Scan barcode
timinbc's review against another edition
2.0
Feh.
One review called this a "cabinet of curiosities," and it certainly is that. As such it is quite interesting. But if you expected a novel with characters and a plot that both develop, look elsewhere. This is a jumble, a hodge-podge, almost an attempt at deconstructing the novel.
Or else it's an author who got tired of all the Post-its and index cards he'd piled up in his research, and decided to shuffle them up. draw cards in random order, and write a plot as he went.
A golem? Sure, why not? Who drinks milk. Right. Why? How? And this dude gives the book its title but turns out not to be particularly relevant to the plot. Spoiler? You say? Nah. This book is spoiled already.
A guy who lives backward in time? Of course. But, like everyone who has EVER written about that idea, Barnes leaves it unexplained.
Hawker & Boon, later to be carried over to The Domino Men, are hilariously awful, and I mean that as a compliment. They're unforgettable. In a more serious book they would perhaps cross the line into unjustifiable sadism and violence, but by the time they appear here we're clearly in a cartoon world, and these guys are Tom & Jerry, or maybe closer to Itchy & Scratchy. Or are they Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar from "Neverwhere"? Or ... see tvtropes.org under ThoseTwoBadGuys.
So, evil plots are afoot, Ancient Mysteries will be invoked, supernatural beings, time travel, lots of underground stuff but oddly no zeppelins, ... how can all this get boring? Somehow it does. Perhaps it's because it's hard to care about any of the characters, the plot points seem almost like watching a game of D&D unfold. [Moon raises his fists; Tan chuckles. Roll two dice to decide what happens]
Did I mention "unreliable narrator"? Yep, that's as popular as sriracha these days. Speaking of deconstruction. This one takes the concept to, and possibly past, the "what is reality, anyway?" point, and effectively deflates any interest the reader may have developed. Lookit, the narrator said up front that he was going to lie about some things and withhold others. He wasn't kidding. If only the lies and omissions had made the book better for their use.
So, go into this book with no expectation beyond reading about a jumble of quite-interesting-at-first characters doing stuff that looks interesting for a while, and you might enjoy it.
But when I read SF and fantasy. I expect the author to give me interesting characters in an interesting setting, then cleverly lead me through what MUST happen next so that I continually say, "Heh, yes, of course, why didn't I see that coming?"
This magic act is all hat and no rabbit.
One review called this a "cabinet of curiosities," and it certainly is that. As such it is quite interesting. But if you expected a novel with characters and a plot that both develop, look elsewhere. This is a jumble, a hodge-podge, almost an attempt at deconstructing the novel.
Or else it's an author who got tired of all the Post-its and index cards he'd piled up in his research, and decided to shuffle them up. draw cards in random order, and write a plot as he went.
A golem? Sure, why not? Who drinks milk. Right. Why? How? And this dude gives the book its title but turns out not to be particularly relevant to the plot. Spoiler? You say? Nah. This book is spoiled already.
A guy who lives backward in time? Of course. But, like everyone who has EVER written about that idea, Barnes leaves it unexplained.
Hawker & Boon, later to be carried over to The Domino Men, are hilariously awful, and I mean that as a compliment. They're unforgettable. In a more serious book they would perhaps cross the line into unjustifiable sadism and violence, but by the time they appear here we're clearly in a cartoon world, and these guys are Tom & Jerry, or maybe closer to Itchy & Scratchy. Or are they Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar from "Neverwhere"? Or ... see tvtropes.org under ThoseTwoBadGuys.
So, evil plots are afoot, Ancient Mysteries will be invoked, supernatural beings, time travel, lots of underground stuff but oddly no zeppelins, ... how can all this get boring? Somehow it does. Perhaps it's because it's hard to care about any of the characters, the plot points seem almost like watching a game of D&D unfold. [Moon raises his fists; Tan chuckles. Roll two dice to decide what happens]
Did I mention "unreliable narrator"? Yep, that's as popular as sriracha these days. Speaking of deconstruction. This one takes the concept to, and possibly past, the "what is reality, anyway?" point, and effectively deflates any interest the reader may have developed. Lookit, the narrator said up front that he was going to lie about some things and withhold others. He wasn't kidding. If only the lies and omissions had made the book better for their use.
So, go into this book with no expectation beyond reading about a jumble of quite-interesting-at-first characters doing stuff that looks interesting for a while, and you might enjoy it.
But when I read SF and fantasy. I expect the author to give me interesting characters in an interesting setting, then cleverly lead me through what MUST happen next so that I continually say, "Heh, yes, of course, why didn't I see that coming?"
This magic act is all hat and no rabbit.
karrama's review against another edition
4.0
It's funny and has a steampunkish sensibility. The plot might not be original, but the characters are quirky and can work independently within the framework of their world; which is to say there is some original spark in the protagonist.
crowsandprose's review against another edition
3.0
A very unique (and very enjoyable) narrator helps this otherwise floundering book hampered by some really unlikable characters. The mystery kept me going and the ending satisfied me, but-- the writing was very shaky in places and some of the twists seemed purposeless beyond simple 'ha ha not what you thought, right?' misdirection.
Still, enjoyable. I hope Barnes' second offering is stronger, though.
Still, enjoyable. I hope Barnes' second offering is stronger, though.
klparmley's review against another edition
1.0
I tried again and it sucks so bad I can't finish it. It is a poorly written psuedo-Sherlock-cum-mysticism piece of wandering drivel. I'm embarrassed to have spent as much time on it as I did. This may be my reference for how bad a book is in the future.
lorelei73's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
One of my all time favorite reads. Dark and twisty and enthralling.
mrswhite's review against another edition
4.0
"The many men, so beautiful. And they all dead did lie. And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I."
Set in Victorian-era London, The Somnambulist chronicles the (mis)adventures of Edward Moon, a magician past his prime whose true passion is solving crimes, and his sidekick The Somnambulist, a massive, milk-guzzling, hairless mute who is able to endure impaling with neither injury nor pain. Add a bizarre murder, an albino, a menagerie of circus freaks, prostitutes, assassins, poets, a creeeepy Utopian cult, a man for whom time passes backwards, a medium, and various assorted psychopaths and you have The Somnambulist - a novel that is part Frankenstein, part Sherlock Holmes, and one of the strangest, freakiest, funniest, and most overall enjoyable books I've read so far this year.
The narrator, both unnamed and unreliable, begins his tale with a warning: "This book has no literary merit whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and wilfully bizarre." And although Barnes' prose is far from pedestrian, all those other things are pretty much true. This, of course, is what makes it so much fun to read.
Full to overflowing with twist, turns, and red herrings, Barnes' story more than once risks becoming a bit too absurd, yet he somehow manages to pull it all off. Well, mostly pull it off. The only notable exception to this would be the ending, which wasn't quite as satisfying as I'd hoped it would be. Still, I found Barnes' debut to be a clever and wholly pleasant diversion, and its flaws easy enough to forgive.
In short - I liked it. I liked it a lot.
Set in Victorian-era London, The Somnambulist chronicles the (mis)adventures of Edward Moon, a magician past his prime whose true passion is solving crimes, and his sidekick The Somnambulist, a massive, milk-guzzling, hairless mute who is able to endure impaling with neither injury nor pain. Add a bizarre murder, an albino, a menagerie of circus freaks, prostitutes, assassins, poets, a creeeepy Utopian cult, a man for whom time passes backwards, a medium, and various assorted psychopaths and you have The Somnambulist - a novel that is part Frankenstein, part Sherlock Holmes, and one of the strangest, freakiest, funniest, and most overall enjoyable books I've read so far this year.
The narrator, both unnamed and unreliable, begins his tale with a warning: "This book has no literary merit whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and wilfully bizarre." And although Barnes' prose is far from pedestrian, all those other things are pretty much true. This, of course, is what makes it so much fun to read.
Full to overflowing with twist, turns, and red herrings, Barnes' story more than once risks becoming a bit too absurd, yet he somehow manages to pull it all off. Well, mostly pull it off. The only notable exception to this would be the ending, which wasn't quite as satisfying as I'd hoped it would be. Still, I found Barnes' debut to be a clever and wholly pleasant diversion, and its flaws easy enough to forgive.
In short - I liked it. I liked it a lot.
coleycole's review against another edition
2.0
I wanted to like it -- read a good review that contained some key words (bearded lady, albino, silent hairless giant, etc.) and was really excited to read it. Alas, I gave it 150 pages, and was not drawn in and not impressed. I felt like I was reading a sequel without catching the first book, and by 150 pages I was no longer interested in the back story or the main plot.
sgrunwald96's review against another edition
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25
jgintrovertedreader's review against another edition
4.0
Really, probably 3.5 stars, but it was good enough for me to round it up instead of down.
The Somnambulist features Edward Moon, a conjurer most easily compared to Sherlock Holmes, but with a freakish twist. His Watson is an 8-foot-tall mute man named--can you guess?--The Somnambulist. The pair are asked to investigate a bizarre murder in the seamier part of London at the beginning of the novel. Within pages, they have solved the murder. Or have they?
This was a quick, enjoyable read. The characters may have seemed a little like stock characters at first, but they almost always turned out to be something other than they appeared. The plot was well-paced and, for me anyway, the mystery was pretty unpredictable. But, be warned. I picked this up thinking that it might be like The Alienist but set in London with a few sideshow freaks. It starts out that way, but by the end, the book wanders into solid fantasy. That wasn't a problem for me because I am a huge fan of fantasy, but I know that's not the case for a lot of mystery fans. But it did go a little over the top for me, which is part of why it's 3.5 stars instead of 4.5. Also, I was left with a lot of unanswered questions. I like to have everything pretty tidily resolved at the end. I can't even figure out why the book is titled The Somnambulist instead of The Conjurer except that it sounds cooler.
If nothing else, read the first chapter of this book. It's only about a page long. Read it while you're browsing the bookstore or the library. This was the best first chapter I've read in a long time. Here's the first paragraph: "Be warned. This book has no literary merit whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and wilfully bizarre. Needless to say, I doubt you'll believe a word of it." I was solidly hooked after reading it, and you may find that you are too.
The Somnambulist features Edward Moon, a conjurer most easily compared to Sherlock Holmes, but with a freakish twist. His Watson is an 8-foot-tall mute man named--can you guess?--The Somnambulist. The pair are asked to investigate a bizarre murder in the seamier part of London at the beginning of the novel. Within pages, they have solved the murder. Or have they?
This was a quick, enjoyable read. The characters may have seemed a little like stock characters at first, but they almost always turned out to be something other than they appeared. The plot was well-paced and, for me anyway, the mystery was pretty unpredictable. But, be warned. I picked this up thinking that it might be like The Alienist but set in London with a few sideshow freaks. It starts out that way, but by the end, the book wanders into solid fantasy. That wasn't a problem for me because I am a huge fan of fantasy, but I know that's not the case for a lot of mystery fans. But it did go a little over the top for me, which is part of why it's 3.5 stars instead of 4.5. Also, I was left with a lot of unanswered questions. I like to have everything pretty tidily resolved at the end. I can't even figure out why the book is titled The Somnambulist instead of The Conjurer except that it sounds cooler.
If nothing else, read the first chapter of this book. It's only about a page long. Read it while you're browsing the bookstore or the library. This was the best first chapter I've read in a long time. Here's the first paragraph: "Be warned. This book has no literary merit whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and wilfully bizarre. Needless to say, I doubt you'll believe a word of it." I was solidly hooked after reading it, and you may find that you are too.