You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lizshayne 's review for:
Angelika Frankenstein Makes Her Match
by Sally Thorne
challenging
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
It's been a while since a 1 star, but I kept myself entertained during the last half of this book by imagining the things I would complain about in the review. (Yes, I have heard of DNF. One day I might even try it...)
Thorne says in the letter to Mary Shelley at the end that she played with the main characters like dolls and she's right. Paper thin cutouts with no personality who just say things in the moment because it's convenient but would never be mistaken for real. There was no sense of them as people, just as things doing something in this moment and then doing something else in the next moment. But I will focus on four complaints because they are fairly representative.
1) So much of this book was gratuitous. In this case, I'm thinking of the completely unnecessary love triangle. Why did we need that? Oh my god why are they obsessed with her.
2) Historical inaccuracies that served no reason. Why are all these Anglicans pretending to be Catholic? Why do they think clergy can't marry? What's up with the whole exercise and appreciation of musculature nonsense? Why are the Frankensteins British?
3) This book handled belief and theology really poorly. Victor's atheism—inspired by Percy's, yes—is shallow, but at least it's real and, like, as a religious person, the bits where prayer was invoked felt deeply cringey (I'm willing to concede that this may be my visceral dislike for Christian ideas of prayer, but still). Some of it was "why" but most of it was "ugh". Everyone felt like a caricature, which means that both the atheism and the reach for divinity suffered.
4) And if you think this book handles theology poorly, that's nothing on how it handles morality. The book tries to have this arc where Angelika becomes more aware of injustice and poverty, but it's all in the William Wordsworth "the poor exist for me to be kind to them" thing where poverty and suffering is for Angelika to grow and so it doesn't matter whether she's effective or actually helpful, just that she has feelings. None of which persists in the face of actual challenges; she reverts straight back to selfishness but I don't think we're supposed to notice. But she wants to be better. Also Thorne has a tendnecy to equate poverty and dirt with moral value and, like, that's not how people experiencing poverty usually behave. Thorne writes like she wants to care about important questions like the morality of DIY spousing, but she doesn't follow through. Ever.
Anyway, so, not my jam, not my donut.
Thorne says in the letter to Mary Shelley at the end that she played with the main characters like dolls and she's right. Paper thin cutouts with no personality who just say things in the moment because it's convenient but would never be mistaken for real. There was no sense of them as people, just as things doing something in this moment and then doing something else in the next moment. But I will focus on four complaints because they are fairly representative.
1) So much of this book was gratuitous. In this case, I'm thinking of the completely unnecessary love triangle. Why did we need that? Oh my god why are they obsessed with her.
2) Historical inaccuracies that served no reason. Why are all these Anglicans pretending to be Catholic? Why do they think clergy can't marry? What's up with the whole exercise and appreciation of musculature nonsense? Why are the Frankensteins British?
3) This book handled belief and theology really poorly. Victor's atheism—inspired by Percy's, yes—is shallow, but at least it's real and, like, as a religious person, the bits where prayer was invoked felt deeply cringey (I'm willing to concede that this may be my visceral dislike for Christian ideas of prayer, but still). Some of it was "why" but most of it was "ugh". Everyone felt like a caricature, which means that both the atheism and the reach for divinity suffered.
4) And if you think this book handles theology poorly, that's nothing on how it handles morality. The book tries to have this arc where Angelika becomes more aware of injustice and poverty, but it's all in the William Wordsworth "the poor exist for me to be kind to them" thing where poverty and suffering is for Angelika to grow and so it doesn't matter whether she's effective or actually helpful, just that she has feelings. None of which persists in the face of actual challenges; she reverts straight back to selfishness but I don't think we're supposed to notice. But she wants to be better. Also Thorne has a tendnecy to equate poverty and dirt with moral value and, like, that's not how people experiencing poverty usually behave. Thorne writes like she wants to care about important questions like the morality of DIY spousing, but she doesn't follow through. Ever.
Anyway, so, not my jam, not my donut.