I read the reviews, all telling me that the book wasn't worth it and that I should not waste my time. I did not listen because I found the opening so beguiling that I did not know how a book could possibly end up being such a colassal failure--and I figured that, given the positive quotes on the back, it couldn't be ALL bad. Well, gentle reader, I am telling you now: the opening is more true than it wants to be. This book truly does NOT have any literary merit. Believe the reviews. As they did not sway me, I shall try to sway you to the best of my ability. This review will contain spoilers, but believe me when I say that it is necessary for me to reveal them in order to explain how awful this book truly is.The first and biggest problem is that this book really has a lot of wonderful concepts and character ideas, but has no idea of how to use them. For example, one of the characters, Thomas Cribb, experiences his life backwards, will be a child in the future and was an old man in the past, and remembers things backwards as well. It's a splendid concept. It's a pity, then, that NOTHING OF ANY IMPORTANCE IS DONE WITH MR. CRIBB. He seems tacked on, as if Mr. Barnes had the idea and decided to incorporate it without first figuring out what he was going to do with it. Or take The Prefects, a pair of magical, indestructable serial killers who are old but wear schoolboy uniforms, and go on and on talking in the kind of British slang that got subtitled in that "she shat on a turtle!" scene from "Austin Powers: Goldmember." They're great. They're funny. They're--dare I say it--almost iconic. It's a pity, then, that THEY ONLY SHOW UP IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE BOOK. I must also stress that NOTHING OF ANY IMPORTANCE IS DONE WITH THE PREFECTS. Or what of the Human Fly, a freakish thing we first see early on? Edward Moon, the book's primary protagonist, eventually realizes that he must track him down, but before any suspense can build, the Human Fly is dead. To kill a fascinating villain so early on was a ridiculous choice. Another potentially interesting character is Barabbas, who we get a little backstory about--though I'm sure it would have been much MORE interesting to actually SEE the events loosely described in the backstory unfold, rather than referencing them vaguely and expecting us to understand or care. And again, before ANYTHING of importance is done with Barabbas, he is killed--and his death serves no purpose either. Why, then, produce his character at all? And what of The Somnambulist himself? We are left with more questions than answers, I'm afraid. We are told that he either hates or fears Thomas Cribb, though we never find out why. At the end it is suggested that he may have been one of the giants of London, Gogg or Maggog, yet this, too, is left open. It is exceptionally disappointing how little this book does with its interesting characters. Meanwhile, we are also introduced to several thoroughly uninteresting characters that we have no reason to care about, and who also serve no purpose in the story, though we spend a lot of time with them.The second problem is that "The Somnambulist" quickly becomes...boring. The plot reaches a stand-still, with a long stretch in the middle where very little seems to happen. I felt like I was waiting for Moon to get off his ass and do some goddamned investigating. In the last third things started to finally pick up, but by then the plot had become so ridiculous, so unbelievable, and so poorly designed, that there was no thrill.Which brings us to problem number three. This book makes no sense. I realize it's intended to be a parody, but it's simply not funny enough to be effective as one, so we are left taking it almost seriously. In the final quarter of the book, the narrator reveals that he is, in fact, the villain of the book who has been behind everything, and did it all in order to bring Edward Moon into his clutches. Now, let's assume that it makes any sense for the villain to write this book about his nemesis tracking him down. I bought it--I thought it was an amusing idea, and by then I was so bored that I was happy for an injection of whackiness. But the problem is, it STILL doesn't make sense. Edward Moon walks right into the villain's building, even tries to go deeper down below. Does the villain take advantage of that fact? Nope. He waits for Moon to sneak in that night. Does the villain ever try to kidnap Moon before the scene that reveals that he's wanted Moon there from the start? Nope.The fourth problem is the repetition. There is repetition of language--characters keep sneering and yawning and careering. And there is repetition of plot--scenes are split into two or three repeat visits, when a single one would have done the job much more efficiently.Finally, the fifth problem is that, for all its self-deprecation, it simply isn't very funny, apart from the first few pages and the scenes with the Prefects. NOTHING is brought to its full potential here. Just as great characters are introduced but given no importance, the idea of this being a parody is also left in the dust. While I have a hard time saying the book starts to take itself seriously, it certainly does not seem sure of what it is doing.I'm sure that with more experience Jonathan Barnes may become a fine author. Little glimmers here and there show a unique voice, and he certainly does have grand ideas. I look forward to the day when he fully finds his voice, and discovers that grand ideas must be fully utilized in order to matter at all. I give this book 2 stars; one for the ideas, and one for the amusing first two chapters.
I should never read the plaudits plastered on the cover of a book, nor those that litter the first few pages. I am invariably annoyed by what I find and occasionally even led astray. Luckily with John Barnes’ The Somnambulist, I was mostly faced with the former brand of upset.According to the book company, Barnes’ style is a mix of Neil Gaiman, Clive Barker, Susannah Clarke and a little bit of Carl Hiassen. And maybe there is something to these comparisons, but mostly I think these names are lazy choices of a marketing department, choices that will sell more books rather than giving the reader a clear view of what they’re in for. I saw a whole lot more of Tim Powers in Barnes’ writing than anyone else, and was pleasantly surprised because of that. I could just be lazy at this point and leave it at: “ I saw a whole lot more of Tim Powers in Barnes’ writing,” but I am sure someone would call me on it so here are the connections to Powers:1. Romantic Poets Make an Appearance: Samuel Taylor Coleridge, or some semblance of him, takes part in Reverend Dr. Tan’s attempt to bring Pantisocracy to London with a bloody insurrection, and he’s joined by the left hand of Robert Southey, “several toes ... donated by Charles Lamb,” and some random organs from William Wordsworth.2. Fantastical Magic and Unexplained Phenomenon:The Somnambulist is full of Powers-esque moments of craziness, from a nine foot giant who inexplicably survives multiple impalings and loves his milk, to a pair of Angus Young-like uber-assassins who enter the fray at the behest of a nasty Albino. There is no explaining it, but then who would want to? 3. Steampunk Sci-Fi and Victorianism: There’s a touch of Frankenstein in the animation of Coleridge, and then a whole pile of the usual trappings of Steampunk: pseudo-science, Victorian gadgets, cops, robbers, government conspiracies, and all things Tim Powers. There are underground societies, far-seers who are forced to flee for their lives, and a pair of Holmesian puzzle solvers, a sort of Victorian Penn and Teller, at the heart of the bizarre mystery. So you see, it owes more to Tim Powers than his comrades-in-pens. And thank Jabber for that.
What do You think about The Somnambulist (2008)?
This book in insane in the best possible sense. I'm not sure I have ever come across more crazy wacky outrageous impossible magical and strange characters all packed in the same book. And it works. The madness of a plot, conspiracies and victorian mysteries and magic and mad poet followers and a titular mute giant with a fondness...no, passion for milk, the narration trickery, the quirks of the story telling, the whole thing miraculously works and oh so well. I've read this mad adventure in a day, just had to see what happens. Great book, highly recommended.
—Bandit
Ugh. Utter crap. The opening 100 pages or so a great, lots of intriguing characters, mysteries, supernatural goings-ons. But then, as the story progresses, it becomes more and more of a (if I may apply a literary term) clusterfuck. It's just a mess of idiocy, none of it particularly interesting. By the end, the main characters become lost in a crowd of Johnny-Come-Latelys that exert way too much influence over the story. And what do we call them, boys and girls? Deus ex machinas! That's right. And just because one of the characters admits to being just such a creative shortcut doesn't let the lazy author off the hook. An absolute waste of time.
—Eijomio23
When I read the "If you liked these , you will love The Somnambulist" list that Borders put together, I decided that Jonathan Barnes' debut would have to land on my "favorites" list. It was compared to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Neverwhere, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and The Prestige, some of my most favorite things ever. It was probably a mistake going into it with such high expectations, because although it was an excellent book, I felt disappointed after I turned the last page.This Victorian-era book is about a stage magician who also solves crimes for the police. He is a sort of Sherlock Holmes type, using his powers of ratiocination to untangle the threads that the police stumble over. The title refers to his assistant (both on stage and in his crime solving), a giant who doesn't speak. They start off investigating the deaths of two men, and uncover an entire plot against the city of London. It's slightly satirical of other books in the genre, in a very subtle way. And it's bizarre. It just gets weirder and weirder and it ends on an ambiguous note that left me wondering if I was satisfied or not. It was certainly an awesomely fun ride, but was it a great book? I can't decide.Its ambiguity was a plus for it, in some ways. Barnes did a very good job of not spelling everything out, and instead left some things to the imagination. The main character had some tragic incident in the last case he took on, and although it's referred to many times, it's never explained what happened. He never explains where the Somnambulist came from (he just showed up at the main character's door one night), or why he doesn't speak. There's a shadowy government group involved that never gets a full explanation. It lends an extra air of mystery to the already-mysterious plot.One thing I didn't understand was the title - both the reason for naming the character and for naming the book after him. There's only one throw-away line that mentions that he sleepwalks, and his sleepwalking never plays any part in the plot. It's a cool name, sure, but it doesn't serve any purpose.I'd probably feel better about it if I hadn't expected it to be my newest favorite book. I certainly recommend it to people looking for something fun to read.
—Brooke
