"a man I got talking to on the bus the other day told me that the lives of people in the past may coexist with ours, invisibly, behind a kind of looking-glass. Sometimes we can see through it, glimpse each other"
(I wrote this as I read it so excuse my continuity errors or focus on particular parts)
Alternating between Victorian London following Joseph in the city's underbelly and modern day London with ex-lecturer Madeleine who's view of London quickly became nostalgic to me as she describes walks I used to take before covid. I really loved the descriptions, I really did find a soft spot for the navigation around the Southwark area. I think Roberts captured the area well. Though despite the narrative flow was a struggle and I could not get into the dialogue, it's too nuanced for me, like one of the reasons why I did not enjoy NW (Zadie Smith). I need distinction of speech, the lack of speech marks sometimes makes it hard for me to distinguish whether it is the voice of the author, the characters thoughts or the character actually conversing with another. I had my misgivings at the start and they never really left, I think I jumped at the book cover and synopsis, but for me the story didn't deliver. There was just a lack of everything and did not suit me at all- I couldn't wait for it to be over. It was terrible.
The opening setting was good with setting the image of 1851 London being a growing city, extending into the countryside, but I did not like Joseph's character introduction. It felt vague and I hated the way he looks upon Mrs Dulcimer and "tarts" in general, I question why would he look for prostitutes if he did not like them? However it isn't until his next part, after Madeleine's introduction, that Roberts reveals Joseph is working for Mayhew (author of London Labour and the London Poor, the book Madeleine is reading) which clears up the purpose of his brothel visits and begins to sew the seeds for the connecting narratives. Madeleine's character surprised me, I was not expecting her to be 60 years old, which was refreshing. I like her interests in literature and the humanities and her bitterness of being made redundant because the subjects were cut ("A mouth that wants to fly open, shout. It's not fair!" I feel your pain, Madeleine!). I love her navigation around London and the way the city is protrayed with striking honesty, it's great but also not great at all, but there are particular areas you always find yourself attracted to.
There is something about Joseph's character I cannot stand. I am interested in his work and the poor people he communicates with, but I despise his attitude towards them. He feels like a condescending, sleazy character to his family and how he goes from disliking Dulcimer to suddenly claiming her as "His Walworth Beauty" and hating prostitutes yet still happy to take service. I can't really like Madeleine's character either, despite her interests I otherwise couldn't care less about her, which is terrible. She just becomes dull, despite a promising introduction. Like Joseph, she seems so condescending and there's an added side plot (why do we need this?) of Emm and his vaguely threatening messages he leaves with flowers. The men (except Toby) in this book just make me uncomfortable and the women just appear miserable? Neither Joseph or Madeleine seemed to fit in the plot that never really solidified. These character just don't shout out to me and within the first 100 pages I'm struggling to keep engaged with the story.
I also struggled to keep going because I really could not get into following the non-linear, continuous thoughts of the narrative. It feels too close to the Modernists' stream of consciousness, which I loathe. The jumping around between thoughts, ignoring some, following others, jumping back into the main narrative and then suddenly back out to another wondering thought. I get what Roberts is trying to do, make the narrative flow seemlessly through events, but mix this in with the dialogue lay out and you have me confused and annoyed.
I found myself enjoying the exterior exploration (the locations etc) with little interest in the main characters. The only character I did like was Mrs Dulcimer, a benefactress helping women keep of the street, teaching how to read and write, protecting each other from the violent and grim society. I was smug when she made Joseph realise how much of a dick and snob he had been in looking down on her and her tennants assuming they were 'less respectable'. She put him in his place with minimal effort. And Madeleine just appears to have her dead mum, Nelly, talking to her??? I thought they were memories to begin with but nope, Roberts is yet again just adding another uneeded voice-in-your-head to the mix.
Halfway through the book, the plot still hasn't formed, names, places and (2) extremely weak "apparitions" (of no value to the narrative) have been dropped with the promise of connection but nothing happens. Roberts still remains focussed on dragging the reader through the quagmire of words of each characters existence and their sexual fantasies/history. Where is the supposed haunting at Apricot Place?
But then, just like that, a multitude of events completely throwing off characters, Joseph loses his job, Milly read his notes on prostitues, the landlords going to kick them out and Clara decides to scream Milly isn't his daughter, that she got her sister to marry him because she was pregnant and Joseph runs out the house in delirious anger. It didn't pull me into the story or sympathise with his character, I'm glad his family left him! It just made everything feel superficial and messy. To add to that, suddenly Madeleine is finally attacked by some strange haunting/nightmare! Wow! Straight out of nowhere! Now she's scared of the flat! There's no build up or shock factor, it just feels dumped in. As if Roberts finally remembered what half the book is supposed to be about. The entire plot is just crushed into the last 170 pages or less. Now it's revealed Madeleine's neighbourly noises of footsteps and a crying baby doesn't exist. Oh, so chilling!
What connects Joseph's plot to the mysterious prologue that doesn't match the main story at all? A dead child from a character we don't know. So is it Betsy that haunts Apricot Place? This character we only know by name and has had NO part in the narrative whatsoever till her baby dies? This is the cry Madeleine hears? Again, it's like Roberts remembers what she is supposed to write and dumps in yet more events that really do feel like they're dumped in. She loses all value because of the way it's written.
The smashed turqoise vase was the reason for Madeleine's short lived haunting? I assume it connects Joseph's narrative since he keeps mysteriously focusing on a similar vase. But again- no. Solid. Connection.
Anyway, we love Toby and Anthony, Rose and Mrs Dulcimer were the saving grace characters.
After extensive chapters, the last handful shrink, some barely fill a page, influencing the rushing end of the story after an extremely slow beginning. Madeleine's lost and Joseph's trying to find Dulcimer. Now it's all dark, rainy nights, cold with fog... ooooh so chilling. If anything I'm more confused with the sudden change to trying to be written like a ghost story after dull domestic dramas. And apparently they can see each other??? Joseph is trying to talk to Madeleine. And Emm tries to harrass Dulcimer??? WHAT IS THIS? Then Madeleine finds Emm among homeless after the attack? Much confusion. IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. Apparently Joseph is her new neighbour? Stupid. Stupid. The whole ending made no sense it wasn't even clever. I' so frustrated. That was such a bad mixing of timelines you can't understand what you read. So glad I've finished.
A promising start that quickly vanished into this. Underwhelming, confusing, frustrating and just lacking cohesion and plot. It felt like reading 382 pages of rambling, as if someone was trying to talk to a friend about a story from memory. Some of the poetic descriptions saved the book but otherwise I hated this book. It was all wrong for me. So this book was jusy a firm reminder to not soley judge a book by its cover. I think I jumped ahead of myself, too busy being happy the charity shop was doing 4 books for £1 and not paying attention to anything else. Hopefully the other three books I pick don't follow suit.