the_sassy_bookworm's review against another edition
4.0
This book introduced me to a sub-genre of speculative fiction I have never heard of before "steampunk". Speculative fiction is a genre that I really enjoy so it comes as no surprise that I thought this was a great read! The characters are well written, delightful and wilfully bizarre. There is a certain suspension of disbelief required to appreciate the book but I urge you to give it a go...you won't be disappointed!
lukepadgett's review against another edition
4.0
After reading the flyleaf I knew I would like this one. Fortunately, I was not disappointed. Weaving magical realism, detective fiction, surreal characters and places all together Barnes pulls off a wonderfully imaginative novel. The characters are quirky and unpredictable all set against the city of London, from a Brian Greene multiverse, circa 1805. The prose flows well keeping the narrative in constant motion; no digressions of bullshit flashbacks. None needed. For all these reasons and more "The Somnambulist" does not disappoint. Also, the novel is genuinely funny in a Rowan Atkinson "Black Adder" kind of way. Excellent reading.
rawketstarling's review against another edition
2.0
This was the second time I attempted to get into this book, but it kept coming up in my suggestions (gothic, fantasy) and it seemed similar to other titles I've really enjoyed, such as The Thirteenth Tale, The Historian, etc. Expecting it to be along those same lines, I read past the first chapter and pushed on, even though, at times, I found the whole thing a bit....sludgy.
The problem with this book is not in character development or exposition (of which there is a mediocre amount) but rather in the plot holes of the characters themselves. A prime example is the man who experiences Time differently than the rest of us, or the Somnambulist himself. The titular character who, remarkably enough, does NOTHING remarkable to warrant the book being named for him. The entire time you're sure there's something more to the Somnambulist--there must be some explanation or revelation of his true nature and purpose. But then he disappears from the book, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the book is named for him. There is a hint that the two main characters are what they claim to be (conjurers), and I was excited to explore this idea--only for it to never be mentioned again.
The book had me in it's grips, eventually, due to all the heavy foreshadowing and confusing reveals--I was convinced there would be some massive intelligent payoff. With all the build-up and "clues" and every question answered by five more, I was certain the ending would be much more spectacular than it was. Sure, there was a surprise twist, but then it seemed the author himself had no idea what was going on. It was as if his ten year old had finished writing the book for him--wildly stabbing at an ending that would tie everything together, leaving so many tantalizing ends open--not on purpose, it seems, but just because it seemed easier to not have to think up some ridiculous finale. He should have written several books, instead of trying to cram so many half-completed thoughts into one.
The problem with this book is not in character development or exposition (of which there is a mediocre amount) but rather in the plot holes of the characters themselves. A prime example is the man who experiences Time differently than the rest of us, or the Somnambulist himself. The titular character who, remarkably enough, does NOTHING remarkable to warrant the book being named for him. The entire time you're sure there's something more to the Somnambulist--there must be some explanation or revelation of his true nature and purpose. But then he disappears from the book, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the book is named for him. There is a hint that the two main characters are what they claim to be (conjurers), and I was excited to explore this idea--only for it to never be mentioned again.
The book had me in it's grips, eventually, due to all the heavy foreshadowing and confusing reveals--I was convinced there would be some massive intelligent payoff. With all the build-up and "clues" and every question answered by five more, I was certain the ending would be much more spectacular than it was. Sure, there was a surprise twist, but then it seemed the author himself had no idea what was going on. It was as if his ten year old had finished writing the book for him--wildly stabbing at an ending that would tie everything together, leaving so many tantalizing ends open--not on purpose, it seems, but just because it seemed easier to not have to think up some ridiculous finale. He should have written several books, instead of trying to cram so many half-completed thoughts into one.
jdglasgow's review against another edition
2.0
I feel pretty confident that THE SOMNAMBULIST by Jonathan Barnes gets 2.5 stars from me, but because Goodreads doesn’t offer a half-star option, the question comes down to whether it’s a 2.5 stars rounded up to 3, or rounded down to 2. I’m hoping that writing this out will help me clarify.
The book is told from the perspective of a third-person narrator who hints that they will play a part in the story at some point, and who makes little asides about the narrative in a manner which to me felt strongly reminiscent of Lemony Snicket, although I’m sure the conceit is not unique to the A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS series. It centers primarily on a magician and amateur detective named Edward Moon whose sidekick is the mute, milk-chugging, seemingly invincible giant who goes by the name “The Somnambulist”. Why this character is named “the Somnambulist” is but one of many mysteries which will go unanswered by the book – why it is that he is impervious to swords and knives is another. I don’t necessarily view the choice not to answer these questions as a failing, except insomuch as I get the sense that Barnes himself doesn’t know the answer either. That feeling that the author is kind of making shit up as he goes with no real eye toward coherence makes what would otherwise be a respectable choice into something a little more frustrating. It turns out not to be a mystery of the book so much as just weirdness for its own sake. That description is maybe giving too much credit, in fact; it’s not really weirdness for the sake of weirdness, but weirdness as a stand-in for characterization.
Moon gets caught up in a mystery which begins with a prostitute bringing a man to a bedroom at the top floor of a strange building, at which point she transforms into his mother who harangues him for being a disappointment until a monster crashes in through the window and throws him to the ground below, killing him. Before the case is complete, Moon will have made connections with a shadowy government organization called the Directorate, a medium who seems to be legitimate, a circus of sideshow freaks, a strange religious cult which may or may not worship the poet Samuel Coleridge, and a severe corporation going by the name Love & Love & Love & Love. If you’re thinking that all of this at least makes sense once it is tied together at the end, you’d be sadly mistaken. In fact, the ending is a jumbled mess with no clear motive animating the Big Bad who reveals himself as being behind the whole chain of events. There’s a nod toward a desire for Pantisocracy, a utopian society where all people rule equally, but nothing that happens supports that philosophy or explains how or why any of the events of the book point toward it.
The ending – alright, let’s just get into SPOILER territory here – is when an ominous warning Moon has been receiving about disaster striking finally comes to pass. It turns out that one of the leaders of the religious cult, a Reverend Doctor Tan, is also the leader of the corporation… or maybe they’re one and the same?... and he’s somehow brainwashed 1,000 people into committing brutal acts of maiming and murder, all in the name of this Pantisocracy (I think Barnes just thought that word was funny); they’ve been convinced to participate, in part because Tan has Frankensteined the poet Samuel Coleridge back to life as a glowing green monster with super-strength, and that… is persuasive, I guess? Then there’s a Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum pair of twins who sow chaos by, er, also killing people indiscriminately – twins who magically appear and disappear. Then there’s a man who claims to be living his life backward, and is… maybe a ghost or something? Tan, it turns out, is the needling narrator of the book, but toward what end? He doesn’t seem to sincerely believe in the philosophy he’s trying to enforce upon the world – his defense of it is so half-hearted. This “twist” doesn’t feel real. It does not feel like the book was written from the perspective of the “bad guy” in general, but more specifically it does not make any effort to justify or rationalize his actions. Actions, which again, are bizarre.
All that said, I generally liked the characters. I thought Cribb, the backwards-living guy, was an intriguing character! As were the sadistic twins! I generally liked Moon and the Somnambulist, although there was a point early on where Moon dismisses Arthur Conan Doyle as a hack, which is kind of rich because there is so very little by way of investigation or deduction done here even though Moon is putatively a detective.
I guess I don’t have a lot more to say, honestly. I made my main points. I was recently re-reading my review of WHEN THE MOON TURNS BLUE by Pamela Terry and honestly my feelings on that book were quite similar to my views on this one. That is, I enjoyed spending time with the characters but the major throughline (in that book, a discussion of racism in the context of the statue of a Confederate general being destroyed) was handled so poorly that it overshadowed what might have been decent about it. Similarly, when I think back on THE SOMNAMBULIST my main recollection is going to be of how disjointed and poorly executed its finale was more than any feeling of affinity for some of the characters. I gave WHEN THE MOON TURNS BLUE two stars and I can’t see any reason to rank this one higher. It’s decided, then. Consider this case clarified.
The book is told from the perspective of a third-person narrator who hints that they will play a part in the story at some point, and who makes little asides about the narrative in a manner which to me felt strongly reminiscent of Lemony Snicket, although I’m sure the conceit is not unique to the A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS series. It centers primarily on a magician and amateur detective named Edward Moon whose sidekick is the mute, milk-chugging, seemingly invincible giant who goes by the name “The Somnambulist”. Why this character is named “the Somnambulist” is but one of many mysteries which will go unanswered by the book – why it is that he is impervious to swords and knives is another. I don’t necessarily view the choice not to answer these questions as a failing, except insomuch as I get the sense that Barnes himself doesn’t know the answer either. That feeling that the author is kind of making shit up as he goes with no real eye toward coherence makes what would otherwise be a respectable choice into something a little more frustrating. It turns out not to be a mystery of the book so much as just weirdness for its own sake. That description is maybe giving too much credit, in fact; it’s not really weirdness for the sake of weirdness, but weirdness as a stand-in for characterization.
Moon gets caught up in a mystery which begins with a prostitute bringing a man to a bedroom at the top floor of a strange building, at which point she transforms into his mother who harangues him for being a disappointment until a monster crashes in through the window and throws him to the ground below, killing him. Before the case is complete, Moon will have made connections with a shadowy government organization called the Directorate, a medium who seems to be legitimate, a circus of sideshow freaks, a strange religious cult which may or may not worship the poet Samuel Coleridge, and a severe corporation going by the name Love & Love & Love & Love. If you’re thinking that all of this at least makes sense once it is tied together at the end, you’d be sadly mistaken. In fact, the ending is a jumbled mess with no clear motive animating the Big Bad who reveals himself as being behind the whole chain of events. There’s a nod toward a desire for Pantisocracy, a utopian society where all people rule equally, but nothing that happens supports that philosophy or explains how or why any of the events of the book point toward it.
The ending – alright, let’s just get into SPOILER territory here – is when an ominous warning Moon has been receiving about disaster striking finally comes to pass. It turns out that one of the leaders of the religious cult, a Reverend Doctor Tan, is also the leader of the corporation… or maybe they’re one and the same?... and he’s somehow brainwashed 1,000 people into committing brutal acts of maiming and murder, all in the name of this Pantisocracy (I think Barnes just thought that word was funny); they’ve been convinced to participate, in part because Tan has Frankensteined the poet Samuel Coleridge back to life as a glowing green monster with super-strength, and that… is persuasive, I guess? Then there’s a Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum pair of twins who sow chaos by, er, also killing people indiscriminately – twins who magically appear and disappear. Then there’s a man who claims to be living his life backward, and is… maybe a ghost or something? Tan, it turns out, is the needling narrator of the book, but toward what end? He doesn’t seem to sincerely believe in the philosophy he’s trying to enforce upon the world – his defense of it is so half-hearted. This “twist” doesn’t feel real. It does not feel like the book was written from the perspective of the “bad guy” in general, but more specifically it does not make any effort to justify or rationalize his actions. Actions, which again, are bizarre.
All that said, I generally liked the characters. I thought Cribb, the backwards-living guy, was an intriguing character! As were the sadistic twins! I generally liked Moon and the Somnambulist, although there was a point early on where Moon dismisses Arthur Conan Doyle as a hack, which is kind of rich because there is so very little by way of investigation or deduction done here even though Moon is putatively a detective.
I guess I don’t have a lot more to say, honestly. I made my main points. I was recently re-reading my review of WHEN THE MOON TURNS BLUE by Pamela Terry and honestly my feelings on that book were quite similar to my views on this one. That is, I enjoyed spending time with the characters but the major throughline (in that book, a discussion of racism in the context of the statue of a Confederate general being destroyed) was handled so poorly that it overshadowed what might have been decent about it. Similarly, when I think back on THE SOMNAMBULIST my main recollection is going to be of how disjointed and poorly executed its finale was more than any feeling of affinity for some of the characters. I gave WHEN THE MOON TURNS BLUE two stars and I can’t see any reason to rank this one higher. It’s decided, then. Consider this case clarified.
twentysevenletters's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Fatphobia and Child death
Moderate: Ableism and Racism
The fixation on describing the bodies of fat characters in derisive language at every possible opportunity borders on fetishistic.blevins's review against another edition
3.0
This one started out rip-roaring with all kinds of bizarreness set in Victorian England--magic, time travel, seances, bearded female prostitutes, grisly murders--what's not to like? Sadly, somewhere along the way the book gets unraveled and becomes too scatter shot and by the end is a little absurd. Too bad. The first half was really, really good.
onceuponasarah's review against another edition
2.0
This was an interesting story, with some good writing. However, I am not a huge fan of pure mystery, and that's what this was. If you are a fan of mystery (especially Victorian) then you would like this. I was not that interested.
rgrigsby80's review against another edition
2.0
This book didn't make much sense. Meandering plot, poorly developed characters, minimal world building. I got to the (confusing and abrupt) end, asked myself "now, what did we learn here?", and realized the answer was "nothing".
lorialdenholuta's review against another edition
1.0
While the author clearly has exceptional writing skills, I found his brilliantly worded sentences to carry a light load, as the plot and premise were utterly dismal. Characters that are disgusting simply because they can be, this baffles me. If I am to bond with the oddities of society, I need to know more *why* they are what they are. Jonathan Barnes wannabe-apocalyptic story buckles under the weight of the sheer number of freaks it must support. I dogged on through, but found the overall experience completely unsatisfactory.
ettegoom's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting... weird... kind of Faction Paradox-ish... recommend