Bitchery reader Natasha is finishing up her MA Thesis (Go Natasha!) and is looking for a present for her thesis advisor (because Natasha, she is a wise, wise grad student):
She’s a total bibliophile (stacks and stacks of books in her office), so I know she’ll like a present of a few books to read while she’s traveling through Europe in August. I was thinking of getting her a few good romance novels, because I know she likes romance, but I doubt she’s explored the romance genre (if that makes sense?).
My advisor’s specialty is alchemy, but she’s also really into 19th-century Europe, witchcraft, and Surrealism. She said once that her favorite book of all time is Perfume: Story of a Murderer by Patrick Suskind. I’ve never read it, but maybe someone in the Bitchery has and can make a recommendation based on that?
Thank you so much if you can offer any help!
So – romances for a professor who’s into alchemy, 19th century Europe, witchcraft, Surrealism, and books by Suskind. Piece of cake! What comes to mind, oh wise readers?
Even though your supervisor is into 19th century, maybe something different & more modern is acceptable.
*Audrey Niffenger – Time Traveller’s wife.
(time-tavel romance expicable by genetic disorder. I loved it)
*Diana Gabaldon …?
BTW – totally agree with “Shadow of the Wind†by Carlos Ruiz Zafron. Gorgeous, atmospheric read set in gothic post-war Barcelona.
A book I’ve read recently and enjoyed that reminded me of Perfume was Elizabeth Redfern’s Music of the Spheres. It’s a mystery set at the end of the 18th century involving astronomy and the hunt for a serial killer.
I also third (it’s at least there by now) the recommendations for Judith Merkle Riley. The Oracle Glass is a personal fave.
I liked Pink Carnation okay, except she made a couple of historical errors that were so ridiculous I STILL remember them. And I read the book like 2 years ago. And maybe if it hadn’t been Regency-era England, and the mistakes hadn’t been related to literary figures, I might not have noticed. But I did, and I have never been able to get past them enough to read more.
I loved Perfume & a book with a similar feel – not romance, not hea, dark, gothic, deeply moving– Ingenious Pain by Andrew Miller. 18 Century Britain & Europe & a character who can feel no pain; I remember the scenes in a Russian snowstorm vividly
Another favourite for rich details and ambiguous characters, again not a love story; The Dumas Club by Arturo Perez-Reverte – nothing like the film that Polanski made from it with Johnny Depp. Set mostly modern day Spain but lots of detail about ancient manuscripts plus echoes of The Three Musketeers and books for summoning the devil, and some witches (I bet your supervisor has already read it, I also love The Fencing Master by the same author)
snarkhunter: Lauren actually talks about her personage historical inaccuracies in the back of the books (somewhere in the Q/A section). Also, on her website she talks about why she did what she did. Just saying, if you liked the book but the inaccuracy bugged you, you can find out why she did it on purpose. Also, the rest of the series picks up, IMO, and considering how long the books are, the modern day romance takes a fairly large backseat to the storylines. Anyway, just a thought about that.
As for Kushiel, I adored the series, even though I am two books behind. Yes, it is heavy on the sex, but I wasn’t squicked out about it. But it might not be for everybody.
Sorry for the late reply—school and BN. Like most of the readers above, there were some “hitches” in the Willig books, but they were so much fun and I have such fond memories of Leslie Howard’s Scarlet Pimpernel and the historical inaccuracies inherent in studio films of that era that I let them slide. I do think the historical sections picked up in the second and third books and show a maturation in Willig’s writing, too.
Also, re: the Historian, I have to note that one of the most erudite, slightly elitist, post-modernists in my department really loved it—unexpected. Kostova clearly loves libraries and people who like to read—I felt like I WAS in several of the repositories she writes about.
I’d second the Perez-Reverte novels and the Carey stories and throw in one more recommend for a mystery series—Kate Ross’ Julian Kestrel Regency mysteries: think Peter Whimsey without the PTSD and with a cravat.
Definitely Diana Gabaldon! I second the mentions of Good Omens, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell, Sourcery & Cecilia, and Mary Jo Putney. How about Robin McKinley? Also Kage Baker’s Cyborg series. And maybe The Ladies of Grace Adieu by Susanna Clare (author of JS&MN;). Also, Suzanne Frank (aka J. Suzanne Frank). Also Naomi Novik’s Temeraire series.
I hated The Unfortunate Miss Fortunes. Bad work by authors who should have known better.
Oooh! Don’t forget Georgette Heyer!
Most of it’s not 19th century (though there is one brief Victorian storyline), and there is no alchemy, per se, but I am telling everyone I know to read The Gargoyle by Andrew Davidson when it comes out on August 5. I read the ARC last month and adored it. It’s a literary love story that is part contemporary and part historical. Lots of dark, gothic overtones and a subplot about Dante’s The Inferno. Also, bibliophiles/academics should be intrigued by the portion set in a medieval monastery—there’s lots of stuff about early bookmaking in the scriptorium.
The inaccuracies in Willig’s books that bothered me weren’t mistakes in character. They were flat-out errors in chronology. You can’t have a character mentally compare himself to Keats in 1803. Why? Because Keats was 8 years old at that point. You can’t have a character saying someone should star opposite Edmund Kean on stage at Drury Lane when he didn’t take the stage until over a decade later.
There’s no excuse for errors like that—not even if she’s trying to “set the mood” of the Regency or whatever. Especially since she’s a trained historian—I expect better.
Another recommendation—Maria V. Snyder’s “Study” series (Poison Study, Magic Study, Fire Study). They are fantasy with a nice romance plot for the central character. The way she handles magic is interesting, too.
I can’t imagine anyone who enjoys fiction and 19th century who hasn’t read Possession; wonderful as it is, it’s also very well-known and widely read.
Instance of the Fingerpost is long, complex and utterly wonderful, so I heartily second that recommendation. But while I LOVE me some Jacqueline Carey, I would certainly not recommend the Kushiel books as a gift in a student-mentor relationship. If she likes dark, though, Carey’s other books, The Sundering (two volumes, Banewreaker and Godslayer), are amazing. Well written, but quite dark (think loosely of Tolkien’s books told from Sauron’s side).
Well, if we’re moving on to just historical mystery series I’d have a lot more to recommend but I have to second this recommendation of the Kate Ross books. The Devil in Music is one of the best books I’ve ever read, period. Shame the author left us too soon…
On the flip side, A Beautiful Blue Death, a first novel by Charles Finch, has good characters and an interesting mystery but some of the clunkiest prose I’ve ever encountered. (Examples in my Amazon review.)
Late to the suggestion, but strong in the alchemy area is Mary Gentle’s Rats and Gargoyles , The Architecture of Desire, and Left to His Own Devices. The books are set in periods that range from a 17th century England where Hermetic magic has taken the place of science to a near future cyberpunk milieu. Gentle included lots of reference to obscure historical facts and alchemical symbols.
The plot is not linear and Alchemy is not my area but I became fascinated by these books a few years back.
I can’t believe I didn’t think of these right off, but for alchemy-related plotting and interesting history, you can’t beat Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle, consisting of three BIG volumes, Quicksilver, The Confusion, The System of the World. My DDP and I spent all of last summer buried in those, on holiday in Scotland as well as back home. They’ve got alchemy, romance, sex, politics, even pirates! Loved, loved, loved these books. (I’m an academic too.)
snarkhunter: I know they were inaccuracies in chronoglogy. All I’m saying is that she did it on purpose and if you care to know why, though it doesn’t sound like you do, she talks about it in the Q/A sections and on her website. Just sayin.
In which book, Randi? She doesn’t talk about it at all in the Q&A;section in the back of The Secret History of the Pink Carnation. I looked this afternoon. I looked on her website, too, and couldn’t find anything.
Why does she do it, if you can remember? I’m really curious here, though still rather disinclined to forgive.
I would really love to know why, and I’m not sure why you think I don’t want to know.
The funny thing is that I’m not normally a stickler for historical accuracy, as long as the errors aren’t too egregious. And I love a book that *deliberately* plays with the historical record as part of its world-building. In Willig’s case, I couldn’t see how the errors I spotted contributed to world-building (they weren’t deliberate enough, for one thing, which could just be part of her being a first-time novelist). Furthermore, *because* of her historical training, which she touts on all of her publicity sites, I hold her to a higher standard than I do someone like, I don’t know, Julia Quinn, who obviously does her research, but who doesn’t make an overt effort to be seen as an expert in the field. I’m not saying that Willig does, but she talks about going to grad school to write better historical novels, and for that alone I think she asks us to hold her to that higher standard.
It’s not that I didn’t like the book, b/c I did. But it didn’t grab me quite enough to overcome my irritation.
snarkhunter: you’re right, I don’t see it on Lauren’s website. I had thought it was under the FAQ, but some of those are different than from the last time I checked. However, I have an email from her where she explains herself (actually following a post here at SmartBitches back in Jan). If she approves, I will post it for you.
re:” I would really love to know why, and I’m not sure why you think I don’t want to know.”
Mostly that was a tone thing. It just felt like you had your opionion in stone, (which is perfectly fine, as I have movie and book opinions that are very rigid [don’t get me started on batman]), and weren’t particularly interested in the wherefores. This is, however, text, so if I mis-read the tone (and that happens all the time), then my bad.
Speaking just for myself, although for intellectual curiosity I would like to know why the author did what she did, the reasons really won’t affect my opinion of the book. I shouldn’t have to read an explanation of why there are chronological and period errors in a book purported to be set in a particular historical period unless, as snarkhunter said, it’s very clear that the author is playing with the history in a specific way for a specific purpose. Referencing Keats when he was only 8 doesn’t seem to be one of those touches, for example, and distracting and annoying a reader who knows better seems like an odd thing to do on purpose even if there is some grand scheme behind it. If the average reader can’t tell what the author was going for, then the scheme has pretty self-evidently not succeeded whatever the reasons were. Very much IMHO, of course, and I know many people have enjoyed these books.
I can see how it came across that way. The only thing set in stone, though, is my conviction that she’s wrong on the details (my field of expertise is 19th century British poetry, so this is something I notice). I always want to know why. It sometimes mitigates my emotional reaction to mistakes.
For what it’s worth, this:
is a perfect explanation of why, even if she’s got a damned good reason for the timeline quirks, they’ll still bother me. If she did it on purpose and has to explain it, then she hasn’t done her job as a writer for me.
When I heard the description for Perfume, I thought of of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. It’s a movie but a very worthy one and it has Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman, so you know it’s good.
snarkhunter: Lauren gave her permission for the repost below.
“Oh goodness, those Keats and Kean references. Talk about things coming back to bite you in unmentionable parts of the anatomy. The wonderful irony of that all is that my editor and I had a long chat, pre-publication, about the anachronism of it and decided that even though they were a decade or so off, it all added to the Regency-land feel and who would really care anyway? Um. Right. In retrospect…. Oh well. You live and you learn. (The Wordsworth reference, however, was actually chronologically correct. But that’s another story). As a bit of Pink Carnation trivia, the Keats reference was meant as a nod to a
> British comedy called “Blackadder” (if you haven’t seen it, I
> highly recommend—talk about witty banter!), in which Keats, Byron, Shelley and Coleridge all violently (and anachronistically) threaten to disembowel Blackadder or, in the alternative, swoon on him, should any harm come to Dr. Johnson’s dictionary. It’s much funnier when they do it. I thought of mentioning all this on Smart Bitches, and then decided that it was really poor
> form for the author to come swooping in—among other things, it would be awful to inhibit honest conversation about the books by making folks feel that angry author was a-waiting in the wings, ready to swoop.”
Hm. I know the Wordsworth reference was chronologically correct—my protest about it is complicated and based largely on literary opinion, so I’ll give her that one.
Her reasons don’t work for me. I had a feeling that was why she did it, and I think it’s lazy writing. You can work with a “Regency feel” and yet still be historically accurate.
The Blackadder thing is cute, I admit. But, again, neither reference has nearly enough sense of deliberation to seem like anything more than a mistake. I’m glad to know she was aware of it—that does give me a higher opinion of her writing, if not of her literary judgment. But that’s just me.
snarkhunter: fair enough. 😉
* The Mercedes Lackey fantasy series about elemental magic, early 1900s, first book is The Serpent’s Shadow
Sorry, JaniceG, this is just a quibble, but the first book in this series is set in the 1800s, and is called The Fire Rose. There’s lots of alchemy in it, so it could definitely be a good choice for Natasha. It’s one of my favorites.
Can I just say, you guys are awesome! 🙂 You’ve given me soo many great recs so far—including some I’m going to add to my personal TBR pile.
Mia, I just watched Sweeney Todd a few days ago. That is a pretty good movie, though I’m sure my advisor has seen it already—it’s right up her alley.
I took the series start designation from Amazon, which apparently doesn’t count The Fire Rose as part of the series: http://www.amazon.com/Serpents-Shadow-Elemental-Masters-Book/dp/0756400619/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216878549&sr=8-1