Scan barcode
A review by tamunra
The Fires by Sigríður Hagalín Björnsdóttir
dark
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
I got this book for free from Amazon First Reads last year, and finally picked it up now. Based on the description, I didn't expect it to be happy. And, it was as expected.
I just finished this book yesterday, and I feel compelled to review it immediately, just so I can get it out of my head. Often when a book is stuck in your head, it's a good thing. Not so for me with this one.
My gut feeling, from the beginning, didn't change. I didn't like this book. I slogged through it because I wanted to read about a disaster. I didn't expect that Anna's life would be the primary disaster in the novel, though. I tried to start skimming just to reach the end; it's a bit of a surprise that I made it at all. I think I'm writing this review mainly to complain.
The good: I liked the way Bjornsdottir juxtaposed Anna's failing, flailing relationships with the progression of the volcanic eruption/earthquake(s).
The intermediate: Yes, this read a bit too sciencey. I didn't mind much. I'm very interested in natural disasters, and used to adore disaster movies. Although, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to appreciate the scale of the issue without a full map of Iceland.
The bad: so, many, commas, I found it hard to parse them, I found it hard to read them, hard to care. Is this common in Icelandic? Is this how Bjornsdottir wrote the novel, with all these commas, or was this a stylistic choice that the translator made? I really didn't like it. I didn't like that I couldn't always identify who was speaking. I didn't like the stream-of-consciousness effect that commas gave. It helped me speedread, which is nice because I found I really didn't like Anna or what was going on, but it blunted any emotional effect I possibly should have experienced while reading this.
While I was interested in the disaster, I was not interested in Anna's family or love life. I didn't like her.I didn't like the affair sub/plot. I found their instalove unrealistic. Tomas was unappealing and one-dimensional. Anna was unappealing. It's not a romance (nor do I expected it to be), but it doesn't feel plausible; it's just a plot device that the author put there. That said, I had no problem believing that Anna could love her husband (platonically, complicatedly) while she's infatuated with Tomas. Perhaps it's believable because her instalove is unbelievable.
This book was slow, and largely uninteresting, until the eruption actually starts. I got irritated at the complacency of almost all officials, including Anna, toward the impending crisis. (But that, too, was believable enough.)
The ending was perhaps the only ending there could have been. I don't like it, but I understand it. After I read Anna's last chapter, I needed to go cuddle with my own 9-year-old daughter so I could fall asleep. Anna's choice to stay with her daughter is perhaps the most believable thing that she did. I wish I could have found her sympathetic and understandable before that.
I just finished this book yesterday, and I feel compelled to review it immediately, just so I can get it out of my head. Often when a book is stuck in your head, it's a good thing. Not so for me with this one.
My gut feeling, from the beginning, didn't change. I didn't like this book. I slogged through it because I wanted to read about a disaster. I didn't expect that Anna's life would be the primary disaster in the novel, though. I tried to start skimming just to reach the end; it's a bit of a surprise that I made it at all. I think I'm writing this review mainly to complain.
The good: I liked the way Bjornsdottir juxtaposed Anna's failing, flailing relationships with the progression of the volcanic eruption/earthquake(s).
The intermediate: Yes, this read a bit too sciencey. I didn't mind much. I'm very interested in natural disasters, and used to adore disaster movies. Although, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to appreciate the scale of the issue without a full map of Iceland.
The bad: so, many, commas, I found it hard to parse them, I found it hard to read them, hard to care. Is this common in Icelandic? Is this how Bjornsdottir wrote the novel, with all these commas, or was this a stylistic choice that the translator made? I really didn't like it. I didn't like that I couldn't always identify who was speaking. I didn't like the stream-of-consciousness effect that commas gave. It helped me speedread, which is nice because I found I really didn't like Anna or what was going on, but it blunted any emotional effect I possibly should have experienced while reading this.
While I was interested in the disaster, I was not interested in Anna's family or love life. I didn't like her.
This book was slow, and largely uninteresting, until the eruption actually starts. I got irritated at the complacency of almost all officials, including Anna, toward the impending crisis. (But that, too, was believable enough.)
The ending was perhaps the only ending there could have been.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death and Infidelity