Scan barcode
stephwd's review
1.0
Who doesn’t love ‘The Woman in Black’ and by that I mean the superb novel by Susan Hill as opposed to the film that was not only incredibly slow and poorly acted by Daniel Radcliffe, but also changed the ending of the novel entirely thus destroying its atmosphere and impact. However, ‘The Woman in Black’ as a novel and indeed as a stage production, is superb. Hill, through her Victorian prose and subtle atmospheric detail chills the reader to the bone. So, when I saw the sequel, I thought I would give it a go. I have two words for you: UTTER TRITE!
1.There was no attempt to even echo Hill’s prose style. Instead, the narrative was dominated by ineffectual dialogue and short, clipped sentences that had nothing in common with the winding prose of Hill’s original that drew us into the dark Victorian world of her novel.
2. For all the author’s claims in his afterword/ aftermath that he was not just riding on the coattails of a better author, this is exactly what he has attempted to do and thus suckered poor fools like me into buying is second rate novel. The very fact that the front cover of this novel emblazons her title ‘The Woman in Black’ on it as opposed to his clichéd ‘Angel of Death’ is a clear example of this and a cheap and desperate marketing tactic. As a further example, those of you familiar with ‘The Woman in Black’ will be aware that one of the most haunting aspects of the novel are its sound effects. Arthur Kipps is alone in Eel Marsh House and the sounds of the house and moors are captured through onomatopoeic and poetic prose by Hill not least the eerie rocking chair that moves of its own accord. In this version, this was conveyed by something along the lines of ‘creak creak crack’ – a puerile attempt to create sound that I would have criticized my GCSE students for.
3.It was pretty clear to me that this was a cash cow. It had been written to be a movie and then, only later, written as a book to make a few bucks. The problem with this is that, whilst it might work as a film and I could see that in some of the more ridiculously dramatic moments it could, it does not work as a novel particularly one that is supposed to be a sequel to Hill’s subtly haunting narrative.
4.The story was really a bit stupid. For instance, why would evacuated children be moved to a location next to a dummy airfield that was intended to encourage bombing!?
5.Rather than subtlety, Waites relies on hyperbole and overt drama. This is fine in some stories, but does not work here and actually defuses both tension and any sense of the haunting atmosphere he is trying to create
6.The romance between Harry and Eve is a silly distraction
I could go on, but I can’t be bothered. However, what really annoyed me was the arrogance of his afterword. He justifies the decisions he has made by insisting that new authors have every right to reinvent another’s work (which is perfectly true and often proves fruitful as in ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’). Yet he then goes on to compare this work to Hill’s own sequel to ‘Rebecca’ – ‘Mrs De Winter’. This is not only ludicrous, but utterly hubristic. Whilst Hill emulates Du Maurier’s style beautifully and does justice to her original narrative by creating a similarly haunting tale that blends well with ‘Rebecca’ and offers a thought-provoking and compelling sequel, Waites does quite the opposite. I only hope that this novel does not put people off from reading the original, which is far superior!
In short, this is really not worth the paper it is written on and is not only utterly forgettable, but an insult to Hill that it is even referred to in the same breath.
1.There was no attempt to even echo Hill’s prose style. Instead, the narrative was dominated by ineffectual dialogue and short, clipped sentences that had nothing in common with the winding prose of Hill’s original that drew us into the dark Victorian world of her novel.
2. For all the author’s claims in his afterword/ aftermath that he was not just riding on the coattails of a better author, this is exactly what he has attempted to do and thus suckered poor fools like me into buying is second rate novel. The very fact that the front cover of this novel emblazons her title ‘The Woman in Black’ on it as opposed to his clichéd ‘Angel of Death’ is a clear example of this and a cheap and desperate marketing tactic. As a further example, those of you familiar with ‘The Woman in Black’ will be aware that one of the most haunting aspects of the novel are its sound effects. Arthur Kipps is alone in Eel Marsh House and the sounds of the house and moors are captured through onomatopoeic and poetic prose by Hill not least the eerie rocking chair that moves of its own accord. In this version, this was conveyed by something along the lines of ‘creak creak crack’ – a puerile attempt to create sound that I would have criticized my GCSE students for.
3.It was pretty clear to me that this was a cash cow. It had been written to be a movie and then, only later, written as a book to make a few bucks. The problem with this is that, whilst it might work as a film and I could see that in some of the more ridiculously dramatic moments it could, it does not work as a novel particularly one that is supposed to be a sequel to Hill’s subtly haunting narrative.
4.The story was really a bit stupid. For instance, why would evacuated children be moved to a location next to a dummy airfield that was intended to encourage bombing!?
5.Rather than subtlety, Waites relies on hyperbole and overt drama. This is fine in some stories, but does not work here and actually defuses both tension and any sense of the haunting atmosphere he is trying to create
6.The romance between Harry and Eve is a silly distraction
I could go on, but I can’t be bothered. However, what really annoyed me was the arrogance of his afterword. He justifies the decisions he has made by insisting that new authors have every right to reinvent another’s work (which is perfectly true and often proves fruitful as in ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’). Yet he then goes on to compare this work to Hill’s own sequel to ‘Rebecca’ – ‘Mrs De Winter’. This is not only ludicrous, but utterly hubristic. Whilst Hill emulates Du Maurier’s style beautifully and does justice to her original narrative by creating a similarly haunting tale that blends well with ‘Rebecca’ and offers a thought-provoking and compelling sequel, Waites does quite the opposite. I only hope that this novel does not put people off from reading the original, which is far superior!
In short, this is really not worth the paper it is written on and is not only utterly forgettable, but an insult to Hill that it is even referred to in the same breath.
amyisamyisamy's review
3.0
More of a 2.5 star than a 3. I found it to be more enjoyable than the first book. I just hate that it had that trope of romantic gestures happening during the time when the freaking ghost was on them.
dnietoperafan's review against another edition
3.0
“The Woman In Black: Angel Of Death” is the official sequel to Susan Hill’s “The Woman In Black” but it was written by another author. Just to clarify this is my first time reading a horror novel and I haven’t read the original play by Hill. With this said, I believe this is a very okay book. The descriptions made me uncomfortable (which is great for a horror novel) and the overall enjoyment was good. I believe that was the greatest strength of this novel, the descriptions. Nevertheless, the characters were way too bland and it just felt like a clichè horror novel. It didn’t feel too predictable but it also didn’t sweep me off my feet. Eve was my favourite just because she was the only one with common sense! I wouldn’t read this again, but I would say it was a good way to enter the horror genre. Would I recommend it? Yeah... but just to people who want an easy entrance to horror novels. Don’t start reading expecting a fantastic read.
hurricanetortillah's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
sad
fast-paced
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
2.25
Content Warnings
Minor: Animal cruelty and Animal death
julie7's review against another edition
4.0
4⭐️= Good.
Hardback.
This was an easy read and one that I enjoyed. This was not written by the same author as The Woman In Black but it makes a good sequel.
The only thing I would say is that maybe I would have liked for it not to have been quite the same as the original, as I kind of knew what was about to happen. This really was quite sad in places…in a horrific kind of way.
Hardback.
This was an easy read and one that I enjoyed. This was not written by the same author as The Woman In Black but it makes a good sequel.
The only thing I would say is that maybe I would have liked for it not to have been quite the same as the original, as I kind of knew what was about to happen. This really was quite sad in places…in a horrific kind of way.
ollie_bird_'s review against another edition
3.0
I really enjoyed Susan Hill’s ‘The Woman in Black’ in both writing style and story, so I was excited to see how a sequel would hold up, especially being written by someone else. Although not as creepy or impactful as the original, I found this to be a solid story.
In being a book to accompany a film, the main problem I had is that it’s rather fast-paced and has very short chapters. I would have preferred the depth and elaborate writing as offered by Susan Hill in the original.
In being a book to accompany a film, the main problem I had is that it’s rather fast-paced and has very short chapters. I would have preferred the depth and elaborate writing as offered by Susan Hill in the original.
michael5000's review
I read this by mistake, thinking I was re-reading the novel it is based on, which I don't remember well but gave a terrific review in 2014.
It was kind of an odd experience, since nothing ever seemed particularly familiar, and I kept wondering what had impressed me so very much a decade back about this perfectly, well, perfectly adequate light literary thriller.
It was kind of an odd experience, since nothing ever seemed particularly familiar, and I kept wondering what had impressed me so very much a decade back about this perfectly, well, perfectly adequate light literary thriller.
constertruck3000's review against another edition
dark
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
4.0
I was genuinely on edge/feeling scared with this book which I think is really impressive on the author’s part. Felt the same sensations as watching a horror film!
tlynnbruster's review against another edition
1.0
Not good at all. Was expecting it to be much more frightening. Terrible read.
dorkphoenixrising's review
3.0
Note to self: Do not stay up til midnight reading scary books- you will not thank yourself for it! After reading The Woman in Black I went straight into this kind-of-a-sequel-kind-of-not-a-sequel. I got super confused because I thought it was a film tie-in edition (which it says it is) but the author's note explains that the film ends differently... So I guess I'm gonna have to watch the film (dammit). It's clear from the word 'go' that this doesn't even come close in style to Susan Hill's original novel. This instalment is filled with a lot more creepy ass faces than the first so was more scary. I'm so annoyed that Harry died because he was seemingly the one character that had an effect on Jennet; he got over his fear, he was powerful and she couldn't influence him. Then the house falls down on him. I'd like to see a third and final book which gets rid of old pasty-face for definite.