Scan barcode
posies23's review against another edition
4.0
Complicated, engaging, and an unreliable narrator! What's not to love?
apol27's review against another edition
4.0
slow start, but i was hooked at the end. very interesting writing style. will be looking forward to our bookclub discussion
duparker's review against another edition
3.0
Three and a half stars. I liked this book, and felt the aura it was intending to present. The Victorian era is well played and it has a certain vibe to it, that moves from thriller to fiction to mystery to thought provoking. What it doesn't do well is be concise. You really get into the nitty gritty in this book and have to sit back and enjoy it.
I can see how someone might get bogged down in the details, but that is some of what made the story work for me. You have to want to close your eyes and be in Victorian England and have the nuances and the obstacles of that era. You also have to like the story within a story within a retelling way of reading a book.
There is no major plot here, there is a story of desire and attempts to fill that desire. Over 700 pages you like and dislike the narrator and characters and you struggle to understand what it was like to be them in an era where luxury was out of reach to many and those that had it rolled in it.
I might have gone 4 stars but the length was a bit much for the follow through and after reading the book I am not inclined to read anything else by Cox.
I can see how someone might get bogged down in the details, but that is some of what made the story work for me. You have to want to close your eyes and be in Victorian England and have the nuances and the obstacles of that era. You also have to like the story within a story within a retelling way of reading a book.
There is no major plot here, there is a story of desire and attempts to fill that desire. Over 700 pages you like and dislike the narrator and characters and you struggle to understand what it was like to be them in an era where luxury was out of reach to many and those that had it rolled in it.
I might have gone 4 stars but the length was a bit much for the follow through and after reading the book I am not inclined to read anything else by Cox.
alyssathinkstoomuch's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Very much like if Jane Austen wrote a spy thriller. There is maybe one likeable character in this whole novel (affectionate). Cox has some absolutely banger lines in this book; that being said, it could have been 50 pages shorter.
coralrose's review against another edition
3.0
A little overdone, perhaps...but have you read Dickens?
I mean, if you're going to say that this Victorian gothic story is in need (as one reviewer put it) of some aggressive editing, you at least have to admit that so could Oliver Twist.
**Later
So....I obviously really enjoyed reading this book (I know, it took me a week, but you try working 35 hours in three days (which is not mentioning the more normal work hours worked the rest of the week) and see if you have any energy to read more than 6 or 7 pages while on the treadmill.) I read it quickly, and once I hit page 302, I really didn't want to put it down.
I agree with other reviewer's who say that they didn't find the narrator at all sympathetic, but I would argue that this is part of Cox's strength as an author. You read the first couple hundred pages and think, What a pompous a**! Who cares if you lost something rightfully yours? But you keep reading. About another couple hundred pages in you think You're still an a**, but that other guy is kind of creepy too. Too bad he's getting what's due you. And you keep reading. And then at the end, you think Well, how could that have worked out any better? All of you people have huge character flaws, and in reality, none of you deserve this. Wow.
And you feel kind of satisfied.
I recommend it, to fans of Shadows of the Wind and The Thirteenth Tale. I don't think it's to the scale of either of those two, but I am definitely looking forward to the paperback of the sequel, which looks kind of deliciously dissimilar.
I mean, if you're going to say that this Victorian gothic story is in need (as one reviewer put it) of some aggressive editing, you at least have to admit that so could Oliver Twist.
**Later
So....I obviously really enjoyed reading this book (I know, it took me a week, but you try working 35 hours in three days (which is not mentioning the more normal work hours worked the rest of the week) and see if you have any energy to read more than 6 or 7 pages while on the treadmill.) I read it quickly, and once I hit page 302, I really didn't want to put it down.
I agree with other reviewer's who say that they didn't find the narrator at all sympathetic, but I would argue that this is part of Cox's strength as an author. You read the first couple hundred pages and think, What a pompous a**! Who cares if you lost something rightfully yours? But you keep reading. About another couple hundred pages in you think You're still an a**, but that other guy is kind of creepy too. Too bad he's getting what's due you. And you keep reading. And then at the end, you think Well, how could that have worked out any better? All of you people have huge character flaws, and in reality, none of you deserve this. Wow.
And you feel kind of satisfied.
I recommend it, to fans of Shadows of the Wind and The Thirteenth Tale. I don't think it's to the scale of either of those two, but I am definitely looking forward to the paperback of the sequel, which looks kind of deliciously dissimilar.
amibunk's review against another edition
4.0
There is something just delicious about a story whose ending results because of inevitability, tragedy, and fate. It feeds your mind with questions: was this character destined to do that? Did this twist lead to that twist, which lead to the finale? Could something, anything, have prevented the tragic ending?
"The Meaning of Night" is such a book. While the beginning is much too bogged down with unnecessary drama, the rest of the novel creates a tangled tale of revenge, deceit, justice, and betrayal. There is much symbolism and allusion in this book, which heightens the desperate feelings of the main character, Edward Glyver. There are also painstakingly detailed characters with many different facets to compare and contrast with other characters, particularly among the women.
However. (You knew there had to be a 'but' somewhere.)
There are a few things I wish were different or that I disagree with. First, while I'll concede that it was inevitable that the villian Phoebus Daunt would attempt to usurp Edward Glyver's position, wealth, name, and romantic interest, I do not agree with the conclusion that Edward is fated to react in the manner that he did. Too many times, Edward stated, "This set my on my path," or "My course became set because of this action." Too often Edward claims to be a victim of fate. I maintain that Edward CHOSE his path with faced with inevitable obstacles, and I believe that Edward, himself, reaches this conclusion at the end when it is too late.
Also, I wished I could have liked Edward better. This is probably my biggest complaint. He was too flawed for me to condone his revenge, and I so very much wanted to. He was no Edmund Dantes from "The Count of Monte Cristo," exacting a fitting consequence upon his enemies. However, perhaps that's the entire point to the novel, which gives me one more thing to ponder.
I also take issue with the pacing of this novel. The beginning, in particular, drags, but the entire novel could do with a small tightening of the action and a little bit of fine tuning with the editing.
Finally, I wish I had someone close by that I could discuss this complex and intriguing book with. Preferably over some nice refreshments.
"The Meaning of Night" is such a book. While the beginning is much too bogged down with unnecessary drama, the rest of the novel creates a tangled tale of revenge, deceit, justice, and betrayal. There is much symbolism and allusion in this book, which heightens the desperate feelings of the main character, Edward Glyver. There are also painstakingly detailed characters with many different facets to compare and contrast with other characters, particularly among the women.
However. (You knew there had to be a 'but' somewhere.)
There are a few things I wish were different or that I disagree with. First, while I'll concede that it was inevitable that the villian Phoebus Daunt would attempt to usurp Edward Glyver's position, wealth, name, and romantic interest, I do not agree with the conclusion that Edward is fated to react in the manner that he did. Too many times, Edward stated, "This set my on my path," or "My course became set because of this action." Too often Edward claims to be a victim of fate. I maintain that Edward CHOSE his path with faced with inevitable obstacles, and I believe that Edward, himself, reaches this conclusion at the end when it is too late.
Also, I wished I could have liked Edward better. This is probably my biggest complaint. He was too flawed for me to condone his revenge, and I so very much wanted to. He was no Edmund Dantes from "The Count of Monte Cristo," exacting a fitting consequence upon his enemies. However, perhaps that's the entire point to the novel, which gives me one more thing to ponder.
I also take issue with the pacing of this novel. The beginning, in particular, drags, but the entire novel could do with a small tightening of the action and a little bit of fine tuning with the editing.
Finally, I wish I had someone close by that I could discuss this complex and intriguing book with. Preferably over some nice refreshments.
colorfulleo92's review against another edition
2.0
Being compared to two books I didn't enjoy and one I loved sounded like a fun challenge to see if I would end up liking it. Bit unfortunately it did not work for me. Kinda disappointed because it's one of the more beautiful books I own. But back to second hand it goes
adambwriter's review against another edition
4.0
Summary:
Michael Cox’s The Meaning of Night is a murder-mystery tale, set in the mid-19th century, with an attempt on the author’s part to portray the story in the contemporary (i.e. Cox presents the work as if it had been written in the 1800s). The main character, Edward Glyver, has been slighted by an old school friend, and this betrayal leads to the ultimate downfall of both Glyver and his nemesis, Phoebus Duport. The novel is, in fact, Glyver’s “confessions” which are written down and sent to a dear friend, who passes it along to the fictitious editor, J.J. Antrobus. This “editor” makes notes and comments throughout, and points out insertions of found materials which were not included in the original package sent by Glyver to his friend and former employer, Tredgold. These editorial notations and introduction are an attempt on the author’s part to re-assert the antiquity of the text – perhaps a clver nod to his bibliophilic friends – for, as the reader soon will discover, bibliophiles play a prominent part in the plot, and in finding and unraveling the many mysteries to Glyver’s past and future. Through clever use of flashback and an oftentimes seamless introduction of major and minor characters – all of whom, past and present, become related and relevant to the plot, Cox develops and fast-moving, believable literary history of a multitude of fictitious authors and nobles.
The Good:
Cox’s story is a delightful throwback to the Victorian and even Gothic romances and mysteries – with obvious nods to Dickens (Great Expectations, The Mystery of Edwin Drood) and even Radcliffe (The Italian). Interestingly enough, though, the book was most reminiscent to me of non-English writers, such as Peter Carey’s re-telling of Great Expectations vis-à-vis Jack Maggs. I was also clearly reminded of some American works, such as Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” and Hawthorne’s “Rappaccini’s Daughter” - both of which deal with this idea of self-destructive, calculated, and unrepentant revenge, as well as love lost and unrequited. I found the language and dialogue interesting and fluid. The main character, Glyver, while despicable at times – and certainly starting off on the wrong foot with his readers – can be sympathized with and championed, despite his many failings (such as an obvious love-blindness). For bibliophiles, the many references to major literary works is laudable, as is the fact that Glyver’s clues and mysteries are resolved by research into lost letters, old histories, and personal libraries. I particularly liked that, while revenge is sought & found, there is no satisfactory resolution for the avenger – indeed, his life likely would have amounted to much more (and certainly have been much simpler) had Glyver either 1) never looked into the mystery of his past or 2) chosen not to seek the destiny which he was denied (the conclusion his mother so hoped he would choose). In this way, and only in this way, can we as the reader empathize with Glyver & root for him throughout, and then also be satisfied that Glyver does not get more than he really deserves – considering he is not really such a great guy, after all.
The Bad:
In reference to this edition, specifically, there were a few proofreading oversights, which I found surprising in a Norton publication. I also disliked the idea of this fictional editor who inserts his own clarifications and footnotes throughout the novel – it is largely unnecessary and ultimately distracting (not to mention that Cox comes across rather indulgent by including explanations and clarifications to his more obscure references – almost as if he is patting himself on the back for including such ambiguous or learned information). There were also quite a few holes in the plot, most of which include Glyver either not picking up on facts which are blatantly apparent. Does the author believe his audience – supposedly literature lovers and bibliophiles, who would be quite privy to sub-plots and deconstruction- is too obtuse to figure these things out without it being spelled out, step-by-step, as Glyver seems to need. One hundred pages could easily have been saved by allowing Glyver, a self-identified genius, to have come to conclusions which the average reader has certainly come to on his own. There is also a stunning lack of characterization – aside from Glyver and perhaps Tredgold, the remaining characters are relatively flat and indistinguishable. The servants, even, who are of severely different capacities and mentalities, to Glyver, all seem to be the same person in style. In a seven hundred page novel, perhaps more attention could have been paid to the other characters, particular to the Lord and Lady Dupont, whose relationship is so imperative to the plot, but who are never truly engaged. The combination of including unnecessary clarifications and “spellings-out” of plot points, with the major oversights in character development, I feel, prohibit a generally well-written, entertaining, and intelligent novel from being a quite possibly great work.
The Final Verdict: 4.0 out of 5.0
Despite the oversights, the over-indulgence, and the author’s obvious assumption that his readers are incredibly less learned than he is, The Meaning of Night is still an achievement. Glyver’s story is interesting, and the psychological play in terms of championing an anti-hero is always intriguing. The pace is good and author’s passion for literature and books in general is clear and well received (by me, at least). What could have improved this rating to a 4.5 or 5.0 would be, perhaps, a bit less arrogance by the author – and a bit more trust in his readers. It is impossible to develop and present a piece with hopes of earning “epic” or lasting status, while assuming the readers need to be hand-held throughout. Cox is said to be writing a sequel and, I hope, he has been encouraged to treat his reader as a partner in his journey, rather than as an apprentice or subordinate.
leahreadsalot's review against another edition
4.0
Actually I think this deserves closer to 3.5 stars, but I rounded up.