Warning: Possible spoilers.
A few years ago (or possibly longer), I read Kit Whitfield's first book, Bareback (released in the US as Benighted) and I found her prose to be wonderfully constructed and the topic - a world where werewolves not only exist but are the norm in society and those who do not shapeshift at the full moon are seen as the abnormalities - engaging and interesting. So when I found In Great Waters by chance a couple of years ago, I decided to buy it. It then spent some time on my bookshelf as I finished my degree, and now I have finally got around to reading it.
Once again, Whitfield explores another side to a supernatural creature, this time merpeople (referred to as deepsmen). The story begins with a young deepsman with a bifurcated tail being left on shore by his mother after having been considered a freak in his tribe all his life; he is adopted and renamed Henry and from there the subject slowly turns to the aristocracy. All over Europe the landsmen kings and rulers have procreated with the deepsmen in order to secure the latters' aid in defending their coastal borders. Unfortunately, in England the royal blood has been mixed and remixed so often that now the line has grown inbred, and the future of the English line is in danger.
The early chapters - dealing with Henry's first painful months and years out of the sea - are an exercise in distance. Whitfield describes things from Henry's point of view - without familiarity or understanding of what they are - and the reader must try to understand from context what is going on.The description of Allard's horse is clear enough, but later, when Henry is shown a painting, I had imagined it as a mirror instead, until the picture in the middle of the frame was actually described. In this way, we are put almost in Henry's position of confusion. It is an interesting way to read and to structure the beginning of a book - and brave in some ways as it could alienate some readers who would not be able to persevere.
The novel brings about some interesting ideas about lineage - mainly by introducing the deepsmen and how they fit into the royal ancestry. With this alternate history, Whitfield has a plethora of questions to answer, and generally does so, wrapping answers up neatly in demonstrating them: for example, the punishments handed to those who parent or harbour bastards who could attempt to usurp the throne. After the story of Angelica - a deepswoman who came to land centuries before and began the landsmen-deepsmen breeding - the story does not focus on its own history as much, and instead considers its present more.
In general I found that the characters were not ones I grew overly attached to. I liked some of the characters very much (Ann and John being two of them), but I always felt it was at arm's length as opposed to intimately.
One small problem I found with In Great Waters was towards the end, where in the space of a paragraph a number of lords of different lands were all introduced with very little to distinguish them, and as they featured later on in the book I found myself flicking back and forth to check who they all were. However, this is a very small thing, and not something that would make me dislike a book.
Whitfield peppers In Great Waters with small and large instances of foreshadowing, and generally does a wonderful job of picking these back up again to ensure they are concluded properly - by the end of the novel I can't remember having any questions still left to answer. The conclusion of the novel is tidy, edged with a small amount of bittersweetness, and generally satisfying. All the twists and turns of the plot (and there is no shortage of these considering the bulk of the action is set at court, where intrigue and poisoners lurk all over) are addressed and put to rest, with a sense that Whitfield is wrapping up the tale and tying a ribbon around it. All in all, I think this was an enjoyable read, and I still very much like Whitfield's writing style.
The novel brings about some interesting ideas about lineage - mainly by introducing the deepsmen and how they fit into the royal ancestry. With this alternate history, Whitfield has a plethora of questions to answer, and generally does so, wrapping answers up neatly in demonstrating them: for example, the punishments handed to those who parent or harbour bastards who could attempt to usurp the throne. After the story of Angelica - a deepswoman who came to land centuries before and began the landsmen-deepsmen breeding - the story does not focus on its own history as much, and instead considers its present more.
In general I found that the characters were not ones I grew overly attached to. I liked some of the characters very much (Ann and John being two of them), but I always felt it was at arm's length as opposed to intimately.
One small problem I found with In Great Waters was towards the end, where in the space of a paragraph a number of lords of different lands were all introduced with very little to distinguish them, and as they featured later on in the book I found myself flicking back and forth to check who they all were. However, this is a very small thing, and not something that would make me dislike a book.
Whitfield peppers In Great Waters with small and large instances of foreshadowing, and generally does a wonderful job of picking these back up again to ensure they are concluded properly - by the end of the novel I can't remember having any questions still left to answer. The conclusion of the novel is tidy, edged with a small amount of bittersweetness, and generally satisfying. All the twists and turns of the plot (and there is no shortage of these considering the bulk of the action is set at court, where intrigue and poisoners lurk all over) are addressed and put to rest, with a sense that Whitfield is wrapping up the tale and tying a ribbon around it. All in all, I think this was an enjoyable read, and I still very much like Whitfield's writing style.
No comments:
Post a Comment