Scan barcode
sorceryofpie's review against another edition
2.0
This was... alright. I loved several aspects of the book like the magic system, the witty writing style, the diverse characters, but it falls short (imo) anytime there is a woman around. This book definitely has a sort of male gaze aspect to it. Everything was sexually heightened when it didn't have to be (ex. a woman in a tank top with big boobs standing on the train. There was so much attention brought to her boobs. Like dang, she's just tryin' to live her own life man). Everything that could have been romantic fell short into sexual/sexualizing a character. I don't know, maybe there's some deeper meaning or psychological coping mechanism/backstory that explains why the character thinks this way around women, or maybe that's just the male gaze and I'm used to the female gaze in books. Either way, I'm not a huge fan of it.
caljosenjo's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.75
annabrewer972's review against another edition
3.0
** 2.5 stars **
This book had so much potential! I enjoyed the start but was overall left disappointed. Sure, there were outwardly diverse characters, but none were likeable (and the main character was infuriating). Yes, it combined crime/mystery and fantasy, but did neither genre justice. The plot was badly paced and tiresome, the magic system frustrating and vague, the writing mediocre at best. And yes, I know this opinion might be unpopular, but hey - it is my opinion!
(By the way: If you want an urban fantasy that personifies London through truly novel characters and an engaging plot, I highly recommend [b:The City's Son|13490791|The City's Son (The Skyscraper Throne, #1)|Tom Pollock|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1507549079l/13490791._SY75_.jpg|18364451]! Sure, it is more of a YA, but I loved it...)
This book had so much potential! I enjoyed the start but was overall left disappointed. Sure, there were outwardly diverse characters, but none were likeable (and the main character was infuriating). Yes, it combined crime/mystery and fantasy, but did neither genre justice. The plot was badly paced and tiresome, the magic system frustrating and vague, the writing mediocre at best. And yes, I know this opinion might be unpopular, but hey - it is my opinion!
(By the way: If you want an urban fantasy that personifies London through truly novel characters and an engaging plot, I highly recommend [b:The City's Son|13490791|The City's Son (The Skyscraper Throne, #1)|Tom Pollock|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1507549079l/13490791._SY75_.jpg|18364451]! Sure, it is more of a YA, but I loved it...)
staceyinthesticks's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Cursing, Death, Violence, Murder, and Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Blood
Minor: Addiction, Drug use, Sexual content, and Alcohol
emeshe's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
Unexpected magic in the very heart of London where the police is in on it. Lovely mix of magic and Met Police - a curious pairing but very entertaining
khantourage's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
nimue0fiana's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Good, solid mystery with fantasy elements. I was looking for a novel similar to Dresden Files with a less irritating protagonist, and this is exactly what I was after.
anthonycamber's review against another edition
5.0
I'm scandalously late to the Peter Grant series from Ben Aaronovitch. As I write there are five books, and after making short work of book one – Rivers of London – I plan to read them all.
When Rivers came out I remember spotting it on the shelves and thinking, like everyone else: it's Harry Potter in the Metropolitan Police ("The sorting helmet has assigned you to the Vice Squad, Peter", "Buy your truncheon from Inspector Wallander's on Letsby Avenue", etc). I suppose I labelled it as interesting but likely derivative-bordering-on-knock-off, and lengthy calculations indicated it didn't then merit a place in my teetering stack of unreads.
Since then, something has changed. Perhaps it was the end of the Potter hype cycle, perhaps the sight of multiple sequels to River. Most likely a sneaky read of the first few pages in the back of Waterstones: it's effortless, funny first-person writing, with the protagonist Peter Grant – a newly qualified police constable – finding himself deep into the plot within a page or two, interviewing a ghost after a gruesome murder in Covent Garden.
I plonked it onto my Christmas list, top of the pile for 2015. And here we are.
There's no denying it: from 10,000 feet it is Constable Potter – just as from the same height, Poirot is Sherlock. There's plenty of room for both. Aaronovitch's world of magic is vastly different than Rowling's. It's more grounded in reality, if that doesn't sound perverse for a book where the Goddess of the River Thames is real and Nigerian. As in Potter, magic isn't common knowledge in Rivers – but those at the top of the Met certainly know it exists, even if they don't like it. It's a handy source of extra tension, though I couldn't help thinking the secret would never be kept with so many people in on it.
Essentially Rivers of London is a police procedural with wizards. The usual pie – violent crime, bunny suits, grizzled old coppers driving classic Jags the wrong way up one-way streets – with a creamy topping of spells and haunting. The plot's engaging and coherent, and I suspect much shoe leather died in the service of its research. In brief: Peter Grant must come to terms with this new reality, start on the path of wizardry with the help of his mentor Nightingale, and solve a murder or two – while keeping on good terms with London's bickering waterways.
London is a strong supporting artiste in the book. Aaronovitch clearly loves the place. If you're a fan of geography in books, Rivers is for you. Descriptions are true-to-life and vivid, albeit marginally too generous for my tastes on occasion – though never approaching get-on-with-it levels.
Our hero Peter is nicely drawn and feels real: a decent but inexperienced copper with a brain and a ready wit. And, great to see, he's mixed race. In my head he's Samuel Anderson (The History Boys, Doctor Who) or Daniel Anthony (The Sarah Jane Adventures, Casualty). (On that topic, Rivers adapted for TV could be damn good. The internet tells me it was optioned for TV a few years ago: hopefully it'll turn up on screen at some point.)
In summary, I'm a fan. Book two will drop onto my unread stack in a couple of months (I don't want to binge-read all five).
PS One day I'll review books published recently. I fear this day will not come soon.
When Rivers came out I remember spotting it on the shelves and thinking, like everyone else: it's Harry Potter in the Metropolitan Police ("The sorting helmet has assigned you to the Vice Squad, Peter", "Buy your truncheon from Inspector Wallander's on Letsby Avenue", etc). I suppose I labelled it as interesting but likely derivative-bordering-on-knock-off, and lengthy calculations indicated it didn't then merit a place in my teetering stack of unreads.
Since then, something has changed. Perhaps it was the end of the Potter hype cycle, perhaps the sight of multiple sequels to River. Most likely a sneaky read of the first few pages in the back of Waterstones: it's effortless, funny first-person writing, with the protagonist Peter Grant – a newly qualified police constable – finding himself deep into the plot within a page or two, interviewing a ghost after a gruesome murder in Covent Garden.
I plonked it onto my Christmas list, top of the pile for 2015. And here we are.
There's no denying it: from 10,000 feet it is Constable Potter – just as from the same height, Poirot is Sherlock. There's plenty of room for both. Aaronovitch's world of magic is vastly different than Rowling's. It's more grounded in reality, if that doesn't sound perverse for a book where the Goddess of the River Thames is real and Nigerian. As in Potter, magic isn't common knowledge in Rivers – but those at the top of the Met certainly know it exists, even if they don't like it. It's a handy source of extra tension, though I couldn't help thinking the secret would never be kept with so many people in on it.
Essentially Rivers of London is a police procedural with wizards. The usual pie – violent crime, bunny suits, grizzled old coppers driving classic Jags the wrong way up one-way streets – with a creamy topping of spells and haunting. The plot's engaging and coherent, and I suspect much shoe leather died in the service of its research. In brief: Peter Grant must come to terms with this new reality, start on the path of wizardry with the help of his mentor Nightingale, and solve a murder or two – while keeping on good terms with London's bickering waterways.
London is a strong supporting artiste in the book. Aaronovitch clearly loves the place. If you're a fan of geography in books, Rivers is for you. Descriptions are true-to-life and vivid, albeit marginally too generous for my tastes on occasion – though never approaching get-on-with-it levels.
Our hero Peter is nicely drawn and feels real: a decent but inexperienced copper with a brain and a ready wit. And, great to see, he's mixed race. In my head he's Samuel Anderson (The History Boys, Doctor Who) or Daniel Anthony (The Sarah Jane Adventures, Casualty). (On that topic, Rivers adapted for TV could be damn good. The internet tells me it was optioned for TV a few years ago: hopefully it'll turn up on screen at some point.)
In summary, I'm a fan. Book two will drop onto my unread stack in a couple of months (I don't want to binge-read all five).
PS One day I'll review books published recently. I fear this day will not come soon.
askorbinka's review against another edition
5.0
I absolutely loved this wonderful urban fantasy story. As my clever friend put it, it’s like when Terry Pratchett meets Maks Frai. I would also add a bit of. Neil Gaiman vibes. And Doctor Who, of course.