Take a photo of a barcode or cover
randi_jo 's review for:
What Moves the Dead
by T. Kingfisher
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
2.5 stars because I feel disappointed.
Actually I think I'm just inordinately maddened that this was/is(?) considered gothic fiction. It's really not. In fact, I'd challenge that it's anti-gothic fiction or maybe even a bad satire of gothic fiction. The only gothic elements in here are what's borrowed from "The Fall of the House of Usher" and even most of those are blasted away by bringing in science; i.e. miasma isn't real because now we have germ theory!, the tarn probably glows because of bioluminescent algae!,the dead reanimate because of a fungus similar to ones found in nature but we'll slap it on humans!, there is no need to fear the future because we know what anti-fungal is and dues ex machina'd some into the ending! Just because the architecture keeps being literally described as "Gothic" does not make the story gothic fiction. I have been harboring this since page 15.
The fear of the past, the claustrophobia, the unknown, the supernatural -- these are things that are missing from this book to make it gothic - and by association, scary. I would hardly even call this book tense, but I will give it to horror because if anything, it does have body horror elements.
The prose itself was fun, the humor good even if a bit misplaced for the book's time setting. The inclusion of thefungus was a pretty fun idea, even if the use of Cordyceps to create zombie-like animation in corpses/people has been a pretty big fiction phenomena since like, 2013 with the release of The Last of Us .
I'll try out some other T. Kingfisher novels in the future where maybe I don't like the original work so much. But maybe I'm just not a fan of retellings in general. Guess I'll need to find out.
Actually I think I'm just inordinately maddened that this was/is(?) considered gothic fiction. It's really not. In fact, I'd challenge that it's anti-gothic fiction or maybe even a bad satire of gothic fiction. The only gothic elements in here are what's borrowed from "The Fall of the House of Usher" and even most of those are blasted away by bringing in science; i.e. miasma isn't real because now we have germ theory!, the tarn probably glows because of bioluminescent algae!,
The fear of the past, the claustrophobia, the unknown, the supernatural -- these are things that are missing from this book to make it gothic - and by association, scary. I would hardly even call this book tense, but I will give it to horror because if anything, it does have body horror elements.
The prose itself was fun, the humor good even if a bit misplaced for the book's time setting. The inclusion of the
I'll try out some other T. Kingfisher novels in the future where maybe I don't like the original work so much. But maybe I'm just not a fan of retellings in general. Guess I'll need to find out.