The author knows what he wrote. [Smoke by Dan Vyleta]
I feel as though I've been hoodwinked. I thought I was getting a story about a revolution and hidden truths being exposed. Instead I got a large build-up with an ambiguous and rushed ending. And per the acknowledgements the author knows this is what he gave. "The novel may be political but it has no thesis" tells me all I need to know. Smoke is essentially a story about nothing. Societal faults and ills are pointed out but left undressed.
A story set in an Industrial England where vice and sins are shown selectively through smoke. A world where truths are hidden and reality is a political lie. Deep undercuts to the hidden face of the ruling gentry, that what I expected, what I thought I was getting. 430 pages and the last 100 don't clarify much of anything. Instead a resolution is offered through the waxing poetic of hypocrites. An alternative England where, save for this weird phenomenon and isolationism, everything seems to be the same. That special brand of British imperialism is strong with the colonies existing.
Somehow the protagonists are aware of colonies, and presumably slavery, and all the ills of imperialism, but that's very barely addressed. Morality is thrown around like a paper mask and no moral absolutes hold ground in story. The very promising idea that Smoke is a recent phenomenon is tossed out as fact but nevermore mentioned. I was really hopeful after my 10% read, but that all petered away.
The GoodReads and NetGalley rating systems are both out of five stars, but each rating holds different meaning. Generally I've been applying the same rating to a book on both sites when applicable. Preferring to follow the NetGalley rating system based on recommendation likelihood, I also try to rate my books with respect to previous rating. Do I think this book is better written than most fo my 3-star ratings? Sure, absolutely. Do I feel comfortable lumping it in with my 4-star ratings? Is this a "yes, I would recommend this" book? No, absolutely not. I think if someone asked me for a book with a similar setting or brought up this specific story I would talk about it and I wouldn't give an absolute no or negative review of it. Also influencing my rating it is the presence of advance praise from Robin Sloan, the author of Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore, another book that was a big letdown.
In either system a 3-star rating says that a book is a middle of the road read. Reflecting a review of neither stellar nor horrific, neither solidly good nor less than average, a 3-star rating feels appropriate. I can't say I liked this book to the point of recommendation but I can't deny it's lovely writing. Read it if you want to, but I don't think it'll add much to your life.
However, I won't deny that my interest was peaked upon learning that a sequel, Soot, is set for release in February 2020. It only makes sense. You have a character set on revolution survive and end the story ambiguously, you need a sequel. So maybe that book will reshape my sense of the story.
A story set in an Industrial England where vice and sins are shown selectively through smoke. A world where truths are hidden and reality is a political lie. Deep undercuts to the hidden face of the ruling gentry, that what I expected, what I thought I was getting. 430 pages and the last 100 don't clarify much of anything. Instead a resolution is offered through the waxing poetic of hypocrites. An alternative England where, save for this weird phenomenon and isolationism, everything seems to be the same. That special brand of British imperialism is strong with the colonies existing.
Somehow the protagonists are aware of colonies, and presumably slavery, and all the ills of imperialism, but that's very barely addressed. Morality is thrown around like a paper mask and no moral absolutes hold ground in story. The very promising idea that Smoke is a recent phenomenon is tossed out as fact but nevermore mentioned. I was really hopeful after my 10% read, but that all petered away.
The GoodReads and NetGalley rating systems are both out of five stars, but each rating holds different meaning. Generally I've been applying the same rating to a book on both sites when applicable. Preferring to follow the NetGalley rating system based on recommendation likelihood, I also try to rate my books with respect to previous rating. Do I think this book is better written than most fo my 3-star ratings? Sure, absolutely. Do I feel comfortable lumping it in with my 4-star ratings? Is this a "yes, I would recommend this" book? No, absolutely not. I think if someone asked me for a book with a similar setting or brought up this specific story I would talk about it and I wouldn't give an absolute no or negative review of it. Also influencing my rating it is the presence of advance praise from Robin Sloan, the author of Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore, another book that was a big letdown.
In either system a 3-star rating says that a book is a middle of the road read. Reflecting a review of neither stellar nor horrific, neither solidly good nor less than average, a 3-star rating feels appropriate. I can't say I liked this book to the point of recommendation but I can't deny it's lovely writing. Read it if you want to, but I don't think it'll add much to your life.
However, I won't deny that my interest was peaked upon learning that a sequel, Soot, is set for release in February 2020. It only makes sense. You have a character set on revolution survive and end the story ambiguously, you need a sequel. So maybe that book will reshape my sense of the story.
Comments
Post a Comment