Saturday Review #8
Oct. 2nd, 2010 09:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jennariaA FLAW IN THE BLOOD, by Stephanie Barron.
Cover copy: Windsor Castle, 1861. For the second time in over twenty years, Irish barrister Patrick Fitzgerald has been summoned by the Queen. The first time, he'd been a zealous young legal clerk, investigating what appeared to be a murderous conspiracy against her. Now he is a distinguished gentleman at the top of his profession. And the Queen is a woman in the grip of fear. For on this chilly night, her beloved husband, Prince Albert, lies dying.
With her future clouded by grief, Fitzgerald can't help but notice the Queen is curiously preoccupied with the past. Yet why, and how he can help, is unclear. His bewilderment deepens when the royal coach is violently overturned, nearly killing him and his brilliant young ward, Dr. Georgiana Armistead, niece of the late Dr. Snow, a famed physician who'd attended none other than Her Majesty.
Fitzgerald is sure of one thing: the Queen's carriage was not attacked at random - it was a carefully chosen target. But was it because he rode in it? Fitzgerald won't risk dying in order to find out. He'll leave London and take Georgiana with him - if they can get out alive. For soon the pair find themselves hunted. Little do they know they each carry within their past hidden clues to a devastating royal secret...one they must untangle if they are to survive.
From the streets of London to the lush hills of Cannes, from the slums of St. Giles to the gilded halls of Windsor Castle, A FLAW IN THE BLOOD delivers a fascinating tale of pursuit, and the artful blend of period detail and electrifying intrigue that only the remarkable Stephanie Barron can devise.
Oy, vey.
Stephanie Barron is probably best known for her mysteries that feature Jane Austen as the detective. I picked up this one because I've a continuing fondness for the Victorian era and mysteries set therein, and I didn't hate her Jane Austen novels, so long as I took them one at a time and very well spaced apart.
This one...well, once again, the cover copy leads one astray. It makes it sound, at first reading, like the mystery is a conspiracy against the queen, and Fitzgerald and Georgiana are rushing to save her. Actually, none of this is true. There's a conspiracy of sorts, but it's against Fitzgerald and Georgiana, with the queen being the prime mover. See, Albert didn't die for the reason put on his death certificate - and between them, Georgiana and Fitzgerald have the key to the cover copy's "devastating royal secret" that lies behind both Albert's death and Victoria's conspiracy. (Despite my cut-text, the secret is not syphilis. Fitzgerald's wife is syphilitic, and quite literally insane with it - or with quicksilver, one of the standard treatments for it at the time - which is a plot point, but it's unconnected to the Secret.)
The book alternates between first-person point of view (Victoria) and third-person (focused on Fitzgerald and Georgiana). The bits with Fitzgerald and Georgiana are all Thrilling Chase Stuff, which alternates between Horrible Things happening on account of the man chasing them at the queen's behest, and quieter puzzle-ish bits wherein Fitzgerald and Georgiana try to figure out what exactly the queen thinks they know. The first-person Victoria bits are a rather unflattering attempt to balance between the public Victoria, as she presented herself after Albert's death, and the (presumed) private Victoria (as demanded by the plot, the Devastating Secret, and what comes across as the author's contempt for her).
The Devastating Secret, once discovered, is worth all the lead-up. Likewise, the man who caused the aforementioned Horrible Things pays for it. But the ending is only sort of happy, and the book as a whole still left a bad taste in my mouth. It felt more like the author showing off how clever she was for using the Devastating Secret than anything else, with perhaps a side of the sort of conspiracy-theory-think that one finds in THE DA VINCI CODE and its literary brethren. If one likes one's Victorian mysteries with a sordid side to them, then one will probably like it better than I did.
Cover copy: Windsor Castle, 1861. For the second time in over twenty years, Irish barrister Patrick Fitzgerald has been summoned by the Queen. The first time, he'd been a zealous young legal clerk, investigating what appeared to be a murderous conspiracy against her. Now he is a distinguished gentleman at the top of his profession. And the Queen is a woman in the grip of fear. For on this chilly night, her beloved husband, Prince Albert, lies dying.
With her future clouded by grief, Fitzgerald can't help but notice the Queen is curiously preoccupied with the past. Yet why, and how he can help, is unclear. His bewilderment deepens when the royal coach is violently overturned, nearly killing him and his brilliant young ward, Dr. Georgiana Armistead, niece of the late Dr. Snow, a famed physician who'd attended none other than Her Majesty.
Fitzgerald is sure of one thing: the Queen's carriage was not attacked at random - it was a carefully chosen target. But was it because he rode in it? Fitzgerald won't risk dying in order to find out. He'll leave London and take Georgiana with him - if they can get out alive. For soon the pair find themselves hunted. Little do they know they each carry within their past hidden clues to a devastating royal secret...one they must untangle if they are to survive.
From the streets of London to the lush hills of Cannes, from the slums of St. Giles to the gilded halls of Windsor Castle, A FLAW IN THE BLOOD delivers a fascinating tale of pursuit, and the artful blend of period detail and electrifying intrigue that only the remarkable Stephanie Barron can devise.
Oy, vey.
Stephanie Barron is probably best known for her mysteries that feature Jane Austen as the detective. I picked up this one because I've a continuing fondness for the Victorian era and mysteries set therein, and I didn't hate her Jane Austen novels, so long as I took them one at a time and very well spaced apart.
This one...well, once again, the cover copy leads one astray. It makes it sound, at first reading, like the mystery is a conspiracy against the queen, and Fitzgerald and Georgiana are rushing to save her. Actually, none of this is true. There's a conspiracy of sorts, but it's against Fitzgerald and Georgiana, with the queen being the prime mover. See, Albert didn't die for the reason put on his death certificate - and between them, Georgiana and Fitzgerald have the key to the cover copy's "devastating royal secret" that lies behind both Albert's death and Victoria's conspiracy. (Despite my cut-text, the secret is not syphilis. Fitzgerald's wife is syphilitic, and quite literally insane with it - or with quicksilver, one of the standard treatments for it at the time - which is a plot point, but it's unconnected to the Secret.)
The book alternates between first-person point of view (Victoria) and third-person (focused on Fitzgerald and Georgiana). The bits with Fitzgerald and Georgiana are all Thrilling Chase Stuff, which alternates between Horrible Things happening on account of the man chasing them at the queen's behest, and quieter puzzle-ish bits wherein Fitzgerald and Georgiana try to figure out what exactly the queen thinks they know. The first-person Victoria bits are a rather unflattering attempt to balance between the public Victoria, as she presented herself after Albert's death, and the (presumed) private Victoria (as demanded by the plot, the Devastating Secret, and what comes across as the author's contempt for her).
The Devastating Secret, once discovered, is worth all the lead-up. Likewise, the man who caused the aforementioned Horrible Things pays for it. But the ending is only sort of happy, and the book as a whole still left a bad taste in my mouth. It felt more like the author showing off how clever she was for using the Devastating Secret than anything else, with perhaps a side of the sort of conspiracy-theory-think that one finds in THE DA VINCI CODE and its literary brethren. If one likes one's Victorian mysteries with a sordid side to them, then one will probably like it better than I did.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-03 01:03 pm (UTC)It felt more like the author showing off how clever she was for using the Devastating Secret than anything else
That's pretty much exactly the impression I came away with from the one Austin novel of hers that I read - that she's a frustrated wanna-be historian who needs intellectual validation badly enough to beg for it in inappropriate contexts. She should just go back and finish her degree, or whatever it is she didn't do. Maybe it would make her a better writer, or at least a less neurotic one.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-03 02:07 pm (UTC)