Right! So. Overall, this book was a miss for me, but it’s not that it was bad. It’s of a style that immediately drew me in—both in the writing and in the type of story it is (I really love the dark, mysterious, gothic-style type of story). It effortlessly kept my interest (though I did get impatient with it here and there, but I’ll expound on that later), and it had a general condemning of wickedness and selfishness and immortality and a general praising of goodness. I appreciated the richness of the historical setting, bringing in many actual events and conflicts and differing beliefs and people of the time in a way that was informative and engaging.
Now, for the reasons why this one didn’t quite work for me. I’ll endeavor to explain, but I’m not sure how well I’ll be able to articulate it without giving part of the plot away. The necessary vagueness will perhaps make my points difficult to understand.
First I’ll say that while I’ve seen this book compared to Jane Eyre, I found it much more similar to The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. In fact, it was so similar that it was inevitable that I should compare the two, and that was, unfortunately, to this book’s detriment. I’ll do my best not to be too spoilery for either book, but a lot of the things I’ll discuss that are things that are (in my opinion) quite apparent from the outset.
In both books, we have setup of the fairly “innocent young woman” drawn to making similar bad decisions. Right away, I felt a keen distinction in how effective Tenant was in this over Dragonwyck. Part of this divergence lies in how real and nuanced Tenant felt to me over Dragonwyck.
With Helen’s “bad decision” in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, there is such a strong impression of how easily many a young woman could be led to making a similar decision. As the reader, you feel the dread and the desire to say, “No! Don’t do it!” but her doing it, and her reasons for doing it, feel so very honest and real and, as a result, genuinely sobering and thought provoking. With Dragonwyck, there is, in contrast, a strong sense of unreality. There is a strong emphasis placed on how preternatural Nicholas is as a character, for example, and that makes everything connected to him feel preternatural and therefore somewhat irrelevant to real life (Nicholas is one of the two central characters in the story, and nearly everything in the book is connected to him). This general theme carries throughout. Things are done in such a way that they feel so on the nose that they lose their power/effectiveness. This is part of the reason I grew impatient here and there; it felt pretty apparent where certain things were going, so I got impatient for them to just go ahead and happen.
In the same spirit as this general “on the noseness” was the fact of things being put in a very general, rather than personal or nuanced, way. For example, our protagonist, Miranda, starts out being generally bored with the Bible and Christianity and thinking it’s mostly a tool her father uses to get his way (but she still generally believes in its veracity), to then neglecting the idea of God or religion entirely, to then reading the Bible for solace in trouble, but there’s nothing personal in it. There’s nothing real or honest in it in terms of a real encounter with God or any kind of real belief in Christianity or anything of that nature. There is a turning towards repentance in the story, but even in that, it’s not a turning towards God; it has a decidedly more humanist feel of turning towards being generally less selfish and more moral and being a “good person”, rather than submitting to and surrendering one’s life to God.
Similar vagueness lies in many of the ominous hints and forebodings throughout the story that have to do with mysteries and hauntings of Dragonwyck (an old house) and the “evil” that resides there… that end up being quite nothingy and underdeveloped, in the end; quite underutilized.
Ultimately, though this book had a generally “good message,” there was much about it that felt broad and general and shallow and therefore lacking the impact it wanted to have. And even some of the “goodness” presented was still rather immoral in my opinion (one of the most “virtuous/good/noble” characters in the story was rather immoral in one key area of life).
It wasn’t a terrible book; it kept me interested; but it was a book that I found to be lacking. It didn’t say altogether much; what it did say was pretty obvious and general; and the darker (and more basely sensual) aspects of the tale weren’t balanced with a strong payoff of Truth and Beauty (though an attempt at this was made, for me it very much failed).
There are other books out there of a similar style that have far more depth and genuine emotion. And there are other books out there of a similar style that aren’t especially deep but that use the drama and excitement of the mysterious gothic setting in a way that’s SUPER fun and effective. This book, for me, didn’t do either. It kind of failed in delivering on some of the more gothic, brooding elements. And it failed in being as meaningful and profound as it seemed to be trying to be. So… I would recommend any of those other books over this one 🙈