What do You think about Falling Angels (2002)?
Victorians were obsessed with death and sex. This book opens with the death of Queen Victoria, and ends with the death of King Edward, placing it squarely in Edwardian times, but the Victorian obsessions of death and sex are the two themes of this novel, pushing and pulling each other forward to modern times or back towards the Victorian age.The book follows two rival families sharing adjacent cemetery plots and who eventually become next door neighbors. The two little girls become friends, the fathers play cricket and go to pubs together, but the mothers are constantly comparing themselves to the other in every way.Through the point of view of all of the different family members, servants, and the gravedigger's son, the nature of the families' friendship and rivalry is uncovered. This style of shifting 1st person narration was very effective for this book. With headings indicate who was writing, it was never confusing, and the plot unfolded itself slowly and beautifully as motivations for past actions others observed became clear.Death surrounded these families. The girls were just old enough to understand death when Queen Victoria died. They live next door to the cemetery and visit their family plots. They learn how to mourn. They live in the shadow of death every day.Sex was ever present as well: the wife that turned her husband away; the husband that went to wife swapping parties; sexual escapades with men who work at the graveyard, and the consequences of those actions. Sexual roles were explored as well, as men are told to handle their woman as one handles a horse, and an accidental encounter with a leading suffragette leads one of the wives deep into that movement.Eventually, the families become too entangled with each other and with the Suffragette movement so that even the smallest things that these rivals and friends do will have unintended and drastic consequences.This was an excellent novel.
—Stacy
Once again Tracy Chevalier weaves a tale of everyday life in a different time- takes us gently through the customs and mores that define a particular point in hostory. She also allows her characters to unfold, not from one single point of view or from an omnipotent observer, but each from their own perspective. Through her words, they each grow and evolve- even the most shallow of characters shows surprising depth. The descriptive quality, simple prose, multiple perspectives, all help the story unfold.This period of English history is not one I know that much about, but I found the customs fascinating. (My knowledge of the suffragette movement in England was for a long time limited to the mother in Mary Poppins). I really feel that I learned a great deal about the customs of the time.I am perhaps an odd duck, because I really like reading the acknowlegdements and afterwards in books. Chevalier made me smile when she wrote in hers:"The acknowledgements is the only section of a novel that reveals the author's "normal" voice. As a result I wlways read them looking for clues that will shed light on writers and their working methods and lives, as well as their connections with the real world. I suspect some of them are written in code. Alas, however, there are no hidden meanings in this one-just an everyday voice that wants to express gratitude for help in several forms."
—bookczuk
I found this book to be initially better than the infuriating "Girl with a Pearl Earring", maybe because it tried to present the story from different points of view, but then I got angry because the promise was totally unfulfilled. The characters were unbelievable and flat, as if written with some sort of manual in hand. There were two girls who became friends despite the differences between their families and personalities, but nothing came out of it, because simply labeling one girl as "shallow & pretty" and the other as "intelligent and plain" couldn't make for developing their characters. Actually I liked the stupid and pretty Lavinia better, she was at least some fun. Maude I can't say anything about for the life of me, and she was the stupider one, what with her being so oblivious about Jenny the servant or Simon or her mum. She only cared about herself. The mothers, the grandmother, the fathers were even worse, one-dimensional tools good only for thinking textbook thoughts about "the spirit of the day", politics, suffrage and such - no character development, no independent thought, just timid agreement to be obvious puppets of the author.The story was so predictable it was sad. Of course something bad was going to happen during the suffrage rally. Of course the poor boy would fall in love with rich ladies, and think about them lots of gentle stuff. Of course the independent woman would neglect her daughter. Of course all the internal monologues would consist entirely of hypocritical exclamations, declarations and declamations, what with all these persons being, y'know, Victorians and stuff.So why 2 stars? Because it was a fast read and I like POV changes. But grrr.
—Tocotin
