Scan barcode
blacksphinx's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Animal death, Death of parent, Grief, and Murder
Minor: Kidnapping, Self harm, and Suicidal thoughts
greebkit's review against another edition
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
I picked up the book because I felt the premise could be interesting. Essentially the daughters of Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, Dr. Rappaccini, Dr. Frankenstein, and Dr. Moreau find each other and team up to investigate a mysterious Alchemist Society that is specifically experimenting on girls, even their own daughters (them), to further science. However, the Whitechapel/Jack the Ripper murders are thrown in as are Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson plus other literary and real characters that make it a bit of a mess. It doesn't help that the author chose to interject dialogue from the characters commenting on what was going on in the main story as if reading over the writer's shoulder to add comic relief to tense moments. I don't think it added anything to the story and actually detracted from it. It felt like a clumsy way to write from different points of views when it was clearly possible to just announce X chapter was Character Y's POV as she sometimes did.
What was genuinely confusing to me is that Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, is mentioned repeatedly for her novel and frequently blamed for changing the "facts," but Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, H.G. Wells, author of the Island of Doctor Moreau, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of Rappaccini's Daughter, are not real in this world. I believe it's because Frankenstein is the only one with a female author, but, if so, she gets a lot of flack for "misrepresenting" the events of Frankenstein. Only at the end is Mary Shelley given some grace for possibly intending to protect Frankenstein's daughter by pretending she was destroyed, but that makes no sense in the context of the book's events because the one Ms. Frankenstein is hiding from knows that Dr. Frankenstein didn't destroy her.
The other confusing thing to me is the inclusion of Sherlock Holmes mainly because his depiction is reduced to having a crush on the main character with little else except to provide several deus ex machina for the story. He seems to be in the story solely to send the main characters to investigate for him. This story might have been interesting if it had been a more accurate depiction. I am mainly thinking of Sherlock Holmes, the skeptic of the supernatural, being forced to reckon with supernatural characters, Frankenstein, a Jaguar Woman, the original Poison Ivy, etc.
I also didn't like that a nasty person was allowed to escape from repurcussions for no reason. The nun in charge of St. Magdalen's for some reason is allowed to continue despite literally selling girls to their deaths. They know she did it. They know where she is, but all the main characters just dismiss her saying they'll keep an eye on her. That's it? Really? It was just annoying. At least Mr. Hyde escaped.
It could have been interesting, but, on the whole, the book felt messy. Like a bunch of stuff was thrown together and meant to be an adventure but was instead just a mess. That being said, I was able to read it through, but I have no intention to read the next book.
What was genuinely confusing to me is that Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, is mentioned repeatedly for her novel and frequently blamed for changing the "facts," but Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, H.G. Wells, author of the Island of Doctor Moreau, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of Rappaccini's Daughter, are not real in this world. I believe it's because Frankenstein is the only one with a female author, but, if so, she gets a lot of flack for "misrepresenting" the events of Frankenstein. Only at the end
The other confusing thing to me is the inclusion of Sherlock Holmes mainly because his depiction is reduced to having a crush on the main character with little else except to provide several deus ex machina for the story. He seems to be in the story solely to send the main characters to investigate for him. This story might have been interesting if it had been a more accurate depiction. I am mainly thinking of Sherlock Holmes, the skeptic of the supernatural, being forced to reckon with supernatural characters, Frankenstein, a Jaguar Woman, the original Poison Ivy, etc.
I also didn't like that a nasty person was allowed to escape from repurcussions for no reason.
It could have been interesting, but, on the whole, the book felt messy. Like a bunch of stuff was thrown together and meant to be an adventure but was instead just a mess. That being said, I was able to read it through, but I have no intention to read the next book.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Self harm and Child abuse
More...