ed_moore's Reviews (345)

It’s always going to be difficult picking up and reopening a series that has already concluded, and Riggs certainly seemed to struggle in creating a new plot line and character arcs in ‘A Map of Days’. He focuses on another string of Jacob’s self-discovery, the first book of the series discovering his own peculiarity and his grandfathers and filling in the mystery of his grandfather’s childhood, and now in the ‘second trilogy’ Jacob seeks to uncover the gaps in his knowledge surrounding his grandfather’s years hollow-hunting in America. 

I think I largely struggled more with this book is because present day America is by no means the atmospheric and gothic setting of the books in the first trilogy, the peculiars going about this setting just feels wrong and its not got that moody atmosphere and history that these books thrive off. Building on this, the amount of plot conveniences employed just to keep the story moving at a fast place and get the characters out of sticky situations felt in a much greater volume than the other books. The

concluding fallout

was disappointing I also fear the novel is setting up a ‘chosen one’ narrative for the rest of the series which could get a bit cliche. I do also believe that Riggs regrets placing Claire among the main cast of peculiars, its quite amusing that she has somehow been written out of every book since the first one but still just lingering there, and while this happened to half the cast in this book its funny that she’s the only one to have been non-existent every time. 

I have been quite critical of ‘A Map of Days’, mainly as it is a massive fall-off from ‘Library of Souls’, but to give it some credit I did still devour it mostly in a a single day. (It’s been a stressful all-over-the-place one people I needed the escapism)

‘Never Let Me Go’ is a slow and quiet dystopian, so different in tone to the only other of Ishiguro I have read ‘Remains of the Day’, yet in its quiet style isn’t too far from it. Dystopians being ‘slow and quiet’ isn’t conventional, although I guess this is the reason so many reviews of this book try to hide what is dystopian about it.

It follows a trio of children: Cathy, Ruth and Tommy, as they grow up in a private school environment that has veiled intentions and a focus on the children’s individual creativity. I don’t think you are supposed to dislike her, but I just really didn’t get along with Ruth. It has the feeling that something is off, although the big twist as you learn what is dystopian about this world doesn’t feel like a huge moment. All the hush behind this twist made it feea l a little overwhelming as I was expecting something more and quickly the true intentions of Hailsham School became obvious to me. Don’t get me wrong, the dystopian nature of this version of Southern England is really disturbing and messed up, but wasn’t as stomach churning and jaw-dropping as I was anticipating it to be. It remains quiet throughout, but maybe that is the horror of it. 

Cormac McCarthy’s ‘The Road’ charts the journey of a man and his son across a dystopian America that has become an apocalyptic wasteland, this coast to coast trek mirroring McCarthy’s personal move. Despite the setting the main object of struggle in the dystopia is battle with the environment as cold, wind and storms tries to kill the man and the boy. Beyond this there is no context for this journey, the book is extremely frustrating as the boy will be injured and the man force him to keep walking, or they find a stocked bunker and just take some and leave as they have a journey to make, but the point of this journey is never addressed and its the most repetitive and uneventful plot of ‘nearly starving, finds food in some miracle, somehow ends up losing food, keeps walking for no reason’… 

Really the main failure of ‘The Road’ was its characterisation. It didn’t start well in not naming the two protagonists and therefore already giving the reader less to root for, but then the book is primarily told through their dialogue and it is the most poorly written and dull conversation. I’m not sure how old the son is supposed to be but he just asks the same basic questions and repeatedly answers only ‘okay’ or ‘I’m scared’, but generally the fathers answers are pretty flat and whilst the sons innocence comes through his sheer acceptance of whatever he is told and ignorance creates such a terrible conversational dynamic, and when most of the book is told through these conversations it just becomes bad writing. 

Really don’t see the acclaim for ‘The Road’ as regarding the spectre of the dystopian genre the world building is really weak and stereotypical and the stakes are dead and buried, and for a book that is supposedly driven by the intensity of familial love this too felt nearly non-existent.

This series had me enraptured and the conclusion to the initial trilogy was wonderful. The world building of Peculiardom expanding to Victorian England, with the unsettling atmosphere of the backwater slums of Devil’s Acre was really encapsulating of the unsettling undertone to the books and as were most of the peculiar charcters introduced. The pseudo-political worldbuilding surrounding the drug ambrosia was also really interesting, though I didn’t love the stereotypical final setting of the foreboding wight fortress, especially in the way it didn’t fit the setting, but also in this manner meets the conventions of Young Adult fiction and can be expected/forgiven. 

In line with the ominous setting, I also loved the introduction of Sharon and his mystery and attitude; even if his peculiarity is a little underwhelming. The third book seems to open up the possible worldbuilding so much more that I will be glad to dive into, but at the same time the conclusion, negating Riggs’ usual high-tension cliffhangers, felt very closed off and full of conveniences and with little place else to go.

‘The Alchemist’ is a short parable-like tale telling of a shepherd boy called Santiago who goes on a journey from Spain to Egypt in search of his personal legend to discover treasure. The work has been banned by the Iranian government, likely because Coelho’s editor tried to help a woman shot during Iranian elections, an action publicly supported by Coelho. 

The book reminded me much of Hesse’s ‘Siddhartha’, as an individual goes on a spiritual journey, learning important life lessons and making self-discoveries, though despite making the comparison I feel Hesse resonated with me a little more. It was a wholesome book however of personal growth and moral lesson that can teach you a lot about your outlook to life and your potential, pursuing ones own personal legend.

This turned out so disappointing, I wanted to love Hogg’s ‘Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ so much, its concept based on sins and murder committed by doppelgangers with the backdrop of gothic Edinburgh and the political instabilities of the Glorious Revolution, but I just sadly struggled to get on side with it. It retold the same story from the sinner, Robert’s, perspective and then the editor that found his manuscript of confessions, and Robert’s are just generally incoherent. Each sides of the story are unclear but Robert’s especially felt like a long religious discussion that lost a lot of the major events within its attempt to moralise the sins and present himself as a bystander to his actions. It’s made more confusing by the lack of chapters or even regular paragraph splits and most of the exciting moments Robert can’t remember himself doing and hence they are brushed over. Very sad as this had so much promise and just failed to deliver for me. 

Christie’s ‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’ is a classic locked room poisoning murder mystery, concerning the murder of Emily Inglethorp, the elderly owner of the Styles estate and boarding house. It’s classic in its method, investigation and the small pool of suspect all closely linked to one another, but in this very standard style it was the least engaging of the Christie’s that I have thus far read, although it was also her first mystery so this isn’t a huge surprise. In not having written any murders before her need to innovate was much lesser, resulting in a very traditional murder story but also unfortunately one that lacked the signature Agatha Christie twist. I did not have that spine chilling moment of revelation reading that I have had so many times with her books and honestly the conclusion of the case was quote predictable. It was still well written, just Christie’s standards are so high that her first Poirot novel is expectedly a little unremarkable. 

As for the quality of the narration, it would get a bump up for Wanda points (favourite narrator ever I have said many a time she is brilliant!) although the audio quality was not brilliant whatsoever making the read a little difficult to engage with and occasionally lines would be repeated, evidently some unedited sound mixing issue. Hence the Wanda points are nullified. 

‘Chain-Gang All-Stars’ is set in a dystopian America where as capital punishment prisoners can sign up for three years on the chain gang circuit, fighting weekly in a one-on-one match to the death that is broadcast in a ‘Hunger Games’ style public spectacle. Survive three years and the individual arrested for crimes such as murder and rape walks free a celebrated hero, but nobody ever makes it that far. 

Adeji-Brenyah writes a scathing criticism of capital punishment and the American prison system, criticising corrupt policing and racist judicial systems. Interwoven within the narrative are facts and statistics about the reality of the current judicial system which was an element I very much enjoyed. 

The concept and the world-building were really strong, though something prevented me fully getting into this book, perhaps the underlying factor that all the perspective characters were rapists and murderers and therefore found the adoration of them by the crowds really difficult to get onto the same page as. Part of this is down to the merit of the concept and has you questioning which degree of sympathy and just treatment these people deserve, because on the one hand the system mistreats them and the criticism of this is brilliant, on the other hand they are heralded as heroes for murder both outside of and now within the justice system. 

It’s a really difficult concept to grapple with, and there are scenes of protest in the book which opened it up to wider political stakes aligned with the perspective of the author, however these never really come to any conclusion, wether this be progressive outcomes or the regime prevailing, they are more just occurring in the background as focus remains on arena bloodshed. I also didn’t like the narration that much, it really played into characters but wasn’t my style (especially the voice of Simon J Kraft his perspective voice just went straight through you!) I also found that elements of this book felt like disconnected short stories and thought they did eventually converge it wasn’t in some sort of revolutionary moment as everything fits, hence the story felt like a very disconnected narrative. I eventually appreciated the other perspectives beside the primary one of Thruwar and Staxx as it added weight to the penultimate ending, but then found the definitive ending a little expected and weak. 

I feel like there’s so much more to say with this book but am already struggling not to present these opinions without spoilers, all in all this book had distinct pros and a little more blurred cons. 

Initial read 21st April 2025:
“this is no common accidental mimicry of sleep : the shreds and remnants of our days thoughts, put together at night in some fantastic incongruous form, the drifting clouds of a broken-up form piece themselves again into uncertain shapes of rocks and animals. No, no ! there must be some great and momentous meaning in this.” 

I found Ballie’s ‘The Dream’ to be a far-cry better than her other anti-hero focus play I had to read ‘De Montfort’. It focuses on a mysterious plague that has come over a town and the monks having the same recurring dream that is somehow related to the malady. It is full of the supernatural and murder and is really abstract and moody, this time the setting being well conveyed despite the play format. I also felt like the characters were more distinct, though some of the monks did blend into one another. I did however think it still fell a little short as though abstract in nature the whole phenomenon of the plague isn’t really addressed or resolved, nor the dream, nor the murder; so all in all brilliant vibes but not brought together in the best way.

Also there was randomly two act 2 scene 3's ??

Reread 27th May 2025:
Reread for my essay on religious corruption in regards to administration of justice in the gothic genre. Opinions remain the same and original rating is upheld. 

‘De Montfort’ is a play about the quarrels of two noblemen, Rezenvelt and De Montfort, and the disastrous effects of unreconciled grudges. I enjoyed the segments in the abbey towards the end of the play but generally wasn’t super engaged as I didn’t care for either side of the quarrel, there being no solid reasoning for the fight and for the audience to care who came out on top between the two men. The play format also meant that a lot of the setting that would have situated this within the gothic and made it more atmospheric felt lost, though it was somewhat created by the mix of feeling between Byronic brooding and the setup of Shakespearian Tragedy.