Scan barcode
A review by mallard_duck
Things in Jars by Jess Kidd
2.0
The premise is interesting; intriguing, even. A story of a lady detective making waves in Victorian London would be enough to hook me in, but throw in a pinch of magical realism, ghosts, and merrows? What's not to love?
The best way I can describe this book is flat. Which is kind of ironic, considering the flowery language. But it's the only word I can think of that accurately describes my perception of Things in Jars. There were characters. There was a plot. Myths were brought up, and at some point, there even was some action. Yet all of this is blurry in my memory, and I only finished this book about an hour ago.
Let's start with the writing style. Based on the reviews, it seems to be a bit of a love it or hate it thing. For me it was neither, much to my surprise. I usually love flowery language, even some of what others might consider purple prose; Kidd's writing, though, reminded me at times of someone who had just discovered a Thesaurus and was hell-bent on reveling in the joy of synonyms, new words, old-timey Victorian-era terms... Ironically enough, instead of coming off as poetic, quite a few passages seemed more like lists of things to me. Whatever the book was supposed to be about tended to get lost in them.
The pacing I found mediocre. For most of the book, nothing really happens (yet the plot progresses!), and then right toward the end we get a bit of a scuffle and a chase scene that is so devoid of, well, action that it might as well not have been there.
But, Mal, were the characters, at the very least, entertaining? You may ask.
And I'll answer: eh, sort of? But also not really? But also maybe?
On paper, Bridie, the protagonist, is a character I should love. A fierce redhead defying gender norms in Victorian society is exactly my cup of tea. She was indeed the most fleshed out of all characters in the book, and I didn't dislike her, per se. I didn't love her either. I'm not sure why. She has gumption, she's smart, her motivations are mostly clear and understandable. Her backstory is extensive and written in a way that's actually entertaining. Guess she just didn't scratch that itch for me, for whatever reason.
As for the others, I just... feel like Kidd could have done so, so much more with them. The thing is, somehow, they are barely present, despite the book being 400+ pages long, quite a few of which are dedicated to people who aren't Bridie. Cora? We get her tragic backstory, but she doesn't really exist outside of her (few) conversations with Bridie. When she's not talking to the main character, she disappears completely - and when she is, it's only to (barely) move the plot along. Ruby Doyle exists even less; he's mostly there to trace after Bridie. He's said to disappear regularly, to go to other places... except we never hear what he does when he's not following after Mrs. Devine. Which is also, in my opinion, a real loss plot-wise - I mean, come on! You have a character who's literally a ghost who can walk through walls and follow people unseen; and you're not using that to progress the story? There wasn't a single conversation in which he told Bridie what he may have seen or heard in the city - I would think being able to learn some gossip this way would be invaluable when you're searching for a kidnapped child... or solving any other mystery crime, really.
On the plus side, I want to say that I thought Gideon was a good villain, exactly because in this book about ghosts and merrows written in too-flowery language his evil was purely, mundanely human. He's a rich, privileged, and most of all sociopathic and cruel man to whom consequences, true consequences, that is, never quite applied. There was absolutely nothing magical about him. There have been and still are (far too many) people just like him in the real world, and that's what makes him, as a character, terrifying.
Lastly, I found the addition of romance rather unnecessary in this book. It's not even me being a cold-hearted bitch and not understanding why Ruby (or, I suppose, Ronan) would still be wildly in love with a girl he knew twenty or so years ago, back when they were both about 8 years old. I mean, the man's dead; let him pine. Bridie, though? I just didn't buy her being smitten with some dude she'd only known for a few days, whom she claimed not to remember (truth be told, I'm still not sure if that one scene about drowning meant that she realized that he was her long-lost friend), and who was, well, a ghost. Why? What was even the point? Nothing would've been lost if they had just been friends (mostly because their interactions barely even painted them as that), or if it had been one-sided pining.
Overall, it's a book I'd take to a beach or on a long train ride, something to kill time but not really return to.
The best way I can describe this book is flat. Which is kind of ironic, considering the flowery language. But it's the only word I can think of that accurately describes my perception of Things in Jars. There were characters. There was a plot. Myths were brought up, and at some point, there even was some action. Yet all of this is blurry in my memory, and I only finished this book about an hour ago.
Let's start with the writing style. Based on the reviews, it seems to be a bit of a love it or hate it thing. For me it was neither, much to my surprise. I usually love flowery language, even some of what others might consider purple prose; Kidd's writing, though, reminded me at times of someone who had just discovered a Thesaurus and was hell-bent on reveling in the joy of synonyms, new words, old-timey Victorian-era terms... Ironically enough, instead of coming off as poetic, quite a few passages seemed more like lists of things to me. Whatever the book was supposed to be about tended to get lost in them.
The pacing I found mediocre. For most of the book, nothing really happens (yet the plot progresses!), and then right toward the end we get a bit of a scuffle and a chase scene that is so devoid of, well, action that it might as well not have been there.
But, Mal, were the characters, at the very least, entertaining? You may ask.
And I'll answer: eh, sort of? But also not really? But also maybe?
On paper, Bridie, the protagonist, is a character I should love. A fierce redhead defying gender norms in Victorian society is exactly my cup of tea. She was indeed the most fleshed out of all characters in the book, and I didn't dislike her, per se. I didn't love her either. I'm not sure why. She has gumption, she's smart, her motivations are mostly clear and understandable. Her backstory is extensive and written in a way that's actually entertaining. Guess she just didn't scratch that itch for me, for whatever reason.
As for the others, I just... feel like Kidd could have done so, so much more with them. The thing is, somehow, they are barely present, despite the book being 400+ pages long, quite a few of which are dedicated to people who aren't Bridie. Cora? We get her tragic backstory, but she doesn't really exist outside of her (few) conversations with Bridie. When she's not talking to the main character, she disappears completely - and when she is, it's only to (barely) move the plot along. Ruby Doyle exists even less; he's mostly there to trace after Bridie. He's said to disappear regularly, to go to other places... except we never hear what he does when he's not following after Mrs. Devine. Which is also, in my opinion, a real loss plot-wise - I mean, come on! You have a character who's literally a ghost who can walk through walls and follow people unseen; and you're not using that to progress the story? There wasn't a single conversation in which he told Bridie what he may have seen or heard in the city - I would think being able to learn some gossip this way would be invaluable when you're searching for a kidnapped child... or solving any other mystery crime, really.
On the plus side, I want to say that I thought Gideon was a good villain, exactly because in this book about ghosts and merrows written in too-flowery language his evil was purely, mundanely human. He's a rich, privileged, and most of all sociopathic and cruel man to whom consequences, true consequences, that is, never quite applied. There was absolutely nothing magical about him. There have been and still are (far too many) people just like him in the real world, and that's what makes him, as a character, terrifying.
Lastly, I found the addition of romance rather unnecessary in this book. It's not even me being a cold-hearted bitch and not understanding why Ruby (or, I suppose, Ronan) would still be wildly in love with a girl he knew twenty or so years ago, back when they were both about 8 years old. I mean, the man's dead; let him pine. Bridie, though? I just didn't buy her being smitten with some dude she'd only known for a few days, whom she claimed not to remember (truth be told, I'm still not sure if that one scene about drowning meant that she realized that he was her long-lost friend), and who was, well, a ghost. Why? What was even the point? Nothing would've been lost if they had just been friends (mostly because their interactions barely even painted them as that), or if it had been one-sided pining.
Overall, it's a book I'd take to a beach or on a long train ride, something to kill time but not really return to.