What do you think?
Rate this book
Angelica
“A masterpiece . . . seamlessly mixes psychological disintegration, the dissolution of a marriage and . . . a classic ghost story.”— USA Today
NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE • NATIONAL BESTSELLER
“ Angelica impresses first as a clever send-up of the late Victorian novel, and then becomes its own very original thing. It is engrossing, deeply moving, and—precisely because it is moving—very frightening.”—Stephen King
London, the 1880s. In the dark of night, a chilling spectre is making its way through the Barton household, hovering over the sleeping daughter and terrorizing her fragile mother. Are these visions real, or is there something more sinister, and more human, to fear? As the family’s story is told several times from different perspectives, events are recast, sym- pathies shift, and nothing is as it seems.
Set at the dawn of psychoanalysis and the peak of spiritualism’s acceptance, Angelica is a spellbinding Victorian ghost story, an intriguing literary and psychological puzzle, and a thoroughly modern exploration of identity, reality, and love.
Praise for Angelica
“Starts as a ghost story . . . turns into a spectacular, ever-proliferating tale of mingled motives, psychological menace, and delicately told crises of appetite and loneliness.” — The New Yorker
“Spellbinding . . . cements this young novelist’s reputation as one of the best writers in America.” — The Washington Post Book World
NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE • NATIONAL BESTSELLER
“ Angelica impresses first as a clever send-up of the late Victorian novel, and then becomes its own very original thing. It is engrossing, deeply moving, and—precisely because it is moving—very frightening.”—Stephen King
London, the 1880s. In the dark of night, a chilling spectre is making its way through the Barton household, hovering over the sleeping daughter and terrorizing her fragile mother. Are these visions real, or is there something more sinister, and more human, to fear? As the family’s story is told several times from different perspectives, events are recast, sym- pathies shift, and nothing is as it seems.
Set at the dawn of psychoanalysis and the peak of spiritualism’s acceptance, Angelica is a spellbinding Victorian ghost story, an intriguing literary and psychological puzzle, and a thoroughly modern exploration of identity, reality, and love.
Praise for Angelica
“Starts as a ghost story . . . turns into a spectacular, ever-proliferating tale of mingled motives, psychological menace, and delicately told crises of appetite and loneliness.” — The New Yorker
“Spellbinding . . . cements this young novelist’s reputation as one of the best writers in America.” — The Washington Post Book World
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
42 people are currently reading
1403 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 212 reviews
December 8, 2009
“Rashomon” meets “The Turn of the Screw.” Wilkie Collins rewritten by Vladimir Nabokov. There are several high-concept ways to describe Arthur Phillips’ intriguing, sometimes head-spinning “Angelica.” It’s a wickedly ingenious deconstruction of a Victorian ghost story, but it’s also a whodunit, as well as a what-, when-, where-, how- and especially whydunit.
The premise is this: Constance Barton, after two miscarriages, gave birth to a daughter whom she and her husband, Joseph, named Angelica. The trauma of the failed pregnancies and the difficulty of Angelica’s birth have made Constance nervous about both Angelica’s health and her own. For the first four years of her life, Angelica has slept in a bed at the foot of Constance and Joseph’s. But now Joseph demands that the child be moved to the nursery they had prepared for her. Angelica seems perfectly happy with the arrangement, but once the move takes place, Constance begins experiencing strange phenomena – unusual, inexplicable smells and noises. And when she resumes sexual relations with Joseph, the phenomena get more vivid and terrifying. Constance rises from their bed every night to sleep in a chair beside Angelica’s bed to protect the child from this horror.
Joseph, a scientist, insists that nothing supernatural is going on, and he calls in a doctor to examine both mother and daughter. The physician finds nothing out of the ordinary, but his advice to Constance about sexual activity doesn’t reassure her. Finally, the Bartons’ maid-of-all-work, Nora, tells Constance about a spiritualist, Anne Montague, whose diagnosis is that Constance is suffering from “a projected manifestation, the physical embodiment of a living person’s overpotent emotions.” And so Joseph becomes the unwitting subject of their attempts to expel this malicious spirit.
That’s the setup as seen from Constance’s point of view. And given the novel’s place and milieu, Victorian London, it’s easy to guess that what we have here is a tale of sexual repression, medical ignorance and charlatanry. For the writer, the trick is to make what happens to Constance seem real without violating the reader’s skepticism. And here Phillips succeeds brilliantly; Constance’s story is as creepy and unsettling as you could want from even an unselfconscious tale of the supernatural.
But this is anything but an unselfconscious tale: The narrator tells us on the first page that it’s being presented “as a ghost story, since that was surely Constance’s experience of these events.” The narrator then shifts the point of view to that of Anne Montague, who turns out to be a failed stage actress eking out a living as a medium and ghostbuster. Then we get the point of view of Joseph, who is not entirely the harsh and unforgiving Victorian paterfamilias that Constance portrayed. And finally, Angelica herself ties up most – but certainly not all – of the loose ends. Clues, hints and secrets are nested throughout the novel, including the identity of the narrator, which is one of the novel’s lesser and most easily guessed secrets.
This is Phillips’ third novel. He made an impressive debut five years ago with “Prague,” the witty, insightful story of a group of North American expats in post-Cold War Budapest. (The misdirecting title of that novel is an instance of Phillips’ irrepressible tendency to play with the reader’s expectations.) He followed it with an entertaining mind-teaser called “The Egyptologist,” a boisterous tale of a con-game gone awry.
“Angelica” is more in the mode of the second novel than the first. What makes it work is Phillips’ skillful creation of a slightly out-of-focus Victorian world – jingoist, imperialist, class-conscious, riddled with lurking crime and unshakable prejudices, sexual naïveté and sexual predation. For some readers, the spot-on diction and circumlocutions of the narrative voice, a skillful pastiche of the Victorian novel, may be a barrier. Phillips certainly lays it on thick.
But the real weakness of the novel is that Phillips can be a chilly, cerebral author, especially when it comes to his characters. He understands them, he may even sympathize with them, but he doesn’t love them enough to make them full-bodied beings. And that detracts from the psychological insight necessary to make them, or the story, really memorable and plausible.
The denouement of “Angelica” recalls the kind of “shocking twist” that can be seen every week on TV shows like “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.” But because we don’t have a strong empathy with the characters, it fails to shock. We are left instead to admire the skill of the writer in concealing it from us for so long. If being teased by an enormously ingenious, generously gifted writer is enough for you, then “Angelica” delivers. But it’s time for Phillips to stop playing games and start delivering the kind of fiction that “Prague” suggested he was capable of: perceptive as well as clever.
The premise is this: Constance Barton, after two miscarriages, gave birth to a daughter whom she and her husband, Joseph, named Angelica. The trauma of the failed pregnancies and the difficulty of Angelica’s birth have made Constance nervous about both Angelica’s health and her own. For the first four years of her life, Angelica has slept in a bed at the foot of Constance and Joseph’s. But now Joseph demands that the child be moved to the nursery they had prepared for her. Angelica seems perfectly happy with the arrangement, but once the move takes place, Constance begins experiencing strange phenomena – unusual, inexplicable smells and noises. And when she resumes sexual relations with Joseph, the phenomena get more vivid and terrifying. Constance rises from their bed every night to sleep in a chair beside Angelica’s bed to protect the child from this horror.
Joseph, a scientist, insists that nothing supernatural is going on, and he calls in a doctor to examine both mother and daughter. The physician finds nothing out of the ordinary, but his advice to Constance about sexual activity doesn’t reassure her. Finally, the Bartons’ maid-of-all-work, Nora, tells Constance about a spiritualist, Anne Montague, whose diagnosis is that Constance is suffering from “a projected manifestation, the physical embodiment of a living person’s overpotent emotions.” And so Joseph becomes the unwitting subject of their attempts to expel this malicious spirit.
That’s the setup as seen from Constance’s point of view. And given the novel’s place and milieu, Victorian London, it’s easy to guess that what we have here is a tale of sexual repression, medical ignorance and charlatanry. For the writer, the trick is to make what happens to Constance seem real without violating the reader’s skepticism. And here Phillips succeeds brilliantly; Constance’s story is as creepy and unsettling as you could want from even an unselfconscious tale of the supernatural.
But this is anything but an unselfconscious tale: The narrator tells us on the first page that it’s being presented “as a ghost story, since that was surely Constance’s experience of these events.” The narrator then shifts the point of view to that of Anne Montague, who turns out to be a failed stage actress eking out a living as a medium and ghostbuster. Then we get the point of view of Joseph, who is not entirely the harsh and unforgiving Victorian paterfamilias that Constance portrayed. And finally, Angelica herself ties up most – but certainly not all – of the loose ends. Clues, hints and secrets are nested throughout the novel, including the identity of the narrator, which is one of the novel’s lesser and most easily guessed secrets.
This is Phillips’ third novel. He made an impressive debut five years ago with “Prague,” the witty, insightful story of a group of North American expats in post-Cold War Budapest. (The misdirecting title of that novel is an instance of Phillips’ irrepressible tendency to play with the reader’s expectations.) He followed it with an entertaining mind-teaser called “The Egyptologist,” a boisterous tale of a con-game gone awry.
“Angelica” is more in the mode of the second novel than the first. What makes it work is Phillips’ skillful creation of a slightly out-of-focus Victorian world – jingoist, imperialist, class-conscious, riddled with lurking crime and unshakable prejudices, sexual naïveté and sexual predation. For some readers, the spot-on diction and circumlocutions of the narrative voice, a skillful pastiche of the Victorian novel, may be a barrier. Phillips certainly lays it on thick.
But the real weakness of the novel is that Phillips can be a chilly, cerebral author, especially when it comes to his characters. He understands them, he may even sympathize with them, but he doesn’t love them enough to make them full-bodied beings. And that detracts from the psychological insight necessary to make them, or the story, really memorable and plausible.
The denouement of “Angelica” recalls the kind of “shocking twist” that can be seen every week on TV shows like “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.” But because we don’t have a strong empathy with the characters, it fails to shock. We are left instead to admire the skill of the writer in concealing it from us for so long. If being teased by an enormously ingenious, generously gifted writer is enough for you, then “Angelica” delivers. But it’s time for Phillips to stop playing games and start delivering the kind of fiction that “Prague” suggested he was capable of: perceptive as well as clever.
June 27, 2009
This book was terrible. It struggled through every page and sometimes had a hard time staying awake. Angelica is a advertised to be a ghost story, family tragedy, and mystery rolled up into one. The same set of events told from four different characters. Sounds promising right? It was terrible. There is no actual ghost story, and what family tragedy? Even after finishing I cannot figure out what actually happened. Maybe I am simply not intelligent enough to have understood the story, but I did have to get through 300 pages of sentences like this: "In such cases (perhaps the murderer so thoroughly described in the newspapers),one's watchful character simply went to sleep (as Angelica's had during her tantrum), and for the length of that slumber some other force took control of this flesh costume and went off to commit acts its choice, criminally concealed them from everyone, including the man most likely to be a witness or obstruction, that usual manager of these muscles and eyes, and, once sated, skulked back to its essary for his parasitical resident's seizure of power." Yeah, terrible.
August 31, 2021
This novel sat on my bookcase before I even heard of Goodreads; it is one of my oldest books to be read. After reading half of this book, I am dropping it. It seemed to have promise -- a Victorian ghost story that plays homage to Henry James' The Turn of the Screw. It is the tale of an upper class family, the Bartons, comprised of a father, mother, and the eponymous daughter. Friction already existing between the family members only become worse when the mother views a apparation of blue light hovering over her daughter's bed one night. Although it was well written, I could not get into the story and found its plot plodding. I finally could no longer push ahead hoping for better engagement.
August 30, 2024
He dudado mucho sobre la nota que le pondría ya que es un libro extraño. Narrado a cuatro voces, cada una de ellas en una parte del libro y cada una expresa como ha vivido la situación desde su punto de vista. Locura, machismo, malos entendidos, estafa, asesinato.. no sabes con qué versión quedarte hasta el final.
February 18, 2015
Arthur Phillips si è guadagnato la mia stima grazie a L'archeologo, uno dei romanzi più belli, complessi e dal finale più sorprendente che abbia mai letto. Anche in questo Angelica, di cui appresi ancora una volta grazie a una recensione sul Corriere, l'autore si diverte a non farci capire mai dove stia la verità in quello che narra, e dove invece la menzogna o l'auto-illusione.
La vicenda prende spunto da un evento a prima vista banale: siamo a Londra, in epoca vittoriana, a casa di Joseph e Constance Barton, che hanno una figlia, Angelica, di quattro anni. Sia la madre sia la figlia, al momento della nascita, hanno rischiato seriamente di morire (e la moglie aveva già avuto due gravidanze non portate a termine): questa e altre ragioni hanno consigliato che, fino ad ora, la bambina dormisse in un lettino nella stanza dei genitori. Ora però che Angelica è fuori pericolo, il padre pretende che vada a dormire nella sua stanzetta, anche per recuperare un po' di intimità con la moglie. Constance, fragile e tormentata, è spaventatissima all'idea, poiché i medici le hanno detto che se rimarrà di nuovo incinta metterà davvero a repentaglio la sua salute: quell'astinenza forzata e prolungata, e l'attaccamento esclusivo che la moglie prova per la figlia, stanno mettendo a dura prova la pazienza di Joseph. Da quando la bambina dorme lontano da loro, Constance inizia ad avvertire una presenza soprannaturale che la minaccia, che stranamente si fa avvertire sempre quando il marito cerca di entrare in intimità con lei...
La vicenda è raccontata prima dalla prospettiva di Constance, poi da quella di Anne, la sensitiva ciarlatana cui lei si rivolge, poi da quella di Joseph, e infine Angelica da adulta riflette sugli eventi (tragici) della sua infanzia. In 400 pagine sembra non succedere nulla di eclatante, ma proprio per questo cresce nella casa un'atmosfera claustrofica, morbosa, inquietante e infelice: e così, Constance si convince che la bambina sia minacciata dai fantasmi causati dai desideri del marito e che la colpevole sia anche lei stessa che non riesce a resistergli, la sensitiva si convince che la donna abbia "creato" da sé i fantasmi per mascherare il vero pericolo da cui vuole proteggere la figlia, che è troppo orribile da affrontare apertamente, e cioè che il padre abusi di lei, il marito a sua volta si convince che la moglie stia impazzendo e che sia ormai un pericolo per la bambina...
Angelica, da adulta, non sarà in grado di dire chi diceva "la verità" o chi "aveva ragione": se i fantasmi ci fossero, se suo padre fosse un bruto o se sua madre fosse pazza, e questo in ironico contrasto con il coevo trionfo del positivismo e della conoscenza scientifica e certa che si celebrava in quegli anni.
Quello che è immensamente triste ed emozionante è assistere pagina dopo pagina al naufragare del matrimonio dei Barton, in contrasto con i bei momenti in cui si erano conosciuti e innamorati che vengono rievocati in alcuni flashback, a causa dell'incapacità, o forse dell'impossibilità, vista l'epoca (nel romanzo emergono bene la sessuofobia, la repressione degli istinti, la mentalità maschilista per cui tutte le donne sono per natura "folli" e instabili e necessarie di correzione da parte dei loro mariti dell'epoca vittoriana), di comunicare fra marito e moglie.
4/5
http://moloch981.wordpress.com/2009/0...
La vicenda prende spunto da un evento a prima vista banale: siamo a Londra, in epoca vittoriana, a casa di Joseph e Constance Barton, che hanno una figlia, Angelica, di quattro anni. Sia la madre sia la figlia, al momento della nascita, hanno rischiato seriamente di morire (e la moglie aveva già avuto due gravidanze non portate a termine): questa e altre ragioni hanno consigliato che, fino ad ora, la bambina dormisse in un lettino nella stanza dei genitori. Ora però che Angelica è fuori pericolo, il padre pretende che vada a dormire nella sua stanzetta, anche per recuperare un po' di intimità con la moglie. Constance, fragile e tormentata, è spaventatissima all'idea, poiché i medici le hanno detto che se rimarrà di nuovo incinta metterà davvero a repentaglio la sua salute: quell'astinenza forzata e prolungata, e l'attaccamento esclusivo che la moglie prova per la figlia, stanno mettendo a dura prova la pazienza di Joseph. Da quando la bambina dorme lontano da loro, Constance inizia ad avvertire una presenza soprannaturale che la minaccia, che stranamente si fa avvertire sempre quando il marito cerca di entrare in intimità con lei...
La vicenda è raccontata prima dalla prospettiva di Constance, poi da quella di Anne, la sensitiva ciarlatana cui lei si rivolge, poi da quella di Joseph, e infine Angelica da adulta riflette sugli eventi (tragici) della sua infanzia. In 400 pagine sembra non succedere nulla di eclatante, ma proprio per questo cresce nella casa un'atmosfera claustrofica, morbosa, inquietante e infelice: e così, Constance si convince che la bambina sia minacciata dai fantasmi causati dai desideri del marito e che la colpevole sia anche lei stessa che non riesce a resistergli, la sensitiva si convince che la donna abbia "creato" da sé i fantasmi per mascherare il vero pericolo da cui vuole proteggere la figlia, che è troppo orribile da affrontare apertamente, e cioè che il padre abusi di lei, il marito a sua volta si convince che la moglie stia impazzendo e che sia ormai un pericolo per la bambina...
Angelica, da adulta, non sarà in grado di dire chi diceva "la verità" o chi "aveva ragione": se i fantasmi ci fossero, se suo padre fosse un bruto o se sua madre fosse pazza, e questo in ironico contrasto con il coevo trionfo del positivismo e della conoscenza scientifica e certa che si celebrava in quegli anni.
Quello che è immensamente triste ed emozionante è assistere pagina dopo pagina al naufragare del matrimonio dei Barton, in contrasto con i bei momenti in cui si erano conosciuti e innamorati che vengono rievocati in alcuni flashback, a causa dell'incapacità, o forse dell'impossibilità, vista l'epoca (nel romanzo emergono bene la sessuofobia, la repressione degli istinti, la mentalità maschilista per cui tutte le donne sono per natura "folli" e instabili e necessarie di correzione da parte dei loro mariti dell'epoca vittoriana), di comunicare fra marito e moglie.
4/5
http://moloch981.wordpress.com/2009/0...
August 18, 2012
I debated between whether to give this 2 stars or 4, so I settled on 3. This is one of the few books I've read and reviewed where I can honestly admit the jury's still out on whether I disliked it or liked it. Strange, no?
Phillips is a beautiful writer. I mean really, really good with creating textured sentences, mind-boggling prose. If I only had one-fifth of this guy's writing ability I'd be happy. So as far as just enjoying a wonderfully written piece of writing, this.is.it.folks.
It's complex, and deep, and Freudian - perhaps just too much for my personal reading preferences. I did like the POV changes between the four main characters. I thought it was a good touch to see how the same event can be perceived and rationalized in different ways, and how you as the reader are never sure which perception (if any) is the right one. And I suppose that's why the story left me confused, and unsatisfied as well. I generally like books that are resolved by the last page - it matters not if the resolution is positive or negative. But with Angelica, I wasn't able to do that.
This novel has been compared to Henry James The Turn of the Screw, but I can't honestly say if it merits that comparison (it's been a long time since I've read that book). But I do remember feelings of confusion and dissatisfaction over Screw, so maybe I just don't connect with books of this caliber.
Well, this isn't much of a review, but this was a difficult book for me to wrap my mind around. I will say I'll read more by Phillips, though. It's a pleasure to find a gifted writer, even when you can't always grasp what it is he's writing about :)
Phillips is a beautiful writer. I mean really, really good with creating textured sentences, mind-boggling prose. If I only had one-fifth of this guy's writing ability I'd be happy. So as far as just enjoying a wonderfully written piece of writing, this.is.it.folks.
It's complex, and deep, and Freudian - perhaps just too much for my personal reading preferences. I did like the POV changes between the four main characters. I thought it was a good touch to see how the same event can be perceived and rationalized in different ways, and how you as the reader are never sure which perception (if any) is the right one. And I suppose that's why the story left me confused, and unsatisfied as well. I generally like books that are resolved by the last page - it matters not if the resolution is positive or negative. But with Angelica, I wasn't able to do that.
This novel has been compared to Henry James The Turn of the Screw, but I can't honestly say if it merits that comparison (it's been a long time since I've read that book). But I do remember feelings of confusion and dissatisfaction over Screw, so maybe I just don't connect with books of this caliber.
Well, this isn't much of a review, but this was a difficult book for me to wrap my mind around. I will say I'll read more by Phillips, though. It's a pleasure to find a gifted writer, even when you can't always grasp what it is he's writing about :)
November 14, 2008
Oh Arthur Phillips, you are so frequently interesting, so infrequently engaging. Your characters are almost never likeable and your plotlines, even when steeped in the Victorian gothic as here, seem never to develop momentum or tension. I want to work with you on this, I really do, as both Prague and especially The Egyptologist show promise, and had potentially gripping motifs, but it is just not working this time. Sorry.
...
Alright, I persevered. I think a big part of the problem is that the back blurb gives away so much about the book as to sap over the first half of almost all momentum. IF YOU INTEND TO READ THIS BOOK, DO NOT READ ANYTHING ABOUT IT. So that's not really Phillips' fault. Unfortunately, about halfway was also where I understood what the ending would be. Even so, after that, the novel improves for a time, and I even started being less irritated with the cast. But then the end rolls around and just keeps explaining and reiterating and restating the plot, like the finale of a Colombo episode, until long after I had a fairly complete understanding, or any further interest.
...
Alright, I persevered. I think a big part of the problem is that the back blurb gives away so much about the book as to sap over the first half of almost all momentum. IF YOU INTEND TO READ THIS BOOK, DO NOT READ ANYTHING ABOUT IT. So that's not really Phillips' fault. Unfortunately, about halfway was also where I understood what the ending would be. Even so, after that, the novel improves for a time, and I even started being less irritated with the cast. But then the end rolls around and just keeps explaining and reiterating and restating the plot, like the finale of a Colombo episode, until long after I had a fairly complete understanding, or any further interest.
October 19, 2009
In late October, when one is sitting in a one's small warm room staring out into gray wet or bright bright day, one's thoughts cannot help but turn to the supernatural, spiritualists, madness, prisons, children, the sciences, the occult, new brides, old widows, Queen Victoria, Freud, Darwin, pixies, reading rooms, public houses, vivisection,mass murderers, confused constables, dead fathers, weeping mothers, prettier sisters, and reasonable brothers.
If you are searching for other and possibly more intelligent thoughts on these undoubtedly disturbing and morbid subjects, I would recommend settling in with a double feature of "Affinity" by Sarah Waters and "Angelica" by Arthur Phillips. Both upset my humors and made me hysterical. In a good Victorian suspense novel kinda way. The books are elegantly written novels exploring the tensions during the turn of the last century between the burgeoning sciences and waning spiritualism. Tensions between the sexes, the classes, between real human hungers and idealistic external behavior. Both explore these ideas through gripping plots, developed characters and believable mise-en-scene and aren't the least bit pedantic.
I recommend reading both in succession though, for perfect elemental balance: "Affinity" whips up wind and water while "Angelica" breathes fire and earth.
If you are searching for other and possibly more intelligent thoughts on these undoubtedly disturbing and morbid subjects, I would recommend settling in with a double feature of "Affinity" by Sarah Waters and "Angelica" by Arthur Phillips. Both upset my humors and made me hysterical. In a good Victorian suspense novel kinda way. The books are elegantly written novels exploring the tensions during the turn of the last century between the burgeoning sciences and waning spiritualism. Tensions between the sexes, the classes, between real human hungers and idealistic external behavior. Both explore these ideas through gripping plots, developed characters and believable mise-en-scene and aren't the least bit pedantic.
I recommend reading both in succession though, for perfect elemental balance: "Affinity" whips up wind and water while "Angelica" breathes fire and earth.
July 22, 2014
SPOILERS!! Speculations on ending!!
Pros: very well written Victorian-style language. A few interesting characters and some good psychological-thriller elements. The book is written from the perspective of several characters, and I thought that was well done, since my opinion of the characters (and my mental picture of them) changed with each perspective. I love the "unreliable narrator" technique, which was enough to earn the book an extra star on its own, although not nearly in the class of "The Turn of the Screw" or "The Haunting of Hill House", to which I saw it compared. Quick recommendation to readers who love this genre: "We Have Always Lived in the Castle".
Cons: Unfortunately, quite a few. The pacing is terrible, which does not reflect, as some readers have suggested, a Victorian style. The first half of the book is unbelievably slow. I kept wanting to scream "something happen! For the love of God, move the story along!". Then the last maybe 5% of the book dumps far more confusing and contradictory half-facts on you than you can handle and you are left confused and annoyed.
I hate loose ends. No, I don't mean the "mystery" of what happened to Joseph Barton. It seemed to me that the author was more or less telling you he was killed by Constance and hidden by Nora. But there are so many red herrings and half-mysteries that I was waiting for the end to see resolved. I feel like if an author keeps mentioning something it must be significant, so I was frankly expecting the mysterious London murderer to have some connection to the story. All those early references to hands coming to nothing! Joseph "loses" periods of time and that isn't significant enough to be explored? What is in the presses he keeps in the basement? What are the "symptoms" that Angelica is suffering in her 30's, to be seeking psychoanalysis? So many questions and instead of answering them the final chapter introduces a pile of new hints and implications about Constance's childhood!
Pros: very well written Victorian-style language. A few interesting characters and some good psychological-thriller elements. The book is written from the perspective of several characters, and I thought that was well done, since my opinion of the characters (and my mental picture of them) changed with each perspective. I love the "unreliable narrator" technique, which was enough to earn the book an extra star on its own, although not nearly in the class of "The Turn of the Screw" or "The Haunting of Hill House", to which I saw it compared. Quick recommendation to readers who love this genre: "We Have Always Lived in the Castle".
Cons: Unfortunately, quite a few. The pacing is terrible, which does not reflect, as some readers have suggested, a Victorian style. The first half of the book is unbelievably slow. I kept wanting to scream "something happen! For the love of God, move the story along!". Then the last maybe 5% of the book dumps far more confusing and contradictory half-facts on you than you can handle and you are left confused and annoyed.
I hate loose ends. No, I don't mean the "mystery" of what happened to Joseph Barton. It seemed to me that the author was more or less telling you he was killed by Constance and hidden by Nora. But there are so many red herrings and half-mysteries that I was waiting for the end to see resolved. I feel like if an author keeps mentioning something it must be significant, so I was frankly expecting the mysterious London murderer to have some connection to the story. All those early references to hands coming to nothing! Joseph "loses" periods of time and that isn't significant enough to be explored? What is in the presses he keeps in the basement? What are the "symptoms" that Angelica is suffering in her 30's, to be seeking psychoanalysis? So many questions and instead of answering them the final chapter introduces a pile of new hints and implications about Constance's childhood!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 28, 2016
I've had this book for ages and I've started it countless times and then bogged down, and stuck it back on the stack. Finally I decided...I WILL READ IT. And I've been trying, really I have. I only make myself read a chapter at a time, and then I can put it down. After a point, what IS the point to doing that? If I'm not enjoying a book I should jettison it. And so I finally skimmed through to the end, which I didn't really get. Reading other reviews I see that isn't unusual, the ending is ambiguous. Sigh. (I enjoyed "The Egyptologist", although it made me feel like an idiot because I just didn't get that ending at all, I had to keep reading about it until I finally figured it out. I zzzzzzzzzzed out on "The Tragedy of Arthur", and have tried but not engaged with "Prague". Maybe I should give up on Arthur for awhile, although I do think he is talented. Oh, and I noticed that he is involved with Season Two of "Bloodline", on Netflix, which certainly had a bizarre cliffhanger of an ending. Maybe Arthur is just a weird dude.)
October 26, 2012
Constance Barton has had enough miscarriages that the doctors now forbid her to have intercourse with her husband, for one more pregnancy will likely kill her. She begins to fear his every touch, but when a strange spirit seems to be attacking their daughter, she starts to see connections between it and her husband's behavior. She hires a spiritualist, but it may already be too late. The story is told from four points of view, one after the other, each adding a new layer to the confusion. Is there really a ghost or is it hokum? Is the spiritualist a charlatan or can she really help? Much of the drama stems from the Victorian mores and inability to discuss anything frankly, which is kind of annoying to my modern sensibilities. I kept hoping for something truly interesting to happen, but in the end, it really didn't. I was kind of meh about the whole thing, hoping for something a little bit more epic. Ah well.
April 2, 2008
I read Prague a few years back, (also by Phillips) and like this one it was well written, but lacking something. It's the story of a family who is haunted by alternately a "ghost" or a psychosis-take your pick- from the perspectives of the main characters involved and presented in three separate sections: a lesson in the subjective nature of experience. But, the machinations of the author were too transparent. I found the first narrator, the mother, very unsympathetic which prevented me from truly suspending my disbelief regarding her view of events and instead made me more willing to "side" with her rationalist, scientist husband. It left me wishing that the ghost story aspect was more compelling, (scarier, more along the lines of the Turn of the Screw) and that Phillips was a better writer.
December 15, 2010
I listened to this as a book on cassette. My disclaimer to the readers of this review is that the annoying voice of the narrator on the cassette tapes may have effected my judgment of the book.
This was agony to get through. I appreciated the unique viewpoints but all of the characters were deplorable. I simply could not get "into" it without a single likable character. It's not just that they were not likable, I really tried to like them, and ended up detesting them all. I found myself yelling at the cassette player to move it along because I was bored to tears with long narratives and monologues.
Perhaps the Victorian writing style was completely lost on me because I do not value it one bit.
This was agony to get through. I appreciated the unique viewpoints but all of the characters were deplorable. I simply could not get "into" it without a single likable character. It's not just that they were not likable, I really tried to like them, and ended up detesting them all. I found myself yelling at the cassette player to move it along because I was bored to tears with long narratives and monologues.
Perhaps the Victorian writing style was completely lost on me because I do not value it one bit.
December 23, 2007
I remember not really liking Phillips' The Egyptologist, but this has been getting good reviews and the descriptions seemed intriguing--a Victorian ghost story, a terrible family tragedy, etc. Each of the four protagonists has a turn narrating the novel, which isn't a ghost story, and the tragedy is debatable. Then ending is really stupid and totally unsatisfying. Maybe this would be a better book if it wasn't billed as all spooky and cool, since it is neither of those things, but is primarily annoying. C-.
January 3, 2011
Hated this book with a burning passion. Terribly written, terrible characters, stupidest plot....just one of the worst books I've ever read (though I couldn't finish it). I really liked Phillips' The Egyptologist, so this one was really disappointing. (This book was so bad, it actually really pissed me off!)
September 21, 2018
[ptêtre bien 2.5/5]
J'ai tellement cru que je n'en verrai pas le bout que mon avis sera bref.
Ce roman est d'une écriture pompeuse qui ne manque pas cependant d'un certain charme (soporifique diront certains, c'est vrai que je m'endormais facilement avec ce livre de chevet) mais très décevant si, comme moi, vous attendez du palpitant et un registre fantastique. Le quatrième de couverture est une belle arnaque, je m'incline ! Disons que je m'attendais à tout autre chose et que je suis déçue.
Ce n'est au final qu'un drame familial pour lequel il faut attendre les toutes dernières pages pour comprendre ou devrais-je dire deviner la vérité car l'auteur adooore les phrases longues et brumeuses, avec du mystère et des métaphores. Toutefois, j'ai fini ce roman sans même passer de pages ! Mais je ne le recommanderais pas pour autant.
J'ai tellement cru que je n'en verrai pas le bout que mon avis sera bref.
Ce roman est d'une écriture pompeuse qui ne manque pas cependant d'un certain charme (soporifique diront certains, c'est vrai que je m'endormais facilement avec ce livre de chevet) mais très décevant si, comme moi, vous attendez du palpitant et un registre fantastique. Le quatrième de couverture est une belle arnaque, je m'incline ! Disons que je m'attendais à tout autre chose et que je suis déçue.
Ce n'est au final qu'un drame familial pour lequel il faut attendre les toutes dernières pages pour comprendre ou devrais-je dire deviner la vérité car l'auteur adooore les phrases longues et brumeuses, avec du mystère et des métaphores. Toutefois, j'ai fini ce roman sans même passer de pages ! Mais je ne le recommanderais pas pour autant.
April 7, 2022
Read for ENG 410. I want to hate this book considering how frustratingly vague the end is, but I also know that’s the point—the human mind tricks itself, and everyone believes themselves to be the hero of their story. I was very drawn into the mystery and landed on a conclusion that satisfies me even if the story refuses to confirm or deny it. All in all, I liked it a lot more than I thought I would but I would never recommend it to anyone.
January 16, 2020
A family haunted by ghosts both real and imagined, told in four parts, each from the remembrance of one of the four people intimately involved.
May 12, 2012
I finished this book about a month ago but I can't stop thinking about it. It has taken me this long to put my thoughts together to finally write this review. In many ways, Angelica reminded me of The Turn of the Screw in which a household seems to be plagued by a supposed ghost. Similar to the Turn of the Screw, Angelica is set in the 1800s and revolves around a deteriorating family. Constance and her husband, Joseph, are in a failing marriage which causes Constance to retreat into herself and her relationship with her daughter. She wins the affection of her daughter, Angelica, and uses this against Joseph. Previous to Angelica's birth, Constance suffered numerous failed pregnancies and was told that any pregnancy brought to term could kill her and the child. Angelica's birth almost killed both her and Constance and therefore Constance was told to stop any relations with her husband that could result in a pregnancy. However, Joseph still demands her physical attentions.
These hazardous personal relationships are the backdrop to the ghost story that begins when Constance believes that she sees a ghost. She believes the spirit to be malevolent and thinks that it plans to hurt Angelica. Joseph does not believe his wife's dramatics and, once again, Angelica is caught between her two parents. Constance seeks out spiritual help to cleanse the house while Joseph calls in the help of a psychiatrist for his wife. However, Angelica may not be the innocent child that both of her parents believe her to be. In fact, she might be just has conniving as they are.
Similar to The Turn of the Screw, Angelica is much more than just a ghost story. In fact, there may not even be a ghost at all! Phillips is extraordinary in exposing all sides of the story to the reader. The story is told in four sections that are each narrated by a different character. Still, it is extremely difficult to figure out which perspective is truthful because each narrator contradicts the previous ones.
Clearly, Angelica is much more than just a ghost story. It is a study in characters, relationships, and the results of being pushed to one's breaking point. In addition, it documents the historic clash between spiritualism/folklore and medicine/science. An excellent read that will have you thinking about the characters months after you finish!
www.iamliteraryaddicted.blogspot.com
These hazardous personal relationships are the backdrop to the ghost story that begins when Constance believes that she sees a ghost. She believes the spirit to be malevolent and thinks that it plans to hurt Angelica. Joseph does not believe his wife's dramatics and, once again, Angelica is caught between her two parents. Constance seeks out spiritual help to cleanse the house while Joseph calls in the help of a psychiatrist for his wife. However, Angelica may not be the innocent child that both of her parents believe her to be. In fact, she might be just has conniving as they are.
Similar to The Turn of the Screw, Angelica is much more than just a ghost story. In fact, there may not even be a ghost at all! Phillips is extraordinary in exposing all sides of the story to the reader. The story is told in four sections that are each narrated by a different character. Still, it is extremely difficult to figure out which perspective is truthful because each narrator contradicts the previous ones.
Clearly, Angelica is much more than just a ghost story. It is a study in characters, relationships, and the results of being pushed to one's breaking point. In addition, it documents the historic clash between spiritualism/folklore and medicine/science. An excellent read that will have you thinking about the characters months after you finish!
www.iamliteraryaddicted.blogspot.com
October 18, 2016
2.5 stars
The book is broken down into four sections - each section tells the same story, but from the differing points of view of the four major players in the plot. The first section - from Constance's (the mother) point of view - is the strongest and has the most supernatural, ghostly feel. From there, the story becomes less about the supernatural and more about the facts, as the other characters - whether from profession (Joseph-the father; Anne-the "medium") or from youth (Angelica-the daughter) - do not share Constance's predilection for belief in the supernatural.
By the end, we find that the book's entire premise is built upon questioning the reliability of any of the accounts. Memory can be mistaken and warped due to age and understanding. And while I agree that facts become twisted based based on memory, and that different people remember the same incidents differently, it is a disappointing end to the book. No answers are to be had.
I do think the writing style seems very authentic to the time-period in which the story is based. I was surprised to find that this was a fairly recent publication and not one that was written more closely to the time-period in which it is set (Victorian). So I give it kudos for that. I also really enjoyed the first section - Constance's view point. It was good that it appeared as the first chapter, as it pulled me in right away. Also lucky that it was the lengthiest of the sections.
The book is broken down into four sections - each section tells the same story, but from the differing points of view of the four major players in the plot. The first section - from Constance's (the mother) point of view - is the strongest and has the most supernatural, ghostly feel. From there, the story becomes less about the supernatural and more about the facts, as the other characters - whether from profession (Joseph-the father; Anne-the "medium") or from youth (Angelica-the daughter) - do not share Constance's predilection for belief in the supernatural.
By the end, we find that the book's entire premise is built upon questioning the reliability of any of the accounts. Memory can be mistaken and warped due to age and understanding. And while I agree that facts become twisted based based on memory, and that different people remember the same incidents differently, it is a disappointing end to the book. No answers are to be had.
I do think the writing style seems very authentic to the time-period in which the story is based. I was surprised to find that this was a fairly recent publication and not one that was written more closely to the time-period in which it is set (Victorian). So I give it kudos for that. I also really enjoyed the first section - Constance's view point. It was good that it appeared as the first chapter, as it pulled me in right away. Also lucky that it was the lengthiest of the sections.
January 4, 2017
What is truth? What is reality? These are the questions surrounding a story told in 4 parts. This book reminded me of the Hilary and Jackie movie told in two parts, two perspectives, wildly different. The reality is you never know what the "real story" is by the end. And that's the point.
My 2nd Arthur Phillips. I picked up Prague on a whim MANY years ago and remember loving it. I enjoy reading books by the same author so was looking forward to another mind-bending, if a bit dizzying, writing style I enjoyed from Phillips last time.
THAT BEING SAID - not as good as Prague. I still loved Phillips writing style, if not made more complex by the Victorian style influences, but that was not an issue for me. By no means an easy read, be thus warned. Your interactions with the characters hold them at arms length. You're not invested in any of them. Which I don't love. The conversations between the men regarding the women in their lives was fascinating, the perspective and role of women in the Victoria Era.
This book was more about questions than answers. Don't focus on the "whodunnits" and you'll enjoy the read more.There is no resolution, so if you can't stand that in a story don't even bother with it.
My 2nd Arthur Phillips. I picked up Prague on a whim MANY years ago and remember loving it. I enjoy reading books by the same author so was looking forward to another mind-bending, if a bit dizzying, writing style I enjoyed from Phillips last time.
THAT BEING SAID - not as good as Prague. I still loved Phillips writing style, if not made more complex by the Victorian style influences, but that was not an issue for me. By no means an easy read, be thus warned. Your interactions with the characters hold them at arms length. You're not invested in any of them. Which I don't love. The conversations between the men regarding the women in their lives was fascinating, the perspective and role of women in the Victoria Era.
This book was more about questions than answers. Don't focus on the "whodunnits" and you'll enjoy the read more.There is no resolution, so if you can't stand that in a story don't even bother with it.
February 5, 2012
Comparisons to Henry James' "Turn of the Screw" are inevitable, and yet that old chestnut was at its heart a ghost story. "Angelica" is something different, despite the fact that it seems to be categorized as a ghostly tale. In the end, I'm still undecided whether it is a deceptively brilliant book, or just irritatingly vague and obfuscational in order to suggest something deeper. It kept me reading to the end, but undoubtedly many readers will find it frustratingly repetitive (with the same narrative repeated by 4 different unreliable narrators) and maddeningly inconclusive. The book virtually seeths with repressed (or is it surpressed?) sexuality and shockingly unabashed sexism (on both sides of the gender fence). If you are in the mood for a cerebral and psychological mystery (with a suggestion of the supernatural) reflected in the distorted lookingglass of Victorian sensibilities, this is assuredly your best bet. You won't find any better. In true Victorian style, the pacing can feel sluggish to many modern readers. If all this sounds like an incredible bore to you, well, there are plenty of other books out there more to your liking.
July 14, 2013
Une mère, soumise malgré sa santé fragile aux envies charnelles de son époux, se met à soupçonner la présence d'apparitions qui menacent sa petite fille et fait appel à l'assistance d'une exorciste… Entre roman victorien, occulte et psychologie, cet ouvrage est un peu inclassable. Narré sous quatre points de vue qui se suivent, c'est un véritable dédale où la vérité prend un malin plaisir à prétendre se laisser entrevoir pour mieux s'échapper ensuite. Jeune femme maltraitée ou hystérique sujette aux hallucinations, homme brutal et déplaisant ou époux faible et malmené, actrice passée maître dans l'art de l'escroquerie ou femme de cœur déterminée à venir en aide à une autre ? Chaque personnage a de multiples facettes qui se révèlent au gré des perceptions diverses — et quel est le rôle, dans tout cela, de la petite Angelica ? Ce livre m'a réellement passionnée, et d'autant plus au fil des relectures. Il se redécouvre à la lumière de sa fin, et il est fascinant de mettre en parallèle les différentes parties qui exposent des événements rigoureusement identiques sous des points de vue radicalement différents. À découvrir à tout prix !
Read
August 10, 2009I can't keep reading this book. I'm about 100 pages in out of 350 or so and I just don't like it. It is a ghost story that is supposed to be told from 4 different points of view. I'm most of the way through the mother's point of view (this is the first and longest POV) and I am just bored to death and more importantly, I don't care at all. I picked this book up because it was recommended by Stephen King in an EW article but I don't think I can finish. I tried to pause this book for a while and read something else, but I'm still not enjoying it more.
If I had read reviews saying that the ending was worth it, I would have stuck this one out. But most of the reviews that say they weren't loving the book but kept going to find out the ending mentioned that they thought the ending stunk. So there went my final hope.
If anyone would get through this and would care to share how it ends with me, let me know! I'm not going to rate this one because I don't think it would be fair to do so without finishing. But I definitely didn't like what I read and wouldn't recommend it.
If I had read reviews saying that the ending was worth it, I would have stuck this one out. But most of the reviews that say they weren't loving the book but kept going to find out the ending mentioned that they thought the ending stunk. So there went my final hope.
If anyone would get through this and would care to share how it ends with me, let me know! I'm not going to rate this one because I don't think it would be fair to do so without finishing. But I definitely didn't like what I read and wouldn't recommend it.
Read
February 5, 2009In Angelica, the talented Arthur Phillips (Prague, ***1/2 Nov/Dec 2002) pays homage to Henry James's famous ghost story, "The Turn of the Screw," but piles on multiple viewpoints to add maddening and obscure layers to the story. Reviewers loved the way Phillips tackles Freudian issues and shows how men and women process the same narrative differently. His pacing may strike some as slow__it is a Victorian novel, after all__but it yields a chilling, surprising tale of great psychological depth. "Readers seeking linearity and simplicity would do well to avoid Phillips' work," suggests the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Those comfortable with a layered open-endedness, however, should enjoy it, then linger over its intellectually satisfying vapors."
This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.
June 9, 2018
Angelica begins as a Victorian ghost story and ends as a psychological novel. In a manner similar to The Instance of the Fingerpost, the story is told and retold four times:
first from the view of the hysterical, haunted mother, second from the charlatan spiritualist and third, from the cold, domineering father. Each version manipulates the reader's perspective, fears and sympathies in a different manner and upends previous assumptions.
The final entry is sure to frustrate some readers and please others. Like in The Egyptologist, Phillips plays with truth and perception: “If each of the players performed his own unconnected drama, then it is only in the intersection of those drama that my life can be seen, though the latticed spaced where light can pass between three stories laid over each other.”
first from the view of the hysterical, haunted mother, second from the charlatan spiritualist and third, from the cold, domineering father. Each version manipulates the reader's perspective, fears and sympathies in a different manner and upends previous assumptions.
The final entry is sure to frustrate some readers and please others. Like in The Egyptologist, Phillips plays with truth and perception: “If each of the players performed his own unconnected drama, then it is only in the intersection of those drama that my life can be seen, though the latticed spaced where light can pass between three stories laid over each other.”
November 20, 2012
I wanted to like this book, I really wanted to like this book. I read it in only a couple days, not because I was utterly enthralled by the story but because I couldn't wait to be done with it.
It's a ghost story. Or is it? I can't possibly say after having read the whole thing.
One good thing about the book is that it's told in four parts, each focusing on the same story through the perspective of each of the four main characters. That in itself could have been pretty interesting if it weren't for the overly dramatic and confusing language which at times is so overly flowery that it's unreadable. At times I found myself skipping over entire passages (if you make it through to read some of Dr. Miles dialogue, you'll know what I'm saying).
In the end I'm not sure if it's a ghost story, a story of madness, a story of unwarranted blame or WHAT. Very frustrating book.
It's a ghost story. Or is it? I can't possibly say after having read the whole thing.
One good thing about the book is that it's told in four parts, each focusing on the same story through the perspective of each of the four main characters. That in itself could have been pretty interesting if it weren't for the overly dramatic and confusing language which at times is so overly flowery that it's unreadable. At times I found myself skipping over entire passages (if you make it through to read some of Dr. Miles dialogue, you'll know what I'm saying).
In the end I'm not sure if it's a ghost story, a story of madness, a story of unwarranted blame or WHAT. Very frustrating book.
July 18, 2009
As Randy Jackson would say, "This one was just okay for me, Dawg." The book jacket's promise of a Victorian ghost story had me intrigued, but as I continued through the story, I kept waiting for something more to happen and it never really did. Part one is written from the point of view of Constance, the mother. This section was interesting. Where it lost me as an interested reader was in parts two and three where the story is told again and then yet again from the point of views of two more major characters. These two sections are long, tedious and redundant at times. Part four the book back around to some interesting points, but by then the previous two sections had irritated me so much that I was pretty ambivalent to the book by then.
March 29, 2008
I thought this book would be cool from the review I read on the blog The Millions, but I had a hard time getting into it. I had a hard time caring about the plight of the main character in the first part of the book and got tired of the constant "avoid-sex" games -- whether she didn't get knocked up and lived, or got knocked up and died was not relevant in my opinion. I was hoping she would get knocked up and die off and then we could move on to the psycho freak husband or kid. Anyway, I returned that book to the library before finishing it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 212 reviews