What do you think?
Rate this book
Charles Maddox #3
A Fatal Likeness
A mystery that explores the dark lives and unexplained secrets of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
In the dying days of 1850 the young detective Charles Maddox takes on a new case. His client? The only surviving son of the long-dead poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
Charles soon finds himself being drawn into the bitter battle being waged over the poet’s literary legacy, but then he makes a chance discovery that raises new doubts about the death of Shelley’s first wife, Harriet, and he starts to question whether she did indeed kill herself, or whether what really happened was far more sinister than suicide.
As he’s drawn deeper into the tangled web of the past, Charles discovers darker and more disturbing secrets, until he comes face to face with the terrible possibility that his own great-uncle is implicated in a conspiracy to conceal the truth that stretches back more than thirty years.
The story of the Shelleys is one of love and death, of loss and betrayal. In this follow-up to the acclaimed Tom-All-Alone’s, Lynn Shepherd offers her own fictional version of that story, which suggests new and shocking answers to mysteries that still persist to this day, and have never yet been fully explained.
In the dying days of 1850 the young detective Charles Maddox takes on a new case. His client? The only surviving son of the long-dead poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
Charles soon finds himself being drawn into the bitter battle being waged over the poet’s literary legacy, but then he makes a chance discovery that raises new doubts about the death of Shelley’s first wife, Harriet, and he starts to question whether she did indeed kill herself, or whether what really happened was far more sinister than suicide.
As he’s drawn deeper into the tangled web of the past, Charles discovers darker and more disturbing secrets, until he comes face to face with the terrible possibility that his own great-uncle is implicated in a conspiracy to conceal the truth that stretches back more than thirty years.
The story of the Shelleys is one of love and death, of loss and betrayal. In this follow-up to the acclaimed Tom-All-Alone’s, Lynn Shepherd offers her own fictional version of that story, which suggests new and shocking answers to mysteries that still persist to this day, and have never yet been fully explained.
367 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 2013
67 people are currently reading
1712 people want to read
About the author
Lynn Shepherd
16 books200 followersLynn Shepherd studied English at Oxford in the 1980s, and got a doctorate degree there in 2006. She always wanted to be a writer and in 2000 she went freelance to see if it was possible to make her dream into reality. Ten years later her dream finally comes true. Murder at Mansfield Park was her first novel.
She describes her genre as 'literary mystery', and in 2012 she since published Tom All-Alone's / The Solitary House, which is inspired by Charles Dickens' Bleak House.
Her third book A Treacherous Likeness explores the dark secrets of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and his wife Mary, the author of Frankenstein. It will be published in the UK in February 2013, and in the US in August under the title A Fatal Likeness. More details and a video about the book can be found on www.lynn-shepherd.com
She describes her genre as 'literary mystery', and in 2012 she since published Tom All-Alone's / The Solitary House, which is inspired by Charles Dickens' Bleak House.
Her third book A Treacherous Likeness explores the dark secrets of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and his wife Mary, the author of Frankenstein. It will be published in the UK in February 2013, and in the US in August under the title A Fatal Likeness. More details and a video about the book can be found on www.lynn-shepherd.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 215 reviews
dnf
November 3, 2021I have never attempted to read this book, so I can't comment on whether it's good or bad, but I do think it's a shame that people are reading this, instead of something much more stimulating for grown-up minds. I really shouldn't be able to make comments like this without even attempting to know what I am talking about but it's not petty at all, because I say it isn't.
Of course the lack-of-hype for A Fatal Likeness, and the fact that I'd never heard of it, means it must be good, as over-hyped books are dreadfully wearying and bound to be bad. Fortunately, because this book has not been over-hyped, it means that the life will not be sucked from every other book ever, so other ordinary authors don't have to worry about being overshadowed. Any writer that does start to write decent books should stop before they become excessively popular and ruin it for everyone else.
If this does happen to an author, the best move for them would be to write only for children, as children do not deserve or need mentally-stimulating or well written stories (and therefore, of course, no children's books are either well written or mentally-stimulating).
Don't worry - I'm sure this won't happen to Lynn Shepard anyway, as she is far too busy complaining about other authors ruining everything for everyone (but not in a jealous way, mind) to actually be writing anything decent.
This could actually be a good book. She could actually be a lovely person. I guess I'll never know.
Of course the lack-of-hype for A Fatal Likeness, and the fact that I'd never heard of it, means it must be good, as over-hyped books are dreadfully wearying and bound to be bad. Fortunately, because this book has not been over-hyped, it means that the life will not be sucked from every other book ever, so other ordinary authors don't have to worry about being overshadowed. Any writer that does start to write decent books should stop before they become excessively popular and ruin it for everyone else.
If this does happen to an author, the best move for them would be to write only for children, as children do not deserve or need mentally-stimulating or well written stories (and therefore, of course, no children's books are either well written or mentally-stimulating).
Don't worry - I'm sure this won't happen to Lynn Shepard anyway, as she is far too busy complaining about other authors ruining everything for everyone (but not in a jealous way, mind) to actually be writing anything decent.
This could actually be a good book. She could actually be a lovely person. I guess I'll never know.
October 8, 2013
Love the atmosphere of this time period, the wonderful characters, slowness of the plot to develop and the richness of the details and the setting. This is the second book in this series featuring, Charles Maddox, and in this one he takes on the Shelley family and their scandal ridden past. A case that goes into the past of this famous family and into the past of his uncle.
Solid writing, just not sure I was wholly convinced by the plot, though it was certainly interesting following where the author led. Good series, will definitely read the next one.
Solid writing, just not sure I was wholly convinced by the plot, though it was certainly interesting following where the author led. Good series, will definitely read the next one.
May 10, 2013
In 1850, a young detective takes on a new case unlike anything seen before; Charles Maddox’s client is the surviving son of Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley. Maddox has to track down some papers concerning the Shelleys that could be used for blackmail and ruin their literary legacy. This will take him into investigating the dark lives of not just Percy Bysshe Shelley but all the young Romantics and question the cause of death for Shelley’s first wife, Harriet.
This was a really difficult book to review but I will try hard to be fair and explore the two contradicting opinions I have about this book. First of all, I read this book with not much knowledge of the Romantics; I knew basics but I hadn’t explored them as much as I would have liked. I’ve been a fan of this literary movement even since the start of my reading life and most of you know that Frankenstein remains my favourite novel of all time. So when I heard about this book, I knew I wanted to read it.
Reading the book, I found it interesting; the writing style really reminded me of the time. Yet at times I felt like the writing was trying to reflect the time and sometimes it just did not feel right. I found myself rereading paragraphs trying to pick up what bothered me about them. I never really found the problem, I do not even think it was the writing that was my problem but more of the tone, but more on that later. When it comes to the mystery, everything felt pretty straightforward, piece by piece slowly revealed until the reader finally knows what was going on.
While I did have some problems with the book, all in all I was enjoying the book and would give it a rating of three stars, maybe three and a half. I didn’t find out much about the protagonist Charles Maddox as I would have liked but this could be because this detective appears in Lynn Shepherd’s other novel Tom-All-Alone. If I had read this book first I might have a different opinion towards Maddox. Which brings me to my problems; A Treacherous Likeness would have been a decent novel if it wasn’t using literary legends. This book made me want to explore more about the Romantic Movement, to its credit, but this was also its downfall.
After finishing this novel, I’ve been dipping in and out of three different books; The Monsters: Mary Shelley and the Curse of Frankenstein by Dorothy & Thomas Hoobler; Young Romantics: The Tangled Lives of English Poetry’s Greatest Generation by Daisy Hay; and Footsteps: Adventures of a Romantic Biographer by Richard Holmes. All these Non-Fiction books are vastly different but I picked them to get more of an insight on the lives of the Shelleys. Now the Romantics are wonderfully complex people with equally complex relationships and I don’t understand what their lives were like but the creative licence this author took in A Treacherous Likeness to weave this story through only leads me to think one thing. With all I’ve learnt about Percy Bysshe Shelley and the others I’ve come to the conclusion that Lynn Shepherd mustn’t like them at all.
I’ve got more to learn about the lives of the great poets but after reading some of the non-fiction of the time and reflecting back on A Treacherous Likeness I can’t help thinking, while the author has excellent knowledge on these people there has to be hatred towards them as well. In A Treacherous Likeness there are the controversial statements of Mary Shelley not writing Frankenstein, killing her baby and with Percy Bysshe Shelley’s help pushing Harriett to suicide. While they have merit and we can’t be sure if these are true or not they still point towards a dislike of these people, Mary Shelley in particular. This could be the author’s attempt to weave her story through the facts and create this complex mystery; for me, after all the research it just comes across in a negative way.
I have a lot to learn about the Romantic Movement and I have to give A Treacherous Likeness credit for the re-spark in my interest in these people. I am not trying to be negative towards Lynn Shepherd; I think she has a great writing style and hope that she continues writing historical mysteries. I would prefer if it wasn’t based on real people because when it comes to the Romantics and Mary Shelley, I still adore them and don’t like to read anything that paints them in a horrible light. Sure they were not the nicest people, they made many mistakes but we can’t deny what they did for literature. I think I will have to try Tom-All-Alone one day just so I’m not judging this author on just one experience; her writing is worth reading, I just had some issues with this novel.
This review originally appeared on my blog; http://literary-exploration.com/2013/...
This was a really difficult book to review but I will try hard to be fair and explore the two contradicting opinions I have about this book. First of all, I read this book with not much knowledge of the Romantics; I knew basics but I hadn’t explored them as much as I would have liked. I’ve been a fan of this literary movement even since the start of my reading life and most of you know that Frankenstein remains my favourite novel of all time. So when I heard about this book, I knew I wanted to read it.
Reading the book, I found it interesting; the writing style really reminded me of the time. Yet at times I felt like the writing was trying to reflect the time and sometimes it just did not feel right. I found myself rereading paragraphs trying to pick up what bothered me about them. I never really found the problem, I do not even think it was the writing that was my problem but more of the tone, but more on that later. When it comes to the mystery, everything felt pretty straightforward, piece by piece slowly revealed until the reader finally knows what was going on.
While I did have some problems with the book, all in all I was enjoying the book and would give it a rating of three stars, maybe three and a half. I didn’t find out much about the protagonist Charles Maddox as I would have liked but this could be because this detective appears in Lynn Shepherd’s other novel Tom-All-Alone. If I had read this book first I might have a different opinion towards Maddox. Which brings me to my problems; A Treacherous Likeness would have been a decent novel if it wasn’t using literary legends. This book made me want to explore more about the Romantic Movement, to its credit, but this was also its downfall.
After finishing this novel, I’ve been dipping in and out of three different books; The Monsters: Mary Shelley and the Curse of Frankenstein by Dorothy & Thomas Hoobler; Young Romantics: The Tangled Lives of English Poetry’s Greatest Generation by Daisy Hay; and Footsteps: Adventures of a Romantic Biographer by Richard Holmes. All these Non-Fiction books are vastly different but I picked them to get more of an insight on the lives of the Shelleys. Now the Romantics are wonderfully complex people with equally complex relationships and I don’t understand what their lives were like but the creative licence this author took in A Treacherous Likeness to weave this story through only leads me to think one thing. With all I’ve learnt about Percy Bysshe Shelley and the others I’ve come to the conclusion that Lynn Shepherd mustn’t like them at all.
I’ve got more to learn about the lives of the great poets but after reading some of the non-fiction of the time and reflecting back on A Treacherous Likeness I can’t help thinking, while the author has excellent knowledge on these people there has to be hatred towards them as well. In A Treacherous Likeness there are the controversial statements of Mary Shelley not writing Frankenstein, killing her baby and with Percy Bysshe Shelley’s help pushing Harriett to suicide. While they have merit and we can’t be sure if these are true or not they still point towards a dislike of these people, Mary Shelley in particular. This could be the author’s attempt to weave her story through the facts and create this complex mystery; for me, after all the research it just comes across in a negative way.
I have a lot to learn about the Romantic Movement and I have to give A Treacherous Likeness credit for the re-spark in my interest in these people. I am not trying to be negative towards Lynn Shepherd; I think she has a great writing style and hope that she continues writing historical mysteries. I would prefer if it wasn’t based on real people because when it comes to the Romantics and Mary Shelley, I still adore them and don’t like to read anything that paints them in a horrible light. Sure they were not the nicest people, they made many mistakes but we can’t deny what they did for literature. I think I will have to try Tom-All-Alone one day just so I’m not judging this author on just one experience; her writing is worth reading, I just had some issues with this novel.
This review originally appeared on my blog; http://literary-exploration.com/2013/...
September 12, 2014
There is no problem, however intractable, that cannot be resolved by the steady application of logic and observation
I love Netgalley, it allows me to choose books I would never otherwise have read. After requesting this title, I really thought I made a mistake. Whodunit's is not really my genre, I new nothing about the romantic poets, and I belatedly noticed that this was the second book in a series. Despite all of this I really enjoyed it.
I was interested in learning more about Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Shelley and Claire Clairmont and their contemporaries. I never realized that free love was already a concept in the Victorian age. I was glad that the author explains in detail what is fact and what is fiction in her notes, as it's always difficult reading about a new spin on historical figures if you are not familiar with the basic facts.
I love how vividly she painted London in the 1800's. I thought the writing also reflected the time period very well. It was my first time reading a novel told from a 3rd person omniscient point of view. It was a bit jarring in the beginning, but by the end of the book I quite liked it.
The suspense in A Fatal Likeness was amazing. There was twists on top of twists and layers on layers. Every time you thought that all answers were now revealed, there was yet another revelation waiting in the wings. Charles Maddox (who reminds me quite a bit of Sherlock Holmes) sees the case, and possible answers, from all the suspects point of view.
Thanks mrs. Shepherd, because of your book I've now discovered a new favorite genre - Historical Crime.
The story: When his great-uncle, the master detective who schooled him in the science of "thief taking," is mysteriously stricken, Charles Maddox fears that the old man's breakdown may be directly related to the latest case he's been asked to undertake. Summoned to the home of a stuffy nobleman and his imperious wife, Charles finds his investigative services have been engaged by no less than the son of celebrated poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and his famed widow, Mary, author of the gothic classic "Frankenstein."
February 24, 2016
Čim je izašla, ova knjiga odmah je privukla moju pozornost: ne samo da se radi o svojevrsnom viktorijanskom krimiću, kakve inače obožavam čitati, već su i neki od njenih likova znameniti književnici: Mary i Percy Bysshe Shelley, te lord Byron.
Centralni lik cijele priče je Charles Maddox, mladi istražitelj, kojeg Percy Shelley, sin Mary i Percya Bysshea Shelleya, i njegova supruga, unajme kako bi istražio navodnu ucjenu Percyeve majke, kojom joj prijete da će objaviti neke privatne dokumente koji se odnose na njen i život njenog pokojnog supruga, a koji će baciti loše svjetlo na Shelleyeve. Osoba koja navodno ucjenjuje i progoni Mary Shelley njena je bivša bliska prijateljica Claire Clarmont, koja, kad ju Charles posjeti, priču o ucjeni ispriča iz posve drugog kuta. Charlesu je sve jasnije da je razlog zbog kojeg su ga Shelleyevi unajmili u biti samo krinka, pod kojom su zapravo naumili doznati što o izvjesnim događajima iz prošlosti zna (i postoje li o tome kakvi dokazi, te gdje se nalaze) Charlesov ujak, koji je u tim prošlim događajima također odigrao ulogu.
U nemogućnosti da od ujaka, koji je ranije pretrpio manji moždani udar, direktno dozna što se u prošlosti dogodilo između njega i Shelleyevih, Charles će morati stvari istražiti na svoj način i odgovore potražiti negdje drugdje. Otkrivajući, malo pomalo, tu tajnu iz prošlosti, čiji obrisi, što više o njoj doznaje, Charlesu počinju činiti sve jasniju sliku, otkrit će ne samo detalje iz života Shelleyevih koje oni pod svaku cijenu pokušavaju sakriti, nego i detalje iz života njegovog vlastitog ujaka, koji su mu do sada bili posve nepoznati. Na kraju, Charles će morati odlučiti što učiniti s onim što je doznao - jer, neke tajne treba otkriti, a za neke je, pak, tajne ponekad ipak bolje da ostanu sakrivene.
Prije svega, moram napomenuti da mi zaista nije jasno tko i kako odlučuje o tome kojim će se redoslijedom prevoditi knjige iz nekog serijala. Ova je, naime, tek treća knjiga u serijalu o Charlesu Maddoxu, a uobičajeni odgovor svih izdavača na pitanje zašto se neki serijal nije počeo prevoditi od početka, dakle od prve knjige, uvijek je taj da je knjige tog serijala moguće čitati i po nasumičnom redoslijedu. To, dakako, zna biti slučaj kod nekih serijala, zbog čega sam, iako razočarana što se ne radi o prvoj knjizi, ipak krenula pročitati ovu knjigu i mogu vam reći da - da, možete serijal čitati nasumce, ali - samo ako vam ne smeta što ćete tijekom čitanja imati podosta neodgovorenih pitanja, odgovori na koja se nalaze u prethodnim knjigama.
Primjerice, zašto Charlesu nedostaje prst na jednoj ruci? Zašto tuguje, odnosno osjeća odgovornost zbog smrti jedne prostitutke i što joj se uopće dogodilo? Što se dogodilo s njegovom mlađom sestrom Elizabeth? Koji je slučaj kojim si je Charles izgradio ime i kako su s njime povezane kuće Tom All-Alone'sa, te zašto bi vam prezime iz naziva tvrtke W.H. Smith & Sons trebalo biti poznato? Sve su to pitanja na koja vam i sama spisateljica skreće pozornost dok čitate ovu knjigu, referirajući se pritom na ranije knjige iz serijala o Charlesu i ne odajući niti jednu pojedinost vezanu za ova pitanja, nego ih ostavljajući neodgovorenima (barem ako već niste (ili dok ne pročitate) prethodne knjige).
No, kad ostavimo redoslijed knjiga po strani, ova je konkretna knjiga jedno jako zanimljivo, pitko i napeto štivo koje se s užitkom čita. Lynn Shepherd uglavnom se oslanja na stvarne činjenice iz života Mary i Percya Shelleya, puneći praznine iz već znanim nam njihovih biografija fikcijom kakva se u te biografije savršeno uklapa. Začin cijeloj priči čini mračna i tajanstvena atmosfera kakva obično obitava u Marynim i Shelleyevim književnim ostvarenjima, uz sveprisutnu aluziju na Maryino najpoznatije djelo - Frankensteina - koje je i samo po sebi obavijeno tajanstvenošću.
Dok čitate, upoznat ćete ove slavne književne stvaraoce na nekoliko načina, nakon svakog novog događaja stvarajući novu sliku o njima, sve se vrijeme pitajući tko je od svih tih likova ovdje pravi Frankenstein, pravo čudovište, ili pak samo žrtva niza nesretnih okolnosti. Onako kako su prikazani u ovoj knjizi, ovi likovi i način na koji je Shepherdica upotpunila praznine u njihovim životima, čine uvjerljivu sliku onoga što je lako moguće da se i stvarno dogodilo, a što, zbog nedostatka podatataka o njima, vjerojatno nikada nećemo saznati.
I sam Charles, nositelj radnje, također je fascinantan lik, o kojem također štošta doznajemo, dovoljno da poželimo čitati o još njegovih dogodovština. Slika viktorijanskog Londona koju nam je spisateljica ovdje prikazala jednako je fascinantna i čini zanimljivo okružje za uživanje u ovoj priči. Natruha dekadencije, nemorala i društveno neprihvatljivog, pa i skandaloznog, ponašanja, koja vlada u odnosima između likova dodaje još jednu zanimljivost čitavoj priči, čineći ju sličnom mračnim gotskim romanima kakve su pojedini njeni likovi svojedobno pisali.
Uvijek je zanimljivo čitati o knjigama i književnicima, kao i tajanstvenostima koje su okruživale njihove živote i stvaranja njihovih djela. Dodajmo na to mističnu atmosferu 19. stoljeća, krimi-misterij koji treba riješiti i karizmatičnog detektiva na kojem je da to učini, i dobit ćemo odličan način za provesti nekoliko sati, uživajući u pametno i vješto ispredenim rečenicama spisateljice koja nam je taj užitak i omogućila. Ako vam sve ovo što sam napisala dobro zvuči, svakako pročitajte ovu knjigu. Ostavljam vam jedino da odlučite(ovisno o tome koliko vam smeta ne znati na što se na nekim mjestima spisateljica referira), hoćete li ju pročitati odmah ili pričekati dok ne pročitate prve dvije knjige o Charlesu. Što god odlučili, užitka u čitanju vam neće manjkati.
Centralni lik cijele priče je Charles Maddox, mladi istražitelj, kojeg Percy Shelley, sin Mary i Percya Bysshea Shelleya, i njegova supruga, unajme kako bi istražio navodnu ucjenu Percyeve majke, kojom joj prijete da će objaviti neke privatne dokumente koji se odnose na njen i život njenog pokojnog supruga, a koji će baciti loše svjetlo na Shelleyeve. Osoba koja navodno ucjenjuje i progoni Mary Shelley njena je bivša bliska prijateljica Claire Clarmont, koja, kad ju Charles posjeti, priču o ucjeni ispriča iz posve drugog kuta. Charlesu je sve jasnije da je razlog zbog kojeg su ga Shelleyevi unajmili u biti samo krinka, pod kojom su zapravo naumili doznati što o izvjesnim događajima iz prošlosti zna (i postoje li o tome kakvi dokazi, te gdje se nalaze) Charlesov ujak, koji je u tim prošlim događajima također odigrao ulogu.
U nemogućnosti da od ujaka, koji je ranije pretrpio manji moždani udar, direktno dozna što se u prošlosti dogodilo između njega i Shelleyevih, Charles će morati stvari istražiti na svoj način i odgovore potražiti negdje drugdje. Otkrivajući, malo pomalo, tu tajnu iz prošlosti, čiji obrisi, što više o njoj doznaje, Charlesu počinju činiti sve jasniju sliku, otkrit će ne samo detalje iz života Shelleyevih koje oni pod svaku cijenu pokušavaju sakriti, nego i detalje iz života njegovog vlastitog ujaka, koji su mu do sada bili posve nepoznati. Na kraju, Charles će morati odlučiti što učiniti s onim što je doznao - jer, neke tajne treba otkriti, a za neke je, pak, tajne ponekad ipak bolje da ostanu sakrivene.
Prije svega, moram napomenuti da mi zaista nije jasno tko i kako odlučuje o tome kojim će se redoslijedom prevoditi knjige iz nekog serijala. Ova je, naime, tek treća knjiga u serijalu o Charlesu Maddoxu, a uobičajeni odgovor svih izdavača na pitanje zašto se neki serijal nije počeo prevoditi od početka, dakle od prve knjige, uvijek je taj da je knjige tog serijala moguće čitati i po nasumičnom redoslijedu. To, dakako, zna biti slučaj kod nekih serijala, zbog čega sam, iako razočarana što se ne radi o prvoj knjizi, ipak krenula pročitati ovu knjigu i mogu vam reći da - da, možete serijal čitati nasumce, ali - samo ako vam ne smeta što ćete tijekom čitanja imati podosta neodgovorenih pitanja, odgovori na koja se nalaze u prethodnim knjigama.
Primjerice, zašto Charlesu nedostaje prst na jednoj ruci? Zašto tuguje, odnosno osjeća odgovornost zbog smrti jedne prostitutke i što joj se uopće dogodilo? Što se dogodilo s njegovom mlađom sestrom Elizabeth? Koji je slučaj kojim si je Charles izgradio ime i kako su s njime povezane kuće Tom All-Alone'sa, te zašto bi vam prezime iz naziva tvrtke W.H. Smith & Sons trebalo biti poznato? Sve su to pitanja na koja vam i sama spisateljica skreće pozornost dok čitate ovu knjigu, referirajući se pritom na ranije knjige iz serijala o Charlesu i ne odajući niti jednu pojedinost vezanu za ova pitanja, nego ih ostavljajući neodgovorenima (barem ako već niste (ili dok ne pročitate) prethodne knjige).
No, kad ostavimo redoslijed knjiga po strani, ova je konkretna knjiga jedno jako zanimljivo, pitko i napeto štivo koje se s užitkom čita. Lynn Shepherd uglavnom se oslanja na stvarne činjenice iz života Mary i Percya Shelleya, puneći praznine iz već znanim nam njihovih biografija fikcijom kakva se u te biografije savršeno uklapa. Začin cijeloj priči čini mračna i tajanstvena atmosfera kakva obično obitava u Marynim i Shelleyevim književnim ostvarenjima, uz sveprisutnu aluziju na Maryino najpoznatije djelo - Frankensteina - koje je i samo po sebi obavijeno tajanstvenošću.
Dok čitate, upoznat ćete ove slavne književne stvaraoce na nekoliko načina, nakon svakog novog događaja stvarajući novu sliku o njima, sve se vrijeme pitajući tko je od svih tih likova ovdje pravi Frankenstein, pravo čudovište, ili pak samo žrtva niza nesretnih okolnosti. Onako kako su prikazani u ovoj knjizi, ovi likovi i način na koji je Shepherdica upotpunila praznine u njihovim životima, čine uvjerljivu sliku onoga što je lako moguće da se i stvarno dogodilo, a što, zbog nedostatka podatataka o njima, vjerojatno nikada nećemo saznati.
I sam Charles, nositelj radnje, također je fascinantan lik, o kojem također štošta doznajemo, dovoljno da poželimo čitati o još njegovih dogodovština. Slika viktorijanskog Londona koju nam je spisateljica ovdje prikazala jednako je fascinantna i čini zanimljivo okružje za uživanje u ovoj priči. Natruha dekadencije, nemorala i društveno neprihvatljivog, pa i skandaloznog, ponašanja, koja vlada u odnosima između likova dodaje još jednu zanimljivost čitavoj priči, čineći ju sličnom mračnim gotskim romanima kakve su pojedini njeni likovi svojedobno pisali.
Uvijek je zanimljivo čitati o knjigama i književnicima, kao i tajanstvenostima koje su okruživale njihove živote i stvaranja njihovih djela. Dodajmo na to mističnu atmosferu 19. stoljeća, krimi-misterij koji treba riješiti i karizmatičnog detektiva na kojem je da to učini, i dobit ćemo odličan način za provesti nekoliko sati, uživajući u pametno i vješto ispredenim rečenicama spisateljice koja nam je taj užitak i omogućila. Ako vam sve ovo što sam napisala dobro zvuči, svakako pročitajte ovu knjigu. Ostavljam vam jedino da odlučite(ovisno o tome koliko vam smeta ne znati na što se na nekim mjestima spisateljica referira), hoćete li ju pročitati odmah ili pričekati dok ne pročitate prve dvije knjige o Charlesu. Što god odlučili, užitka u čitanju vam neće manjkati.
April 1, 2014
Why is this book worth reading? Isn't that the point of all these book reviews? Here's a question I'd like to ask the author Lynn Shepherd. Why is this book worth writing? Truly, why would you write this story? To be honest, I liked this book and I did not like this book. While it's well written and well researched (Shepherd is a talented writer), the author has made some wild speculations about the Shelley family, Mary and Percy Bysshe Shelley. The Shelleys (I've read numerous biographies) had a tragic life filled with deaths, suicides, betrayals, lies, deceptions, guilt, loss, abandonment, self-indulgence, scandal after scandal, to say nothing of the madness of literary genius in the mix. Geez, wasn't all that juicy enough? Now, Shepherd has added murder into their fictional lives. There is nothing, no hint of suggestion at all in any of their biographies that suggest the crime of murder. So, maybe the character Charles Maddox needed a murder or two to solve, but why use the Shelleys? I think when an author writes historical fiction (or biographical fiction as this essentially is), the author must be careful not to damage the dead. After closing this book, I did feel that Shepherd's wild speculations of murder in the Shelley family were not appropriate, even under the umbrella of creative license. Instead of gaining enlightenment about the Shelleys, I felt hustled and manipulated. Fiction often speculates to fill in the blanks and most of the time I like that when the speculation makes sense. A Fatal Likeness did not make sense to me and seemed to be an attack on the Shelleys' graves. Why do it?
January 8, 2013
Last year my hand was seized by an omniscient narrator, and she pulled me back into nineteenth century London and she showed me such dark and wonderful things. And now she has seized my hand again, and shown things that are even more extraordinary.
We arrived in a dark, cold London street, and straight away I saw a familiar figure. Charles Maddox, the detective who had been pulled into an investigation that had uncovered dark goings-on at Tom-all-Alone’s. He was a little older, and a little wiser after all that he had experienced, but he still had much to learn.
Charles had been summoned by Sir Percy Shelley, the son of a famous poet and a celebrated author. He was asked by Sir Percy and his formidable wife, Jane, to assist with sensitive matter. Someone had threatened to publish papers that would show the poet in a less than favourable light, undermining their efforts to elevate his reputation. Charles was to negotiate to buy those papers.
He suspected that matters were complex, more troubling, than the Shelley’s were telling him. And he was right.
His meeting with a remarkable women – Claire Clairmont, who famously had a love affair with Lord Byron, and bore him a child – confirmed his suspicions.
But he had to go on. Because his great-uncle, who had been a great detective until his mind and body began to fail him, had crossed paths with the Shelleys years before. He wouldn’t speak of it, he tried to stop Charles, but his efforts only made Charles more determined to uncover the truth.
I saw a tangled story unfold. A story that was spun around real lives, real facts, and filled the gaps with details that were utterly believable.
I watched Charles as he found his way through a complicated web of lies and deceit, jealousy and rivalry, fear and self-interest. He uncovered truths that were dreadful, but horribly believable. I looked over his shoulder as he read letters, documents, and his great-uncle’s records. And I followed him home, and saw that some things had changed and some things had remained the same in his unorthodox household.
I was steered perfectly, sometimes guided, sometimes left to watch, and sometimes struck by an acute observation. By someone who had knowledge, understanding, and the clearsightedness that a little distance brings.
I was wrapped up in rich prose that brought times, places and people to life. In a story that was dark but so very, very vivid.
I turned the pages quickly, because I was fascinated, and because I needed to find answers to so many questions. Though I found that I had to pause from time to time, to try to understand complex characters, to consider difficult situations, to ponder many things that were not what they first seemed.
Now I have turned the last page, now I have answers but I am still asking more questions.
Still fascinated…
We arrived in a dark, cold London street, and straight away I saw a familiar figure. Charles Maddox, the detective who had been pulled into an investigation that had uncovered dark goings-on at Tom-all-Alone’s. He was a little older, and a little wiser after all that he had experienced, but he still had much to learn.
Charles had been summoned by Sir Percy Shelley, the son of a famous poet and a celebrated author. He was asked by Sir Percy and his formidable wife, Jane, to assist with sensitive matter. Someone had threatened to publish papers that would show the poet in a less than favourable light, undermining their efforts to elevate his reputation. Charles was to negotiate to buy those papers.
He suspected that matters were complex, more troubling, than the Shelley’s were telling him. And he was right.
His meeting with a remarkable women – Claire Clairmont, who famously had a love affair with Lord Byron, and bore him a child – confirmed his suspicions.
But he had to go on. Because his great-uncle, who had been a great detective until his mind and body began to fail him, had crossed paths with the Shelleys years before. He wouldn’t speak of it, he tried to stop Charles, but his efforts only made Charles more determined to uncover the truth.
I saw a tangled story unfold. A story that was spun around real lives, real facts, and filled the gaps with details that were utterly believable.
I watched Charles as he found his way through a complicated web of lies and deceit, jealousy and rivalry, fear and self-interest. He uncovered truths that were dreadful, but horribly believable. I looked over his shoulder as he read letters, documents, and his great-uncle’s records. And I followed him home, and saw that some things had changed and some things had remained the same in his unorthodox household.
I was steered perfectly, sometimes guided, sometimes left to watch, and sometimes struck by an acute observation. By someone who had knowledge, understanding, and the clearsightedness that a little distance brings.
I was wrapped up in rich prose that brought times, places and people to life. In a story that was dark but so very, very vivid.
I turned the pages quickly, because I was fascinated, and because I needed to find answers to so many questions. Though I found that I had to pause from time to time, to try to understand complex characters, to consider difficult situations, to ponder many things that were not what they first seemed.
Now I have turned the last page, now I have answers but I am still asking more questions.
Still fascinated…
August 20, 2013
After reading this, I feel really sorry for the Shelleys. They don't deserve this, not after so long, not when they can't defend themselves. I know this is fiction, but most of my acrimony comes from reading the author's notes at the end. It's the license Shepherd took with the "eloquent silences" in Mary Shelley's journal and justifying one step sister's jealousy of another as cause for believing that one of them is capable of murder that bothers me. Shepherd really believes that she didn't have to stretch the truth a lot, which, even given my near-total ignorance of Shelleys, doesn't seem right.
Shepherd must really hate the Shelleys. There can't be any other reason for this book - her detectives at no point display an open mind. Oh, they might not immediately believe Mary as the murderess, but they believe she is a liar, a manipulator, a neglecter of her children and that of Claire's, a crass and vulgar person, someone with no morality, and a person who would take Percy Shelley's masterpiece (Frankenstein) and parade around as her own. Also, she's a sometimes crazy murderess. If there's some hideous quality that Mary isn't accused of in this book (and in the author notes), I missed it. I wonder when it became a crime to have changes made to your manuscript by your husband, the famous poet? So what if Percy Shelley made some (maybe radical) changes to Mary's book? The basis of this author's assumption that Mary didn't write Frankenstein comes from the fact that even the most fanatical of believers in Mary's authorship "admit" that her next books weren't much. Harper Lee never wrote another book after To Kill a Mockingbird. Maybe she plagiarized her book too.
I wonder she didn't think that the silences and the ripped pages weren't because people in the future would make ridiculous assumptions based on pages written in anger. It's sad that these ridiculous assumptions were made anyway. That Mary may have neglected her children, I don't dispute. (Although I have no idea if she did or not, it's a feasible scenario given her depression and Percy's philandering). What's hubris is to assume that Mary was the sole cause for this, based on some sketchy descriptions by a hardly unbiased source - Claire Clairmont. They were not exactly close step-sisters who were (supposedly) trying to share the attentions of a single man. How can their relationship ever be less than acrimonious? I also wonder why I'm supposed to sympathize with the Claire of this book? Other than the fact that she's still attractive to our detective (and Mary isn't). She has a thing for her brother-in-law, and she's upset that Mary would try and sabotage her?
It made me angry, this book. I'm not a fan of Frankenstein. I've never read anything else by Mary. Of Percy Shelley I only know of Ozymandias, which I had to study in school. I'm fond of Byron's poetry and some of his legend, but that's the extent of my relationship with the Romantics. But I don't think this should have been written, that two important literary figures should have been made the focus of this accusing book. As I've written, it's not even a good mystery. The detective is so judgmental that it's hard to believe he would have even bothered to look at another person had an opportunity presented itself. It doesn't, so that's that. One after another, events just fall into place damning Mary and Shelley, and exonerating everyone else (Fanny Imlay, Claire Clairmont, Harriet, Eliza Westbrook). There are too many letters written around "telling" of events.
I did finish it, and having done that, I've decided to not read another book by Lynn Shepherd again. I'm overreacting, probably. But that's my opinion anyway. 1 star.
I received a copy of this book for review via NetGalley.
Shepherd must really hate the Shelleys. There can't be any other reason for this book - her detectives at no point display an open mind. Oh, they might not immediately believe Mary as the murderess, but they believe she is a liar, a manipulator, a neglecter of her children and that of Claire's, a crass and vulgar person, someone with no morality, and a person who would take Percy Shelley's masterpiece (Frankenstein) and parade around as her own. Also, she's a sometimes crazy murderess. If there's some hideous quality that Mary isn't accused of in this book (and in the author notes), I missed it. I wonder when it became a crime to have changes made to your manuscript by your husband, the famous poet? So what if Percy Shelley made some (maybe radical) changes to Mary's book? The basis of this author's assumption that Mary didn't write Frankenstein comes from the fact that even the most fanatical of believers in Mary's authorship "admit" that her next books weren't much. Harper Lee never wrote another book after To Kill a Mockingbird. Maybe she plagiarized her book too.
I wonder she didn't think that the silences and the ripped pages weren't because people in the future would make ridiculous assumptions based on pages written in anger. It's sad that these ridiculous assumptions were made anyway. That Mary may have neglected her children, I don't dispute. (Although I have no idea if she did or not, it's a feasible scenario given her depression and Percy's philandering). What's hubris is to assume that Mary was the sole cause for this, based on some sketchy descriptions by a hardly unbiased source - Claire Clairmont. They were not exactly close step-sisters who were (supposedly) trying to share the attentions of a single man. How can their relationship ever be less than acrimonious? I also wonder why I'm supposed to sympathize with the Claire of this book? Other than the fact that she's still attractive to our detective (and Mary isn't). She has a thing for her brother-in-law, and she's upset that Mary would try and sabotage her?
It made me angry, this book. I'm not a fan of Frankenstein. I've never read anything else by Mary. Of Percy Shelley I only know of Ozymandias, which I had to study in school. I'm fond of Byron's poetry and some of his legend, but that's the extent of my relationship with the Romantics. But I don't think this should have been written, that two important literary figures should have been made the focus of this accusing book. As I've written, it's not even a good mystery. The detective is so judgmental that it's hard to believe he would have even bothered to look at another person had an opportunity presented itself. It doesn't, so that's that. One after another, events just fall into place damning Mary and Shelley, and exonerating everyone else (Fanny Imlay, Claire Clairmont, Harriet, Eliza Westbrook). There are too many letters written around "telling" of events.
I did finish it, and having done that, I've decided to not read another book by Lynn Shepherd again. I'm overreacting, probably. But that's my opinion anyway. 1 star.
I received a copy of this book for review via NetGalley.
February 8, 2016
Iako sam nekako više očekivala od ove knjige, super je to što se dosta saznaje o životima poznatih pjesnika Shellyja i Bayrona, a i autorice Frankenstaina, Mary Shelly. A životi su im zaista bilo jaaako osebujni. Inače je poprilično mračna i šokantna knjiga.
August 31, 2013
There were many times during the first third that I thought I was going to abandon this book as the plot seemed to be stalled and I wasn't emotionally involved in the characters. What kept me going was a fascination with the lines between the author and protagonist's points of view and the ethics of using real people as characters in fiction.
Charles Maddox, our main character, remains a cypher for me. Perhaps the first book he appears in fixes this, but I would not be able to tell you about his passions or abilities. My lasting impression will be that he really didn't treat his servants well. Most of the plot moves forward through information falling into his lap - letters, journals, and case notes from the past are all recreated here and take up much of the novel. The story is also told from the point of view of his great uncle, also Charles Maddox, and this is where my first fascination comes in.
Maddox the elder is a very judgemental man, decrying Shelley's and Godwin's beliefs in free love and equality between the classes as many a Victorian gentleman would. There is also a strong authorial narration, remarking on events from a modern perspective. Shepherd lets her characters' interpretation of events stand and mostly applies diagnoses to characters, like a centuries too late psychiatrist. With these two voices Maddox the elder's point of view blends into the author's point of view, her diagnoses supporting his beliefs and making him her mouthpiece. If this is true, then Shepherd really doesn't like the historical people she writes about.
Then there are the non-fictional characters, or perhaps it's better to say the fictional representations of real people. I've read real person fiction in the past and never had such a negative reaction to it before. This makes little sense, I have no particular attachment to the Shelleys and their crowd. Perhaps it is because I have never read such a negative portrayal before? Throughout the novel the Shelleys are accused of almost every crime imaginable. They are wretched people, spreading misery wherever they go. The wrongs pile up higher and higher into an unreal level of accusation and innuendo. Do fiction authors have a responsibility toward the real people they write about? Or are they just fodder for the imagination once they are gone?
Charles Maddox, our main character, remains a cypher for me. Perhaps the first book he appears in fixes this, but I would not be able to tell you about his passions or abilities. My lasting impression will be that he really didn't treat his servants well. Most of the plot moves forward through information falling into his lap - letters, journals, and case notes from the past are all recreated here and take up much of the novel. The story is also told from the point of view of his great uncle, also Charles Maddox, and this is where my first fascination comes in.
Maddox the elder is a very judgemental man, decrying Shelley's and Godwin's beliefs in free love and equality between the classes as many a Victorian gentleman would. There is also a strong authorial narration, remarking on events from a modern perspective. Shepherd lets her characters' interpretation of events stand and mostly applies diagnoses to characters, like a centuries too late psychiatrist. With these two voices Maddox the elder's point of view blends into the author's point of view, her diagnoses supporting his beliefs and making him her mouthpiece. If this is true, then Shepherd really doesn't like the historical people she writes about.
Then there are the non-fictional characters, or perhaps it's better to say the fictional representations of real people. I've read real person fiction in the past and never had such a negative reaction to it before. This makes little sense, I have no particular attachment to the Shelleys and their crowd. Perhaps it is because I have never read such a negative portrayal before? Throughout the novel the Shelleys are accused of almost every crime imaginable. They are wretched people, spreading misery wherever they go. The wrongs pile up higher and higher into an unreal level of accusation and innuendo. Do fiction authors have a responsibility toward the real people they write about? Or are they just fodder for the imagination once they are gone?
February 6, 2016
A Fatal Likeness
By Lynn Shepherd
Summery courtesy of Goodreads.com
A mystery that explores the dark lives and unexplained secrets of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
In the dying days of 1850 the young detective Charles Maddox takes on a new case. His client? The only surviving son of the long-dead poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
Charles soon finds himself being drawn into the bitter battle being waged over the poet’s literary legacy, but then he makes a chance discovery that raises new doubts about the death of Shelley’s first wife, Harriet, and he starts to question whether she did indeed kill herself, or whether what really happened was far more sinister than suicide.
As he’s drawn deeper into the tangled web of the past, Charles discovers darker and more disturbing secrets, until he comes face to face with the terrible possibility that his own great-uncle is implicated in a conspiracy to conceal the truth that stretches back more than thirty years.
The story of the Shelleys is one of love and death, of loss and betrayal. In this follow-up to the acclaimed Tom-All-Alone’s, Lynn Shepherd offers her own fictional version of that story, which suggests new and shocking answers to mysteries that still persist to this day, and have never yet been fully explained.
Review
This is possibly the the worst book I've ever read, the language was overly descriptive in places, the flow of the plot was disconnected and don't get me started on the character assignation that this author used when describing two of the literary worlds most famous authors.
1 Star
By Lynn Shepherd
Summery courtesy of Goodreads.com
A mystery that explores the dark lives and unexplained secrets of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
In the dying days of 1850 the young detective Charles Maddox takes on a new case. His client? The only surviving son of the long-dead poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
Charles soon finds himself being drawn into the bitter battle being waged over the poet’s literary legacy, but then he makes a chance discovery that raises new doubts about the death of Shelley’s first wife, Harriet, and he starts to question whether she did indeed kill herself, or whether what really happened was far more sinister than suicide.
As he’s drawn deeper into the tangled web of the past, Charles discovers darker and more disturbing secrets, until he comes face to face with the terrible possibility that his own great-uncle is implicated in a conspiracy to conceal the truth that stretches back more than thirty years.
The story of the Shelleys is one of love and death, of loss and betrayal. In this follow-up to the acclaimed Tom-All-Alone’s, Lynn Shepherd offers her own fictional version of that story, which suggests new and shocking answers to mysteries that still persist to this day, and have never yet been fully explained.
Review
This is possibly the the worst book I've ever read, the language was overly descriptive in places, the flow of the plot was disconnected and don't get me started on the character assignation that this author used when describing two of the literary worlds most famous authors.
1 Star
August 28, 2020
28 AUG 2020 - I greatly this enjoyed next adventure of Charles Maddox. He and I last met and walked the streets of London in The Solitary House. I like this author's writing style and her ability to transport me from my armchair into the pages and participate in the adventure. Thank you, Ms Shepherd.
September 9, 2013
It took me a while to finally review this book because it was a bizarre read for me. I had high hopes for this book but I gave it one star for the sole reason that I didn’t like it.
I am not a connoisseur of the Romantics. Of course I know who Mary Shelleyis, always wanted to read Frankenstein
(and will read it next month). Haven’t read her husband’s work (Percy Bysshe Shelley), but know of his existence. But I wasn’t aware of the mystery surrounding their lives.
I requested this book on NetGalley attracted by its cover and title. I thought it was going to be a tragic romantic novel about a woman who was nothing but trouble. And I was right with the tragic part. There was no happy romance in the story. The author presents a story about a woman with what in our times we would consider serious mental issues and how her actions create a disturbing, tormented, dark relationship with everyone around her. A torment that her descendants carry with them no matter how much time has passed.
So, if the book was about what I thought it would be, why didn’t I like it?
Well, first of all, Charles Maddox, the star detective in the novel is no Sherlock Holmes. I had just read A study in Scarlet, and couldn’t help but compare both detectives. They way Maddox worked wasn’t entertaining enough for me. I simply couldn’t relate to his detective ways. I felt like he wasn’t a career detective but just a normal person trying to find out about others.
The way the story is told wasn’t for me. The “facts” were confusing enough and all that going back and forth made it even more confusing.
Like I said, I am not a connoisseur of these people’s lives, but from this book I can tell the author is absolutely not fond of Mary Shelley. I kind of felt like reading this book was a bad thing. Like talking behind someone’s back. The author created fiction out of non-fictional characters. But the fiction that she created can even be considered insulting to the memory of these people.
The story didn’t make sense for me, until I read the author’s notes at the end. That’s when all made sense. The author explains what the real facts are and which her inventions are. Her inventions were the things that didn’t make any sense to me. They were too cruel, twisted and disturbing to be true. I do have to give her credit for her imagination, but in this case, the mystery surrounding the Shelley’s is one to be left unexplained.
This book is for people who have a deep knowledge of the Romantics. This book is not for the plain normal reader who can get confused and really believe what the author invented about these people. If you read this book, read it with an open mind and don’t try to make sense out of what you find makes no sense.
I am not a connoisseur of the Romantics. Of course I know who Mary Shelleyis, always wanted to read Frankenstein
(and will read it next month). Haven’t read her husband’s work (Percy Bysshe Shelley), but know of his existence. But I wasn’t aware of the mystery surrounding their lives.I requested this book on NetGalley attracted by its cover and title. I thought it was going to be a tragic romantic novel about a woman who was nothing but trouble. And I was right with the tragic part. There was no happy romance in the story. The author presents a story about a woman with what in our times we would consider serious mental issues and how her actions create a disturbing, tormented, dark relationship with everyone around her. A torment that her descendants carry with them no matter how much time has passed.
So, if the book was about what I thought it would be, why didn’t I like it?
Well, first of all, Charles Maddox, the star detective in the novel is no Sherlock Holmes. I had just read A study in Scarlet, and couldn’t help but compare both detectives. They way Maddox worked wasn’t entertaining enough for me. I simply couldn’t relate to his detective ways. I felt like he wasn’t a career detective but just a normal person trying to find out about others.
The way the story is told wasn’t for me. The “facts” were confusing enough and all that going back and forth made it even more confusing.
Like I said, I am not a connoisseur of these people’s lives, but from this book I can tell the author is absolutely not fond of Mary Shelley. I kind of felt like reading this book was a bad thing. Like talking behind someone’s back. The author created fiction out of non-fictional characters. But the fiction that she created can even be considered insulting to the memory of these people.
The story didn’t make sense for me, until I read the author’s notes at the end. That’s when all made sense. The author explains what the real facts are and which her inventions are. Her inventions were the things that didn’t make any sense to me. They were too cruel, twisted and disturbing to be true. I do have to give her credit for her imagination, but in this case, the mystery surrounding the Shelley’s is one to be left unexplained.
This book is for people who have a deep knowledge of the Romantics. This book is not for the plain normal reader who can get confused and really believe what the author invented about these people. If you read this book, read it with an open mind and don’t try to make sense out of what you find makes no sense.
August 3, 2013
I read an advance copy of this novel received through LibraryThing's Early Reviews program. I had originally signed up to receive a copy because I had just read Frankenstein for the first time a few months ago, and I was intrigued by the idea of reading a mystery spun around the author and her husband. The copy of Frankenstein that I read contained biographical information about the pair, but nothing that really addressed anything personal about who they were.
I also read Lynn Shepherd's book The Solitary House in preparation for reading this one, since they both followed the same main character, private investigator Charles Maddox. That ended up not being necessary, since they are stand-alone stories. A Fatal Likeness does make small references to the first book, and the exposition about Charles Maddox and the other characters in his household is not really repeated for a new reader's benefit. However, while The Solitary House was very much so about Charles and his household, A Fatal Likeness uses them only to serve as the backdrop for focusing on the Shelleys. I forgot much of the time that Charles was part of the story.
Lynn Shepherd emphasizes in her afterword that this was a fictional novel. However, she also takes the time to lay out what biographers and contemporaries of the Shelleys have said about them, and she explains where and why she added her own fictional solutions to the gaps in our knowledge about the pair. One thing that Shepherd conveys that I didn't appreciate from the biographical information included in my copy of Frankenstein was just how young these people were, and how at odds they were with the rest of society at the time. She also did an excellent job bringing them to life and injecting personality into them. While this may or may not be an accurate reflection of them, since this IS fiction, it made for a wonderful read. It's also made me very interested to learn more about them, and Shepherd recommends a good number of books that she relied on for her research for anyone wanting to read more.
I also read Lynn Shepherd's book The Solitary House in preparation for reading this one, since they both followed the same main character, private investigator Charles Maddox. That ended up not being necessary, since they are stand-alone stories. A Fatal Likeness does make small references to the first book, and the exposition about Charles Maddox and the other characters in his household is not really repeated for a new reader's benefit. However, while The Solitary House was very much so about Charles and his household, A Fatal Likeness uses them only to serve as the backdrop for focusing on the Shelleys. I forgot much of the time that Charles was part of the story.
Lynn Shepherd emphasizes in her afterword that this was a fictional novel. However, she also takes the time to lay out what biographers and contemporaries of the Shelleys have said about them, and she explains where and why she added her own fictional solutions to the gaps in our knowledge about the pair. One thing that Shepherd conveys that I didn't appreciate from the biographical information included in my copy of Frankenstein was just how young these people were, and how at odds they were with the rest of society at the time. She also did an excellent job bringing them to life and injecting personality into them. While this may or may not be an accurate reflection of them, since this IS fiction, it made for a wonderful read. It's also made me very interested to learn more about them, and Shepherd recommends a good number of books that she relied on for her research for anyone wanting to read more.
January 28, 2014
1850/1816 London. One man, four women. The man is Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. The adolescent women who protect him at all costs are the interrelated Fanny Godwin Imlay; Shelley’s first wife, Harriet Westbrook; his second wife, Mary Godwin Shelley; and Mary’s stepsister, Claire Clairmont. Lord Byron is here, too, as the natural father of Claire Clairmont’s baby.
The fictional protagonist, Charles Maddox, carries the weight of this disquieting tale. Summoned by Shelley’s son in the fall of 1850, our Charles, who is a private detective, agrees to investigate the “stranger” who claims to possess papers that will reveal the late poet’s secrets to the world. These secrets propel Charles through this complex story of suicide, deceit, lies, accusations, and breathtaking meanness. What is true? Who betrayed whom? What terrible truths may be revealed that has the acclaimed author of Frankenstein, Mary Godwin Shelley, determined to quash them in order to protect her husband’s reputation and, quite likely, hers, as well?
Childlike, prone to horrific dreams, Shelley is eccentric and a raving madman on occasion. Employing an omniscient viewpoint that allows her to step out of the story and interpret events from time to time (from as far away as the 21st century, which I found jarring), Shepherd deftly peels away the layers of Shelley’s disturbing world. Incriminating papers are burned, children die or go missing, the guilty go unpunished. Even Charles Maddox falls from grace as he judges those around him and finds them lacking while remaining blissfully unaware of his own shortcomings. A fatal likeness, indeed. Despite its unsettling underpinnings, the writing in this work is glorious, and I recommend it highly.
The book contains a genealogy with comments on the interwoven Shelley and Godwin families and extensive author’s notes.
The fictional protagonist, Charles Maddox, carries the weight of this disquieting tale. Summoned by Shelley’s son in the fall of 1850, our Charles, who is a private detective, agrees to investigate the “stranger” who claims to possess papers that will reveal the late poet’s secrets to the world. These secrets propel Charles through this complex story of suicide, deceit, lies, accusations, and breathtaking meanness. What is true? Who betrayed whom? What terrible truths may be revealed that has the acclaimed author of Frankenstein, Mary Godwin Shelley, determined to quash them in order to protect her husband’s reputation and, quite likely, hers, as well?
Childlike, prone to horrific dreams, Shelley is eccentric and a raving madman on occasion. Employing an omniscient viewpoint that allows her to step out of the story and interpret events from time to time (from as far away as the 21st century, which I found jarring), Shepherd deftly peels away the layers of Shelley’s disturbing world. Incriminating papers are burned, children die or go missing, the guilty go unpunished. Even Charles Maddox falls from grace as he judges those around him and finds them lacking while remaining blissfully unaware of his own shortcomings. A fatal likeness, indeed. Despite its unsettling underpinnings, the writing in this work is glorious, and I recommend it highly.
The book contains a genealogy with comments on the interwoven Shelley and Godwin families and extensive author’s notes.
March 16, 2013
The research and imagination that has gone into this book takes it well beyond the Victorian crime genre that it might otherwise be slotted into. As it examines a mystery at the heart of the life of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley much of the 'action' takes place much earlier in the 19th century. Unlike the book it succeeds, Tom All Alone's, Charles Maddox Junior does not drive the story as viewpoint switches between characters via letters, notes and journal entries, which reveal his great uncle - CM Snr - to be rather more fallible than we have been previously led to believe. This results in a tale that constantly surprises and challenges beliefs and at the end our views of the poet Shelley and the women he bewitched and betrayed are transformed by the author's imagination. It will be hard to think of this complex Romantic poet in the same way again!
Charles Maddox, both junior and senior, are flawed heroes in many ways. However an interesting detective is never a simple soul.
I look forward to the next book in this thrilling and intelligent series.
Charles Maddox, both junior and senior, are flawed heroes in many ways. However an interesting detective is never a simple soul.
I look forward to the next book in this thrilling and intelligent series.
October 26, 2013
I forced myself to finish it, I wanted to stop half way. Very confusing story, and I think unless you have some background knowledge of Mary and Percy Shelly (which I did not) it is hard to follow. Not my kind of book, though I normally enjoy historical fiction.
December 5, 2014
Wow, great fact(?)fiction story. Loved it.
January 8, 2016
stilski odlična knjiga, no nije me nimalo dirnula nit mi je bila nešto ekstra zanimljiva...
July 25, 2015
Lynn Shepherd- Fatalna bliskost
"Jer nije li šah, na kraju, igra žrtvovanja? Moraš znati koliko točno možeš izgubiti da bi postigao viši cilj."
Autorica povijesnih krimi romana do sada nepoznata balkanskoj publici, ovim nas romanom vodi u viktorijanski London devetnaestog stoljeća.
U književnosti je to doba poznato po mladoromantičarima koji su ujedno i glavni likovi ovoga romana, poznata autorica Frankensteina Mary Shelley i njen rano preminuli suprug, pjesnik Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Radnja romana počinje 1850. godine, nekih tridesetak godina nakon smrti Percy Bysshe Shelleya i samo godinu dana prije smrti same Mary Shelley.
Bivši policajac, a sadašnji detektiv Charles Maddox dobija angažman Sir Percy Shelleya, jedinog preživjelog potomka Shelleyevih, kojima je troje djece umrlo nedugo nakon rođenja.
Zatečen tupavošću potomka tako genijalnih roditelja, Maddox uviđa da je uzde razgovora preuzela Jane Gibson, Percyjeva supruga koja čini sve da održi ugled svojih svekra i svekrve, pritom uništavajući sve one dokumente koje smatra nepodobnima.
Maddoxov zadatak postaje pronaći osobu koja već duže vrijeme ucjenjuje iznemoglu Mary Shelley objelodanjivanjem dokumenata koji bi mogli promjeniti javno mnijenje o Shelleyevima.
Pomnim praćenjem adrese koju su mu dali, Maddox dolazi do šokantnih zaključaka. Na spomenutoj adresi već duže vrijeme živi Claire Clairmont- polusestra Mary Shelley.
Ono što će Maddoxa mimo njegove volje još više uvući u cijeli slučaj jeste ono što mu, inače proračunata i tajanstvena, Claire Clairmont otkriva.
Shelleyevima je dobro poznat njegov istoimeni prastric, slavni detektiv Charles Maddox. 1814. angažovala ga je Mary Shelley kako bi razotkrio osobu koja je pratila njenog voljenog Percy Bysshe Shelleyu koji je u to vrijeme još bio u braku sa Harriet Westbrook.
Percy Bysshe Shelleya je tokom svog kratkog života ostao upamćen po svojim radikalnim političkim stavovima, otvorenim pogledima na brak te ateizmu. Djela su mu, za njegova života bila zabranjena.
Trideset godina kasnije, Charles Maddox će biti suočen sa do tada nepojmljivim propustom. U inače temeljitim bilješkama njegovog prastrica pronaći će da nedostaje nekoliko stranica iz 1816. godine.
1816. godina ostati će upamćena kao godina nastanka legendarnog Frankensteina. Mary Shelley je tada boravila u vili Diodati na Ženevskom jezeru, skupa sa suprugom i polusestrom, a gost im bijaše jedan od najistaknutijih umova toga vremena, lord Byron.
Čitatelj tada biva suočen sa, do sada nepoznatim, i intrigantnim detaljima o nastanku Frankensteina, kao i sa mračnim detaljima o mogućem bračnom trouglu između Mary, njenog supruga i njene polusestre Claire.
Charles Maddox stariji se suoči sa iznenadnim moždanim udarom kada u njegov život ponovo uđu Shelleyevi, sigurni da je saznanja o njihovom slučaju povjerio i svom nećaku.
Dok Shelleyevi vjeruju kako mladi Maddox zna više nego što bi trebalo, on ostaje uskraćen i za najosnovnije informacije. Jedini koji zna gdje su stranice koje nedostaju i šta na njima piše je njegov nepokretni i zanijemjeli prastric.
Charles Maddox se oslanja na oskudna saznanja, shvativši iz ono malo bilješki koje su mu dostupne da je nestanak Harriet Westbrook, prve supruge Percy Bysshe Shelleya, bio unaprijed isplaniran.
Zašto je toliko smrti povezano sa Shelleyevima? Da li je fatalna bliskost sigurnija i od najsigurnije udaljenosti.
Zaboravite sve što ste znali o Shelleyevima... osim njihovih imena. Požurite, otkrijte ledenu tajnu jedne od najboljih knjiga koje sam pročitao u ovoj godini!
Dodatno zahvaljujem autorici na dodatku koji se nalazi na samom kraju romana, u kome je ukazano na to koji dijelovi priče su povijesne činjenice, a koji su samo plod njene mašte.
Iako je ovo treći slučaj inspektora Charlesa Maddoxa, koji se može čitati samostalno, iskreno se nadam da će Lumen prevesti i prethodna dva, tim više što govore o životima Jane Austen i Brama Stokera.
"- Jedno sam naučila - kazala je tiho, kao da odgovara na njegovo pitanje - i to na teži način: ljubav i mržnja mogu postojati jedna uz drugu. Štoviše, s vremenom mogu postati gotovo nerazlučive. U stanju smo vezati se za nekoga odveć duboko i žestoko da bismo bili nježni, no prekid takve veze rasparat će nam srce više no ljubav kako je obično shvaćamo."
"Jer nije li šah, na kraju, igra žrtvovanja? Moraš znati koliko točno možeš izgubiti da bi postigao viši cilj."
Autorica povijesnih krimi romana do sada nepoznata balkanskoj publici, ovim nas romanom vodi u viktorijanski London devetnaestog stoljeća.
U književnosti je to doba poznato po mladoromantičarima koji su ujedno i glavni likovi ovoga romana, poznata autorica Frankensteina Mary Shelley i njen rano preminuli suprug, pjesnik Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Radnja romana počinje 1850. godine, nekih tridesetak godina nakon smrti Percy Bysshe Shelleya i samo godinu dana prije smrti same Mary Shelley.
Bivši policajac, a sadašnji detektiv Charles Maddox dobija angažman Sir Percy Shelleya, jedinog preživjelog potomka Shelleyevih, kojima je troje djece umrlo nedugo nakon rođenja.
Zatečen tupavošću potomka tako genijalnih roditelja, Maddox uviđa da je uzde razgovora preuzela Jane Gibson, Percyjeva supruga koja čini sve da održi ugled svojih svekra i svekrve, pritom uništavajući sve one dokumente koje smatra nepodobnima.
Maddoxov zadatak postaje pronaći osobu koja već duže vrijeme ucjenjuje iznemoglu Mary Shelley objelodanjivanjem dokumenata koji bi mogli promjeniti javno mnijenje o Shelleyevima.
Pomnim praćenjem adrese koju su mu dali, Maddox dolazi do šokantnih zaključaka. Na spomenutoj adresi već duže vrijeme živi Claire Clairmont- polusestra Mary Shelley.
Ono što će Maddoxa mimo njegove volje još više uvući u cijeli slučaj jeste ono što mu, inače proračunata i tajanstvena, Claire Clairmont otkriva.
Shelleyevima je dobro poznat njegov istoimeni prastric, slavni detektiv Charles Maddox. 1814. angažovala ga je Mary Shelley kako bi razotkrio osobu koja je pratila njenog voljenog Percy Bysshe Shelleyu koji je u to vrijeme još bio u braku sa Harriet Westbrook.
Percy Bysshe Shelleya je tokom svog kratkog života ostao upamćen po svojim radikalnim političkim stavovima, otvorenim pogledima na brak te ateizmu. Djela su mu, za njegova života bila zabranjena.
Trideset godina kasnije, Charles Maddox će biti suočen sa do tada nepojmljivim propustom. U inače temeljitim bilješkama njegovog prastrica pronaći će da nedostaje nekoliko stranica iz 1816. godine.
1816. godina ostati će upamćena kao godina nastanka legendarnog Frankensteina. Mary Shelley je tada boravila u vili Diodati na Ženevskom jezeru, skupa sa suprugom i polusestrom, a gost im bijaše jedan od najistaknutijih umova toga vremena, lord Byron.
Čitatelj tada biva suočen sa, do sada nepoznatim, i intrigantnim detaljima o nastanku Frankensteina, kao i sa mračnim detaljima o mogućem bračnom trouglu između Mary, njenog supruga i njene polusestre Claire.
Charles Maddox stariji se suoči sa iznenadnim moždanim udarom kada u njegov život ponovo uđu Shelleyevi, sigurni da je saznanja o njihovom slučaju povjerio i svom nećaku.
Dok Shelleyevi vjeruju kako mladi Maddox zna više nego što bi trebalo, on ostaje uskraćen i za najosnovnije informacije. Jedini koji zna gdje su stranice koje nedostaju i šta na njima piše je njegov nepokretni i zanijemjeli prastric.
Charles Maddox se oslanja na oskudna saznanja, shvativši iz ono malo bilješki koje su mu dostupne da je nestanak Harriet Westbrook, prve supruge Percy Bysshe Shelleya, bio unaprijed isplaniran.
Zašto je toliko smrti povezano sa Shelleyevima? Da li je fatalna bliskost sigurnija i od najsigurnije udaljenosti.
Zaboravite sve što ste znali o Shelleyevima... osim njihovih imena. Požurite, otkrijte ledenu tajnu jedne od najboljih knjiga koje sam pročitao u ovoj godini!
Dodatno zahvaljujem autorici na dodatku koji se nalazi na samom kraju romana, u kome je ukazano na to koji dijelovi priče su povijesne činjenice, a koji su samo plod njene mašte.
Iako je ovo treći slučaj inspektora Charlesa Maddoxa, koji se može čitati samostalno, iskreno se nadam da će Lumen prevesti i prethodna dva, tim više što govore o životima Jane Austen i Brama Stokera.
"- Jedno sam naučila - kazala je tiho, kao da odgovara na njegovo pitanje - i to na teži način: ljubav i mržnja mogu postojati jedna uz drugu. Štoviše, s vremenom mogu postati gotovo nerazlučive. U stanju smo vezati se za nekoga odveć duboko i žestoko da bismo bili nježni, no prekid takve veze rasparat će nam srce više no ljubav kako je obično shvaćamo."
February 15, 2013
I reviewed Tom-All-Alone’s in March and having enjoyed Charles Maddox’ investigations in London 1850’s, when Corsair offered a proof copy of A Treacherous Likeness, I was eager to find out where his investigations would take us this time. Added to that …Mary Wollestonecraft Shelly, Percy Florence Shelley, Mary Wollestonecraft Godwin and William Godwin are interred in St Peter’s Church, Bournemouth (and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s heart is said to be buried there too). The Shelley’s left behind their heritage with quite a few road names/places named after them here. The hotel where I had my wedding reception is situated on Wollestonecraft Road (photographs of the church and tomb at the end of my review).
Even though A Treacherous Likeness follows on from Tom-All-Alone’s, it’s not imperative you’ve read it to be able to enjoy A Treacherous Likeness.
The story opens with Charles Maddox in his uncle’s house. His personality and uncle’s situation is made clear. The link between the start of his uncle’s illness and a calling card is shared. Abel talks Charles into contacting the owner of the calling card … Percy Shelley and his wife Jane. The reason they give for hiring Charles is that they want to protect his mother, Mary Shelley/the family name – but this hides layers upon layers of intrigue.
Vital information is missing from his uncle’s case papers, which is a surprise to Charles. His uncle kept everything no matter what would be revealed. Managing to present himself as a lodger to Claire Claremont (step-sister to Mary Shelley and mistress of Lord Byron) he finds her memoirs of the summer of 1816.
Charles compares the information from the two step-sisters to a game of chess:
“For is not chess a game, in the end, of sacrifice? Of knowing how much to forfeit for a greater end? … snip … it was a pawn she surrendered, nothing more. There must be a far more important piece in play here, if he could but discover it.”
I loved that as Charles uncovered an answer, there was far more underlying it. Even at the end there is another part that finally falls into place when it is least expected. This intrigue was a real page turner for me.
Shepherd’s writing style is very much in keeping with the time period of the story. This, alongside the descriptions of London as we journey with Charles, made it very easy for me to believe I was there. The reader becomes involved in Charles’ life … I loved watching Charles’ uncle with Betsy and servant Molly’s predicament provoked sorrow. I think Charles is a bit harsh with young Billy and wonder what part he has to play in Charles’ future investigations.
Another thing I really liked about this story is that although it is fictional, Shepherd interweaves her story with the facts that are known seamlessly together and even though we don’t know all the ‘facts’ , this has plausible answers to the real life mystery … making it a read I just couldn’t put down.
A Treacherous Likeness also explores life in the 1850’s. We encounter mental illness, infant deaths, obsession/free love and of course it lays bare how far a family may go to cover up their secrets.
A keeper for me! I know Lynn Shepherd is working on her next novel and am eagerly awaiting where Charles will take us next.
I would like to thank the publishers for providing a proof copy in exchange for an honest review.
Even though A Treacherous Likeness follows on from Tom-All-Alone’s, it’s not imperative you’ve read it to be able to enjoy A Treacherous Likeness.
The story opens with Charles Maddox in his uncle’s house. His personality and uncle’s situation is made clear. The link between the start of his uncle’s illness and a calling card is shared. Abel talks Charles into contacting the owner of the calling card … Percy Shelley and his wife Jane. The reason they give for hiring Charles is that they want to protect his mother, Mary Shelley/the family name – but this hides layers upon layers of intrigue.
Vital information is missing from his uncle’s case papers, which is a surprise to Charles. His uncle kept everything no matter what would be revealed. Managing to present himself as a lodger to Claire Claremont (step-sister to Mary Shelley and mistress of Lord Byron) he finds her memoirs of the summer of 1816.
Charles compares the information from the two step-sisters to a game of chess:
“For is not chess a game, in the end, of sacrifice? Of knowing how much to forfeit for a greater end? … snip … it was a pawn she surrendered, nothing more. There must be a far more important piece in play here, if he could but discover it.”
I loved that as Charles uncovered an answer, there was far more underlying it. Even at the end there is another part that finally falls into place when it is least expected. This intrigue was a real page turner for me.
Shepherd’s writing style is very much in keeping with the time period of the story. This, alongside the descriptions of London as we journey with Charles, made it very easy for me to believe I was there. The reader becomes involved in Charles’ life … I loved watching Charles’ uncle with Betsy and servant Molly’s predicament provoked sorrow. I think Charles is a bit harsh with young Billy and wonder what part he has to play in Charles’ future investigations.
Another thing I really liked about this story is that although it is fictional, Shepherd interweaves her story with the facts that are known seamlessly together and even though we don’t know all the ‘facts’ , this has plausible answers to the real life mystery … making it a read I just couldn’t put down.
A Treacherous Likeness also explores life in the 1850’s. We encounter mental illness, infant deaths, obsession/free love and of course it lays bare how far a family may go to cover up their secrets.
A keeper for me! I know Lynn Shepherd is working on her next novel and am eagerly awaiting where Charles will take us next.
I would like to thank the publishers for providing a proof copy in exchange for an honest review.
March 3, 2013
Our hero Charles Maddox is back, and once again embroiled in some very unsavoury matters. This time he is dragged into the orbit of Mary Shelley. It is not a comfortable place to be. Mary's only surviving son, called Percy after his father, calls upon Maddox's professional services. Maddox pays a visit to the Shelley residence; he meets a man ruled by his wife, a shrine to the Dear Departed Percy Bysshe Shelley, and a case requiring him to act as spy. Someone has some papers concerning the late Shelley that his family would like in their possession. Maddox reluctantly takes the case, but there is so much he doesn't know.
Lynn Shepherd has drawn upon the many mysteries surrounding Shelley's life to create another wonderfully atmospheric and chilling detective novel. The starting point in 1850 are the sensitive papers, which could undo all the hard work the current Lady Shelley has done in rehabilitating Shelley from pariah to icon. Mary's daughter-in-law, her son's wife, is the driving force behind this, and it is she that instigates the contact with Maddox.
Poor Maddox is still in a bad way from his previous case in Tom-All-Alone's. It has left both physical and mental scars. He has settled in a little more to his new home, but his great-uncle's decline continues to take its toll. His hesitation in taking on the Shelley case is quickly revealed to be well-judged. Maddox was not chosen at random; his great-uncle has had dealings with the Shelleys before. Dealings he has long regretted. Maddox's suspicions are aroused by Lady Shelley's seemingly casual mention of any papers that he may come across amongst his great-uncle's things. It doesn't take him long to track the relevant documents, but what he finds only deepens the mystery.
Everything about the case is more complicated than it first appears. Maddox is caught between two of the women that dominated Shelley's life - the beguiling Claire Clairmont and the ailing Mary. Which one can be trusted, which one is telling the truth? Fortunately, Maddox has lost none of his tenacity. He is still incapable of letting an injustice go and he'll keep digging until all the secrets are uncovered. The case has a life of its own, absorbing Maddox to a dangerous degree.
The story opens with the Narrator - such a distinctive voice that I was immediately taken back to Tom-All-Alone's. I love how the Narrator leads us by the hand from place to place, telling us the story and showing us the sights. Once again I was put right into the story by the first sentence:
We began before thick in autumn fog; we open now in the fury of a west and winter wind.
Lynn creates the atmosphere so brilliantly. And even more brilliant is the way the revelations keep tumbling. The secrets are packed like Russian dolls one inside the other; every time I thought I knew it all, there was yet more waiting for me. Towards the end my hands were gripped tightly around the book as I devoured page after page. Did I enjoy it? Oh yes, indeed I did. It is my firm intention to read every novel Lynn ever writes, her brand of historical crime is very much to my taste.
This review is also posted on my blog.
Lynn Shepherd has drawn upon the many mysteries surrounding Shelley's life to create another wonderfully atmospheric and chilling detective novel. The starting point in 1850 are the sensitive papers, which could undo all the hard work the current Lady Shelley has done in rehabilitating Shelley from pariah to icon. Mary's daughter-in-law, her son's wife, is the driving force behind this, and it is she that instigates the contact with Maddox.
Poor Maddox is still in a bad way from his previous case in Tom-All-Alone's. It has left both physical and mental scars. He has settled in a little more to his new home, but his great-uncle's decline continues to take its toll. His hesitation in taking on the Shelley case is quickly revealed to be well-judged. Maddox was not chosen at random; his great-uncle has had dealings with the Shelleys before. Dealings he has long regretted. Maddox's suspicions are aroused by Lady Shelley's seemingly casual mention of any papers that he may come across amongst his great-uncle's things. It doesn't take him long to track the relevant documents, but what he finds only deepens the mystery.
Everything about the case is more complicated than it first appears. Maddox is caught between two of the women that dominated Shelley's life - the beguiling Claire Clairmont and the ailing Mary. Which one can be trusted, which one is telling the truth? Fortunately, Maddox has lost none of his tenacity. He is still incapable of letting an injustice go and he'll keep digging until all the secrets are uncovered. The case has a life of its own, absorbing Maddox to a dangerous degree.
The story opens with the Narrator - such a distinctive voice that I was immediately taken back to Tom-All-Alone's. I love how the Narrator leads us by the hand from place to place, telling us the story and showing us the sights. Once again I was put right into the story by the first sentence:
We began before thick in autumn fog; we open now in the fury of a west and winter wind.
Lynn creates the atmosphere so brilliantly. And even more brilliant is the way the revelations keep tumbling. The secrets are packed like Russian dolls one inside the other; every time I thought I knew it all, there was yet more waiting for me. Towards the end my hands were gripped tightly around the book as I devoured page after page. Did I enjoy it? Oh yes, indeed I did. It is my firm intention to read every novel Lynn ever writes, her brand of historical crime is very much to my taste.
This review is also posted on my blog.
June 25, 2016
This book is written in lovely prose - but I hate its depiction of Mary Shelley which is vicious, malicious and would be positively libellous if written about someone alive today. Shepherd has read the standard biographies, the letters, the journals - and then has chosen to ignore them in creating a monstrous Mary Shelley.
Unlike Shepherd's last two books, this doesn't make an intervention into a classic novel, instead it takes on the Shelley `circle' - Shelley, Byron, Mary Shelley, Claire Clairmont - and, particularly, the motifs of death that followed them: the suicides of Shelley's first wife, and Mary Shelley's half-sister Fanny Imlay; the succession of dead babies; the early death of Shelley himself before the age of 30, and turns them into a personal indictment of Mary Shelley.
Shepherd tries to justify her treatment in an afterword but I'm afraid I disagree both with her thesis (for which there is no evidence) and the way in which she puts it forward in this book. Her argument about the authorship question of Frankenstein can be fairly easily discounted as the 1818 manuscript for the novel exists in the Bodleian in Mary Shelley's handwriting, and Shepherd's assertion that it was dictated by Shelley is spurious in the extreme. More pressing, however, is the unpleasant emotional manipulations this book makes in its depiction of Mary Shelley, and its radical re-writing of the relationship between Claire Clairmont and Shelley.
I can't expand without significant spoilers but readers may want to compare this novel with some of the scholarly literature on the Shelley `circle': Richard Holmes' seminal Shelley: The Pursuit, and Janet Todd's Shelley and the Maiden are particularly relevant to some of the issues central to this book, though offering very different and far more subtle and nuanced interpretations without whitewashing or eliding the undoubtedly disturbing elements of the story. There are also many volumes of letters and journals from all these participants which are available in university and research libraries, and which serve as the basis for the biographies noted above.
It may be argued that this as `just fiction' - but I'm afraid I found this a jaundiced, hostile and deeply unpleasant recreation of a woman whose own writings reveal someone very different. Read this by all means, but do bear in mind that it's one person's rendition, in fictional form, of a group of real people who, sadly, can't defend themselves against the profoundly disturbing accusations made against them here.
Unlike Shepherd's last two books, this doesn't make an intervention into a classic novel, instead it takes on the Shelley `circle' - Shelley, Byron, Mary Shelley, Claire Clairmont - and, particularly, the motifs of death that followed them: the suicides of Shelley's first wife, and Mary Shelley's half-sister Fanny Imlay; the succession of dead babies; the early death of Shelley himself before the age of 30, and turns them into a personal indictment of Mary Shelley.
Shepherd tries to justify her treatment in an afterword but I'm afraid I disagree both with her thesis (for which there is no evidence) and the way in which she puts it forward in this book. Her argument about the authorship question of Frankenstein can be fairly easily discounted as the 1818 manuscript for the novel exists in the Bodleian in Mary Shelley's handwriting, and Shepherd's assertion that it was dictated by Shelley is spurious in the extreme. More pressing, however, is the unpleasant emotional manipulations this book makes in its depiction of Mary Shelley, and its radical re-writing of the relationship between Claire Clairmont and Shelley.
I can't expand without significant spoilers but readers may want to compare this novel with some of the scholarly literature on the Shelley `circle': Richard Holmes' seminal Shelley: The Pursuit, and Janet Todd's Shelley and the Maiden are particularly relevant to some of the issues central to this book, though offering very different and far more subtle and nuanced interpretations without whitewashing or eliding the undoubtedly disturbing elements of the story. There are also many volumes of letters and journals from all these participants which are available in university and research libraries, and which serve as the basis for the biographies noted above.
It may be argued that this as `just fiction' - but I'm afraid I found this a jaundiced, hostile and deeply unpleasant recreation of a woman whose own writings reveal someone very different. Read this by all means, but do bear in mind that it's one person's rendition, in fictional form, of a group of real people who, sadly, can't defend themselves against the profoundly disturbing accusations made against them here.
October 10, 2013
In the dying days of 1850 the young detective Charles Maddox takes on a new case. His client? The only surviving son of the long-dead poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and his wife Mary, author of Frankenstein.
Charles soon finds himself being drawn into the bitter battle being waged over the poet's literary legacy, but then he makes a chance discovery that raises new doubts about the death of Shelley's first wife, Harriet, and he starts to question whether she did indeed kill herself, or whether what really happened was far more sinister than suicide.
As he's drawn deeper into the tangled web of the past, Charles discovers darker and more disturbing secrets, until he comes face to face with the terrible possibility that his own great-uncle is implicated in a conspiracy to conceal the truth that stretches back more than thirty years.
The story of the Shelleys is one of love and death, of loss and betrayal. In this follow-up to the acclaimed Tom-All-Alone's, Lynn Shepherd offers her own fictional version of that story, which suggests new and shocking answers to mysteries that still persist to this day, and have never yet been fully explained.
Sorry but this had my hackles up once I saw the direction we were heading…how far is too far when it comes to creative license? Can you accuse someone of some of the most horrific acts imaginable and then justify it by saying in your author notes:
I can't deny that the author writes very well and the evocation of Victorian London with all its dark, dirty secrets is well drawn.
I enjoy speculative fiction but felt this overstepped the mark by a country mile
Oh and I disliked that avuncular narrator as well....
Charles soon finds himself being drawn into the bitter battle being waged over the poet's literary legacy, but then he makes a chance discovery that raises new doubts about the death of Shelley's first wife, Harriet, and he starts to question whether she did indeed kill herself, or whether what really happened was far more sinister than suicide.
As he's drawn deeper into the tangled web of the past, Charles discovers darker and more disturbing secrets, until he comes face to face with the terrible possibility that his own great-uncle is implicated in a conspiracy to conceal the truth that stretches back more than thirty years.
The story of the Shelleys is one of love and death, of loss and betrayal. In this follow-up to the acclaimed Tom-All-Alone's, Lynn Shepherd offers her own fictional version of that story, which suggests new and shocking answers to mysteries that still persist to this day, and have never yet been fully explained.
Sorry but this had my hackles up once I saw the direction we were heading…how far is too far when it comes to creative license? Can you accuse someone of some of the most horrific acts imaginable and then justify it by saying in your author notes:
“In the notes at the end I set out what here is fact and what is invention, but I’ve tried to remain faithful to the lives and characters of these extraordinary and complex people. The story history tells us is one of death and love, of secrets and betrayal. My own version of that story is darker yet, but I do believe it is one plausible answer to many of the mysteries about the Shelleys that still persist even now, and have never yet been fully explained.”
I can't deny that the author writes very well and the evocation of Victorian London with all its dark, dirty secrets is well drawn.
I enjoy speculative fiction but felt this overstepped the mark by a country mile
Oh and I disliked that avuncular narrator as well....
May 25, 2013
Included at the end of A Fatal Likeness is an author's note that goes into detail about the research and idea for the book. I must say, I appreciate the conception, along with the research and development. The perspective is a visionary undertaking. Undoubtedly, the constructing of this piece was no easy task!
However, simply compiling information and arranging neat pieces with good editing does not make a story great. In my opinion, A Fatal Likeness lacks the electricity it truly needs to jolt this one to life. Given the baited mystery and intriguing subject matter, the telling of this version is remarkably flat and academic. The text is tired, and tries too hard to seem authentic and as a result, the characters suffer unjustly.
Since several characters had the same name i.e. Mrs. Shelley (we have three or four?), the individual voices and points of reference (time shifts) are critical to establish. Unique distinction through dialogue is essential and needs to be immediate for recognition. Unfortunately, this is lacking, which results in confusion. I had a difficult time, especially when coupled with picking up and putting down the book, establishing which family or Mrs. Shelley the narrator was talking to or about. Was this a flashback, an interview or present time? At first, I thought this was my fault and resulted from interrupted reading, but after awhile I became frustrated and often had to back up to get grounded. This truly takes the momentum, suspense and mystery out of a story and often, I just felt disoriented. The prolonged flatness of the characters killed it for me. I really lost interest and by the end, empathy. If I was not reading this book for review, it would have ended up in my DNF (did-not-finish) pile at the 50% page mark.
With such juicy characters to work with, I'm surprised at how chaste, tedious and dry this read actually is. Overall, a rather boring and disappointing historical fiction.
However, simply compiling information and arranging neat pieces with good editing does not make a story great. In my opinion, A Fatal Likeness lacks the electricity it truly needs to jolt this one to life. Given the baited mystery and intriguing subject matter, the telling of this version is remarkably flat and academic. The text is tired, and tries too hard to seem authentic and as a result, the characters suffer unjustly.
Since several characters had the same name i.e. Mrs. Shelley (we have three or four?), the individual voices and points of reference (time shifts) are critical to establish. Unique distinction through dialogue is essential and needs to be immediate for recognition. Unfortunately, this is lacking, which results in confusion. I had a difficult time, especially when coupled with picking up and putting down the book, establishing which family or Mrs. Shelley the narrator was talking to or about. Was this a flashback, an interview or present time? At first, I thought this was my fault and resulted from interrupted reading, but after awhile I became frustrated and often had to back up to get grounded. This truly takes the momentum, suspense and mystery out of a story and often, I just felt disoriented. The prolonged flatness of the characters killed it for me. I really lost interest and by the end, empathy. If I was not reading this book for review, it would have ended up in my DNF (did-not-finish) pile at the 50% page mark.
With such juicy characters to work with, I'm surprised at how chaste, tedious and dry this read actually is. Overall, a rather boring and disappointing historical fiction.
January 24, 2018
I wish the author had given us more of a refresher on the back story of Charles Maddox and his Uncle because though I can remember the mystery and the ending of The Solitary House I don't remember that much about the two of them or how Charles sustained the injury that is referred to at the beginning of this story. I wanted to reread 'The Solitary House' right before picking up 'A Fatal Likeness' but unfortunately, ran out of time to do so.
This most recent installment of Charles Maddox's investigations revolves around Percy Shelley and the loves of his life, there were so many it was difficult to keep track of them all. I was glad Lynn Shepherd included a family tree so I could follow all the connections and rivalries. I needed to refer to it many times as I tried to remember exactly how all the women were connected.
While Percy Shelley's tormented life and his relationships with the women in it were fascinating, in a disturbing train wreck kind of way, this story's pacing ebbs and the path of the mystery meanders a bit. I liked both the contemporary (1850) characters and their stories as well as those whose youth we learn about in the past (1814-1816).
I really liked the very last chapter of the book and the way Lynn Shepherd explains Percy Shelley's haunting visions and the way she depicts his marriage to Mary throughout the book. The Author's Note is fascinating and I once again appreciated her caution not to read until after finishing the book.
This book reminds me that I have 'Passion: A Novel of the Romantic Poets' by Jude Morgan sitting on the shelf. Now I'm wondering how the two books will compare. Overall I did enjoy this, most especially the ending, though the pacing will be a bit slow for some readers.
Thank you to the Amazon Vine Program for providing me with the advance uncorrected proof for review.
This most recent installment of Charles Maddox's investigations revolves around Percy Shelley and the loves of his life, there were so many it was difficult to keep track of them all. I was glad Lynn Shepherd included a family tree so I could follow all the connections and rivalries. I needed to refer to it many times as I tried to remember exactly how all the women were connected.
While Percy Shelley's tormented life and his relationships with the women in it were fascinating, in a disturbing train wreck kind of way, this story's pacing ebbs and the path of the mystery meanders a bit. I liked both the contemporary (1850) characters and their stories as well as those whose youth we learn about in the past (1814-1816).
I really liked the very last chapter of the book and the way Lynn Shepherd explains Percy Shelley's haunting visions and the way she depicts his marriage to Mary throughout the book. The Author's Note is fascinating and I once again appreciated her caution not to read until after finishing the book.
This book reminds me that I have 'Passion: A Novel of the Romantic Poets' by Jude Morgan sitting on the shelf. Now I'm wondering how the two books will compare. Overall I did enjoy this, most especially the ending, though the pacing will be a bit slow for some readers.
Thank you to the Amazon Vine Program for providing me with the advance uncorrected proof for review.
July 20, 2019
This was an intense story. I finished it two days ago and I still cannot find the words to write a review that is void of any spoilers and unintentional hints to the plot.
The characters are richly portrayed with the sort of depth that has the reader wonder at their intentions and waver between trust and mistrust. The main character or recurring character of Charles Maddox takes an unusual back seat in this investigation as we find out more about his uncle.
The plot is an elaborate and drama induced mess that resembles the lives of bored and overly wealthy people to a fault.
The writing still contains elements of Charles Dickens as was evident in the previous installment of the Charles Maddox series, but it wasn't until last night that I realized the intricate and intelligent inclusion of Mary Shelley's writing style from "Frankenstein" throughout the story. The author did a fantastic job in describing the characters in such a multidimensional way that I was constantly wavering between hating them and feeling something that could resemble sympathy.
The author changes the overall feel and atmosphere as well as the premise of the investigation in each book and in this installment of the series she focuses the reader's primary attention on the case rather than character development.
As mentioned above, this story is a glorious mess of emotional and psychological tension that has the characters involved and the reader spinning in confusion, trying to figure out how a group of people could get so tangled up with each other.
Not so much a murder mystery, yet still mysteriously intriguing, I recommend this book to anyone, who enjoys Victorian influenced writing.
ElliotScribbles
The characters are richly portrayed with the sort of depth that has the reader wonder at their intentions and waver between trust and mistrust. The main character or recurring character of Charles Maddox takes an unusual back seat in this investigation as we find out more about his uncle.
The plot is an elaborate and drama induced mess that resembles the lives of bored and overly wealthy people to a fault.
The writing still contains elements of Charles Dickens as was evident in the previous installment of the Charles Maddox series, but it wasn't until last night that I realized the intricate and intelligent inclusion of Mary Shelley's writing style from "Frankenstein" throughout the story. The author did a fantastic job in describing the characters in such a multidimensional way that I was constantly wavering between hating them and feeling something that could resemble sympathy.
The author changes the overall feel and atmosphere as well as the premise of the investigation in each book and in this installment of the series she focuses the reader's primary attention on the case rather than character development.
As mentioned above, this story is a glorious mess of emotional and psychological tension that has the characters involved and the reader spinning in confusion, trying to figure out how a group of people could get so tangled up with each other.
Not so much a murder mystery, yet still mysteriously intriguing, I recommend this book to anyone, who enjoys Victorian influenced writing.
ElliotScribbles
May 2, 2013
I'm still not sure why I kept reading this book. The characters were silly caricatures of real people, the plot was totally convoluted and I didn't feel any of the suspense I was supposed to, and I just did NOT like the writing style. This gets a full two stars because I somehow still managed to read it all, maybe because as a lit major I was morbidly curious about what Shepherd would have to say about the Shelleys.
What bothered me the most about this book is that I really HATED the constant asides from the author that broke the fourth wall. It was so melodramatic and did not go well. For example: we are treated to a long account of what went on in the past as Charles sits down to speak with someone. When it's over, the next chapter begins "Did Charles know all of this? Perhaps, after all, this guy did see most of it firsthand." WHY IS THIS NECESSARY? It makes me feel like I'm in a Dora the Explorer episode. No thank you.
Overall, it was kind of interesting from a lit standpoint, to see what she made of these famous characters, but I really think (especially given the sordid lives of our focus) it could have been more gothic and less campy film-noir imitation. Bleh, for me.
What bothered me the most about this book is that I really HATED the constant asides from the author that broke the fourth wall. It was so melodramatic and did not go well. For example: we are treated to a long account of what went on in the past as Charles sits down to speak with someone. When it's over, the next chapter begins "Did Charles know all of this? Perhaps, after all, this guy did see most of it firsthand." WHY IS THIS NECESSARY? It makes me feel like I'm in a Dora the Explorer episode. No thank you.
Overall, it was kind of interesting from a lit standpoint, to see what she made of these famous characters, but I really think (especially given the sordid lives of our focus) it could have been more gothic and less campy film-noir imitation. Bleh, for me.
December 12, 2013
Halverwege het boek heb ik het opgegeven. Ik wachtte op het keerpunt, dat moment waarop een traag verhaal dan toch eindelijk lijkt te vertrekken. Maar dit verhaal leek overal en nergens heen te gaan. Jammer. Misschien later nog eens.
November 27, 2013
Although I liked the first book, this was a painful, plodding mystery that unfolds through an endless series of decades-old letters that you are forced to read. Ugh.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 215 reviews