspects—a historical setting, character creation, romance, a murder mystery—and then foils her own plans in a variety of little weaknesses and errors. No one of these foibles is huge, and even together they don't strictly ruin the book, but they do weaken it. The suspense of the mystery is mocked when the shadowy suspect is called "it" or the killer's face is revealed and recognized—but the killer's name is withheld until the last sentence of the chapter. The unlikely romance becomes entirely unbelievable after a mess of miscommunication and assumptions. Adelia is a forward-thinking female and an impeccable doctor despite her time period—except that viewing corpses still drives her to distraction. The villain is truly horrific, but that there is no motivation for his evil except than he is "sick." Even the writing style is on the whole competent, until it is interrupted by unexplained Latin and French phrases or changes in point of view or preposition use.
Despite all of these hundred little complaints, the book is not actually bad. The various aspects still function, the book is still readable and interesting, and on the whole it is competent if not wholly satisfying. In fact, if only one or two of the aspects were faulted, this book may even verge on good. After all, the premise has potential, and Adelia's (generally) rational, cool characterization makes her an unusual and compelling hero. Instead, the fact that every aspect lacks something, every aspect is somehow weak, makes this novel not good, not bad, but entirely mediocre. The strengths are perfectly balanced by these errors, and the result is a text so unmemorable that it is difficult to review—because I have no strong opinions one way or the other, and don't want to turn my thoughts to it. In a world with so many books that are worth reading and enjoying, I can't recommend one that I can barely think on two days after completing. By all means, if you want to, then do read this book. It goes swiftly and holds attention, and there is a certain amount of satisfaction in following the murder mystery to its conclusion (although even this is dampened by a too-long epilogue). It is wiser to borrow the book than buy it because it has limited reread potential. But I don't and can't recommend Mistress of the Art of Death, and ultimately I was disappointed—not because the book is poor, but because it is entirely mediocre, and left me with no redeeming factors to take away and enjoy.
Review posted here at Amazon.com.
