Ship of Fools: February Book Club

Thread: February Book Club - Rivers of London Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026833

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

February book club is Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch. If you're interested, the usual routine is sign up below.

As I have yet to read this, it's currently on my to read pile, I'll post questions around the 20th (which is in half term, so I can catch up*) I'm actually looking forward to this one, because I can take it on my commute, unlike library books.

* I didn't pick up the January book from the library until 16th January, and because it's a library book I can't take it to read on the way to w*rk because it sets the alarms off in the libraries I work in from other local authorities, and although I can show I'm not stealing books it's not a good look when I'm escorting a student. Neither do I enjoy the experience of setting alarms off two, four or six times every day.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

Pain about the security tags Curiosity. I turned the system off in my library as the kids enjoyed deliberately setting the alarm off too much.

Anyway to get back to the matter in hand, I'm up for this, and though I'm on holiday that week, will join in when I get back.

You could say its a thriller Sir Kevin, it certainly starts off as a police prodedual novel then veers off down some unexpected ways. A good book to read if you know your London.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I'm in too.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I've read this one. And those of the sequels that are in paperback.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

What sort of a book is it? If it is not on Kindle or Nook, I don't have the room for it in our house unless it is in the local libraries. There I two near us: one belongs to the city and the other one is at the university where my wife has borrowing priveleges.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

It's available for Kindle.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

Just bought a copy for my kindle, I need to get back into novel reading and this sounds like my cup of tea [Smile]

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

Not available for Kindle via the USA Amazon, just FYI. Have any USian Shippies purchased a Kindle version from the UK site?

[ 01. February 2014, 18:53: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I read it a while back, having picked it out of the travel section in Oxfam - a friend lives over a tributary of the Effra. Saw it wasn't what I expected, but decided to read it anyway. I've read the second as well.

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

Oh I really enjoyed all of these books! A lovely mix of urban magic, myth and police stuff. [Smile]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I never joined in one of these book discussions but I may for this. Love Rivers of London. I have it on my Nook, so it's available for that.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

"Rivers of London" Is available for the Kindle in the U.S. under the title "Midnight Riot".

[ 02. February 2014, 07:43: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
"Rivers of London" Is available for the Kindle in the U.S. under the title "Midnight Riot".

Thanks so much!

Posted by Celtic Knotweed (# 13008) on :

Will try to join in. Maternal Knotweed has a copy, I read the first few chapters, then all my new Christmas books appeared to distract me. So, if I can find it on her bookshelves without getting distracted again...

(Sandemaniac isn't usually into this genre, but devoured the book in one sitting - he says it's good)

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

I'll try and track down a copy and join in if I may. It's been on my 'to read' list for a while.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
"Rivers of London" Is available for the Kindle in the U.S. under the title "Midnight Riot".

Odd. The original title made sense.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
"Rivers of London" Is available for the Kindle in the U.S. under the title "Midnight Riot".
Odd. The original title made sense.

But as noted above got it shelved under 'Travel' even here...

[ 03. February 2014, 21:41: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I'm not defending the American renaming of the book but I think they decided to apply the name to the whole series of books. Hopefully they left the inside alone.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

There was a bit of a controversy I think when the first version of the US cover of the book had a black man on the cover (I don't think it's a spoiler to say, a picture of the protagonist). And then the final version had a man in silhouette on the cover so you couldn't see that he was black.

Aaronovitch was among the people who was less than impressed.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Not available for Kindle via the USA Amazon, just FYI. Have any USian Shippies purchased a Kindle version from the UK site?

We can and we shall: I'll get my Mrs. on it later today!

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

Got my 'Merican version on Kindle and I must say that it is quite an enjoyable read!

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Me too. Of course the first step was finding it I think it has the sulks because I bought a Sony ereader. Kindles are not compatible with the library system here [Waterworks]

Huia

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

(I think my wife was over-tired when she looked for the novel on Kindle at at three different libraries: I'll ask her again when we are both home from church.....)

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Got it and am about a third of the way through...

Posted by Bebanya (# 18006) on :

I'm in! Baby has recently been moved into her own room, so I can read in bed again [Smile]

. And my local library had a copy on the shelves. Looking forward to getting stuck in.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Welcome to The Ship Bebanya.

Heaven a good place to start, but All Tastes catered for. Board descriptions on home pages, and a welcome thread in All Saints, if you're so inclined.

Firenze
Heaven Host

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Ooh! I've read this one, and fairly recently too.

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

Welcome Bebanya, good to have you along.

Library still hasn't delivered my reserved copy. Will read as soon as I get it.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Beyond midway through - pg. 174:310. It's a hell of a page-turner!

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

Yep, Sir Kevin, as a friend once said (about a book on the Gnostic gospels) it's a rolicking good read.

Posted by Fredegund (# 17952) on :

Just re-read it, after turning over Lothar I's room to find it. Forgotten how much I like Molly - from a distance.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Shucks, I was sure I saw it on the ebook catalogue, and I downloaded the software and spent ages getting it to work, and it now isn't there.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I got carried away and am now reading the fourth book in the series. I hope he's almost finished book 5. Also introduced a friend, who is loving it.

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I got carried away and am now reading the fourth book in the series. I hope he's almost finished book 5. Also introduced a friend, who is loving it.

Yep, I hear you. The rest are queued up on my Amazon wish list.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I finished the fourth one as well and am waiting for v. 5. The dangerous thing about a Kindle is you can get the sequel without getting out of bed...

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

About half finished with the 4th one, will have to refresh myself on the first one.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I finished the fourth one as well and am waiting for v. 5. The dangerous thing about a Kindle is you can get the sequel without getting out of bed...

My bank balance knows this very well. We always have to pay more too because there is an extra charge for converting currency [Waterworks]

Huia

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I was intrigued enough to buy a copy of this, though slightly put off by the cheerful young bookseller's recommendation, "It's like Pratchett". I'm hoping not, as I'm not a Pratchett fan, but I'm going to start it this weekend and see how it goes. There have been some good, interesting recommendations over the months for books I wouldn't normally have thought to read, so a thank-you from me for broadening my horizons.

[ 14. February 2014, 13:07: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I can see why he would say that, but I don't think it is.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The nearest Pratchett is the one he co-wrote with Neil Gaiman "Good Omens". It's something like Gaiman's "Neverwhere". I'd be more likely to compare it to Tom Holt's comic fantasies , especially the John Wellington Wells books.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

"It" in the above posts is the book of the month, not the Pratchett/Gaiman.

And I've now got it on my Nook at a very reasonable price.

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I finished the fourth one as well and am waiting for v. 5. The dangerous thing about a Kindle is you can get the sequel without getting out of bed...

Oh heavens, this. So much this.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I'd see the Pratchett connection in the subverting of fantasy tropes by the mundane realities of the job type stuff... If you see what I mean...

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I would think it's more that it's simply fantasy with a sense of humour.

I've thought of others I would rather compare it with - Christoper Fowler's Bryant and May series, and Eoin Colfer. Possibly Robert Rankin, but I haven't looked at him for a while since I realised that he had a Brentwood with streets with no Asians, and he found his women on cards by Donald McGill.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

It's not precisely "sense of humour": it's the "actually I wanted a cup of coffee" nature of it... Bryant and May are definitely in the same ball park...

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I was intrigued enough to buy a copy of this, though slightly put off by the cheerful young bookseller's recommendation, "It's like Pratchett". I'm hoping not, as I'm not a Pratchett fan, but I'm going to start it this weekend and see how it goes. There have been some good, interesting recommendations over the months for books I wouldn't normally have thought to read, so a thank-you from me for broadening my horizons.

Also hoping it's not like Pratchett.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

It isn't. It's reminiscent of Gaiman's "Neverwhere", with a touch of grown-up Harry Potter. I enjoyed this enormously, and am keen to see if the bookshop has the sequels.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I like the way he* jokes about Harry Potter.

And the way Grant tries, as Potter cannot, to explain things scientifically.

But I'm a teeny bit worried about the length of time he* is taking to getting round to correcting the problem which arises at the end (is that spoiler free enough?) in the sequels. As I read, I'm not very keen on getting to that bit.

*Ben Aaronovitch

And, Garasu, I would include that in "sense of humour". Perhaps like Lindsay Davies' Falco books? Like listening to a really good raconteur, with a twinkling eye and a wry lift to the lips. (Mind you, the latest daughter of Falco piece seemed to occupy an intersection with the Watch books of Pratchett, and I half expected Vimes to stroll in.)

[ 15. February 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I got carried away and am now reading the fourth book in the series. I hope he's almost finished book 5. Also introduced a friend, who is loving it.

I have ordered the next book, 'Soho', to be delivered to my local library after reading of few pages of a teaser from our Kindle app. Should have it by Wednesday.

I finished the book on Saturday and really enjoyed it very much: looking forward to discussing it later this week....

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Yep, finished "Soho" on Monday and now halfway through "Whispers Underground", which I'll finish tomorrow. Any book that can make me laugh at 6.30 am on a long dark commute has to be a good one. Looking forward to the discussion on "Rivers".

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've got the next three on order from the library. Not arrived yet.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Number 4 is out in paperback in May or June 2014. Number 5 is due out in hardback in July 2014.

I haven't quite finished, but will have later today. It's one of those books that makes me laugh out loud on the tube which worries other people.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

May I lead 'Soho' later this year, sooner if possible as I shall begin it in a day or two?

'Rivers' is a unique thriller: never seen anything like it! Bring on the formal discussion!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Sir Kevin, you need to ask about leading books on the general book-keeping thread, not on this thread. Personally, though, I'd prefer not to do two books of a series in the same year, because part of the joy of this bookclub is being introduced to books I wouldn't otherwise read.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

OK - formal questions for discussion - these aren't intended to be the only topics for conversation but open-ended starters for discussion as most people seem to have enjoyed this book enough to go on and find more of the series:

1. Is there anyone who didn't enjoy the book? When I tried and failed finding book club questions on-line I found a number of book clubs had read this, including the House of Commons book club, and they said it was almost universally enjoyed.

2. How believable did you find the characters? I was thinking not just the main protagonists, but the rivers and other characters too.

3. Do you find the mixture of London past and present, police procedural and magic works for you?

4. How frustrating did you find the lack of answers about the magic? As frustrating as Peter, more or less?

5. How likely are you to go on and read other books of the series? - two more currently in paperback, fourth comes out in paperback in May/June 2014, fifth book due out in July 2014.

6. How much did you enjoy the contemporary references, humour and snark? In other words how embarrassing was it to read this book in public?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Like so many, I've already read all the available titles in the series, so clearly I liked it.

As to 'believability' - obviously, within the context of fantasy, it's not so much truth to life (you wouldn't really want some of the entities in this story to be real) as a convincing presentation of the unreal. Which I think they were, both the benign(ish) and malevolent. I expect Aaronovitch knows T S Eliot's line - I do not know much about gods; but I think that the river/ Is a strong brown god - I wonder if that helped inspire his African matriarch?

The Met/magic is good idea: nothing like anchoring the phantastical within the familiar for giving not only solidity, but the amusement of incongruous juxtapositions. (Pratchett does the same thing with the Unseen University, and Rowling with the classic school story.)

As to the London-ness - that's been a bit of a fashion, ever since Peter Ackroyd. I don't mind, it's (as yet) less hackneyed than some of the mythological underpinnings fantasy uses. Now and again the main character becomes a little too obvious a mouthpiece to tell us historical stuff.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

Typing this on my phone while on holiday, so not a detailed reply.

Only person I've met who didn't like it is someone who's really in to the Bryant and May stories. I've not tried those yet, but maybe they are too similar, Both my husband and son are hoovering them up. I guess my mum who doesn't like fantasy in any shape or form wouldn't like it.

I think it works as the background is convincing , the London geography certainly is and the police stuff sounds 'real' too. I also like the approach to learning magic, all those heavy weight books.

Will add more when I get back to a proper computer.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

1. Is there anyone who didn't enjoy the book?

There are people who don't go much for fantasy. I couldn't interest a friend in it, who is a voracious reader and runs a book discussion group.

2. How believable did you find the characters?

Mostly quite plausible. The main characters, definitely. But you expect the otherworldly characters to be a bit otherworldly.

3. Do you find the mixture of London past and present, police procedural and magic works for you?

Yep. I loved this - it's set in an area of London I know quite well so it had an extra dimension for me and was very easy to visualize. The police bits were fascinating, a real insight into what goes on. I don't know how much of the detail was real and how much invented for the purposes of plot, of course, but if it's all true the author's clearly done a quite impressive amount of research.

4. How frustrating did you find the lack of answers about the magic? As frustrating as Peter, more or less?

It never occurred to me at all to think about this aspect. With hindsight, though, it had the feel of the author not being entirely certain himself of how this would pan out.

5. How likely are you to go on and read other books of the series?

I'm just finishing No. 3 now - then waiting for the paperback and if there are more I'll read those too.

6. How much did you enjoy the contemporary references, humour and snark? In other words how embarrassing was it to read this book in public?

Not embarrassing at all. I thought it was great. There aren't many books that can make me laugh at 6.30 am on a gloomy morning commute, but this was one. It is very vernacular though which could present some difficulties for people not familiar with the slang or cultures. It's a very "London" book - really captures the atmosphere and multiculturalism of the city.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Firenze - "less hackneyed" - not much on the marshes so far?

Sorry, I get these literal punny spells.

I'm trying to work out why someone would like Bryant and May and not these. Rivers is more earthy, I suppose. I know on another place I was reading reviews someone didn't like the "gratuitous" sex. Which isn't in B&M.

And I'm not comfortable with what happens to Lesley - and I gather another woman Peter likes gets to be the ensign in the red uniform in one of the other books, as well. Lesley is still not right in book four, going by the sample opener. I know that among the extras men are more often the victims, but I hope it isn't a pattern, like that commented on the other week in various places about the victims in TV shows.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Firenze - "less hackneyed" - not much on the marshes so far?

I 'aven't a ladder and some glarsses....

The Lesley situation (trying not to be too spoilerish) is a strong driver in the subsequent books - as is, to a lesser extent, the uncovering of Nightingale's background and what happened in WW2. Which is fair enough - the author is using our engagement with a character to build interest in reading more (in hopes that it will All Turn Out OK).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think that both genres involved, fantasy and police work / urban noir, have problems with the representation of violence against women. In that context, I think what happens to Lesley is, if problematic, at least problematic in a way that moves on the problems.
It's usual for the main female lead / love interest to be placed in situations where she has to be rescued by the male lead; but she's usually saved with beauty intact. The problem is that being in peril of her life or under threat of violence is presented as making a women sexualised. What happens here is that Lesley is allowed to be scarred for life, and has to live with the consequences. In a way that means she's done the victim thing, and got it over with. She's been put in peril, but it doesn't sexualise her, and she survives as a person. As a result, she becomes able to break out of the role she should occupy in this kind of story, and become the second apprentice, able to do magic too.

In short, from a feminist point of view I wouldn't start from here, and I think what the writer does is an acceptable way out.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I'm enjoying this series. Peter Grant is a fun narrator, and I like the fact that he's able to poke around at what makes magic work. Ben Aaronovitch has said that he knows how magic works in his world, and it's not exactly how any of the characters in his world think it works. I rather like the exploration of some of the oddities of London history and architecture; the finding of weird subhistories.

I thought of Whispers Underground when I saw one scene in Sherlock last month. I wonder if Steven Moffat's been reading these?

For those who didn't know already, Ben Aaronovitch is the author of the best ever Doctor Who story. (This is a scientific fact. There are statistics and pie charts to prove it.) On the subject of urban fantasy, Paul Cornell, who's written some of the nominees for best Doctor Who story, has a series starting with a book called London Calling. It's a bit darker and closer to horror than the Rivers of London series.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I've enjoyed the series and am waiting for the author to hurry up and publish volume 5.
Oddly, Peter Grant reminds me of one of the great detective characters of America fiction; Archie Goodwin of the Nero Wolfe mysteries. It's not just the assistant to an incomprehensible genius, it's the self confident imparting of knowledge of how the world works in passing. Of course Archie brings in his knowledge of life on the farm where Peter is very ignorant of trees and country life. His world is urban.

I also like that magic is never completely explained or schematic, e.g. Molly. That seems realistic; people don't try to measure all the bounds of the real world. There's also the convenience that magic is an awkward business frowned on by the police. Magic is treated as a lost glory the way Victorian engineering is in steam-punk fiction.
The Rivers are interesting as incomprehensible people and as tracing of the past of the City. The apprehension of Mr. Punch is also interesting as a symbolic action.

I was also wondering how the recent flooding will affect the next books in the series.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

One of the reasons I asked about the believability of the characters was that I had found Peter realistic and human, which isn't always the case in fantasy and police procedural books where the people aren't always as well drawn as the worlds and/or the procedures. Here the characters are better drawn than how the magic works, which I think is the right way round.

Peter Grant's character is discussed as well-written in the reviews I read, although someone else did complain about his attitude to women. His attitude to women is so much better than that of most of the London teenagers I've worked with over the last few years, so I suspect it's another of those balancing acts between realism and idealism - between what we'd really like his attitude to women to be and what is believable.

I found the descriptions of a London I know reminiscent of Mike Ripley's Angel books, which I also laugh out loud at, those are crime books, but the settings are brilliant.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

1. Is there anyone who didn't enjoy the book?

I sure liked it. I read it as fast as I could! It was a very much a thriller with almost non-stop action.

2. How believable did you find the characters? I was thinking not just the main protagonists, but the rivers and other characters too.

At first, I didn't warm to the shades. Later, the rivers seemed like real people, only more powerful and a bit intimidating!

3. Do you find the mixture of London past and present, police procedural and magic works for you?

I did: I have read a bit of history and I've been there twice. The magic seemed really odd at first, as if it was just parlor tricks. Somehow, I got to discussing the books with a stranger earlier this week and he said that sort of magic should be spelt magick or magik.

4. How frustrating did you find the lack of answers about the magic? As frustrating as Peter, more or less?

I did find it a bit confusing sometimes and wished that he could progress faster. I also tended to disbelieve the malarkey about time travel: it seemed just a bit too surrealistic...

5. How likely are you to go on and read other books of the series?

V. likely as there was an except from 'Moon over Soho' at the end of our Kindle version. I had Z search for it and she found it in our local library system. She got a call yesterday that it had arrived at our local branch from downtown and I started it right away!

6. How much did you enjoy the contemporary references, humour and snark?

Everything was well-done and came together to be very convincing.

In other words how embarrassing was it to read this book in public?

I'll have to see what the other teachers in the staffroom think when I am at school! I think they might be fascinated.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

1. Is there anyone who didn't enjoy the book?
I'm afraid I didn't, very much. I really wanted to like it and when I started it I was convinced I was going to love it. But somehow it failed to hold my interest. I think that's partly because crime solving isn't a genre I enjoy. I found the style repetitive and although I did finish it (and read the taster for the next one) I skimmed at least half, probably more.

2. How believable did you find the characters?
The people were believable, I liked Peter and Lesley. I have no problem with the willing suspension of disbelief that's required for accepting the part the elementals play (I've read "The Song of Achilles" for example and loved the way the gods and mythical creatures were portrayed) but I felt here they were slightly caricatured, which was a shame.

3. Do you find the mixture of London past and present, police procedural and magic works for you?
I don't know London very well and would probably have enjoyed it better if I did. I didn't like the way the magic was portrayed and have no interest in police procedures so for me personally it didn't really work.

4. How frustrating did you find the lack of answers about the magic? As frustrating as Peter, more or less?
No more frustrating than the repetitive style.

5. How likely are you to go on and read other books of the series?
Not at all. I'd like to know what happens to Peter and Lesley as a factual exercise, but not enough to read any more of the books.

6. How much did you enjoy the contemporary references, humour and snark? [Biased]

The humour I did enjoy and thought it understated and quite clever. But found even that a tad repetitive by the end.

I am sorry to sound so negative as I'm glad to have read it (without the book club here I wouldn't have) and I always enjoy book discussions. Thanks to everyone else for their comments, very interesting to hear what others thought. [Smile]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Glad to hear a dissenting voice, Nenya - I enjoyed it so much I'm reading it a second time, but I can understand where you're coming from. If you don't know London, have no interest in seeing behind the scene on the police side of things, etc, and didn't care for the magical side much, I can understand there won't have been many points that you could have related to as these do form a major part of the structure of the novel.

Personally I loathe murder stories and am not great on crime fiction myself so it takes a lot to persuade me to read one. I think it worked for me for all the points you cite as not working for you. Had it been set in a city I didn't know, one of the northern ones perhaps, maybe told from a different professional's point of view (nurse of some such maybe) where you got to see behind the scenes, I doubt it would have had half as much appeal for me.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I don't know that familiarity with London is necessary for enjoying the book. It might give a frisson of recognition - I did briefly think of a scene in the book as I was wandering through Covent Garden last week - but I think it's up to the author to create the place for you. Do you not feel you 'know' Philip Marlowe's LA?

I found the procedural side quite convincing/entertaining - bit Life on Mars maybe?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I noticed the use in Sherlock of a piece of odd knowledge I only knew about through Whispers Underground. I suspect these guys of talking together in the pub about things. Torchwood crosses my mind, as well.
(I'm not happy that his Dr Who stories were at the time when I couldn't afford a TV on my teacher's salary.)
I'm getting the latest story from the library tomorrow. It is realistic that wounds take a long time to heal.
I think Aaronovitch has managed to write a male character who is quite believable in his attitude to women with regard to sex while being likeable, in that he does notice what is above the neck and appreciate it. Other writers should try to go the same way.

His idea about the deities is oddly like something that crossed my mind as a possibility for a story with regard to a genius loci (can't do plurals, which I probably need for the idea). A friend was working on a wildlife site in a South London park in the design of which Capability Brown may have been involved. At times, he would comment that he needed things for the work, and they would turn up. A base for an island for the coots to nest on - someone flytipped rubble in the car park. So the idea was that someone involved with the original planning of the park had hung around as a new genius loci and approved of the work enough to help it. (I think Diana Wynne Jones did something like this, though, though her guy turned malevolent as his work was buried under development. Floods were involved.) I don't think it was likely to be one of Ben's ladies.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Just started Moon over Soho yesterday and am liking it.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

One of the things that makes the magic work for me is the general fondness in the book for the esoterica of how things work at a deeper level. Police work, urban design, city history, trains, theater and architecture are all fondly mentioned. Magic becomes another form of geek obsession like trainspotting that you just didn't think much about before the author discusses it.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Trains can be seen; magik cannot!

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Trains can be seen; magik cannot!

'Magik' is an object-oriented programming language that supports multiple inheritance, polymorphism and is dynamically typed (I'd give the Wikipedia link, but it has parentheses in). So perfectly visible and eminently geek.

But I agree with Palimpsest's point that the author embeds magic, and its Newtonian pedigree, neatly into a world of oddities. If London can have all these other things just below the surface, why not one more?

[ 21. February 2014, 08:40: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
[QUOTE] If London can have all these other things just below the surface, why not one more?

This sums it up for me, it is why I "bought into" the whole storyline. London is an odd place already, why not have this added dimension?

I know London well enough but did find myself heading to Google maps to see if places really existed. I like the sense of place in the book(s).

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The places added an extra dimension to me as I read this travelling around London for work - and was near or crossing some of the places as they were described.

And yes, I think that's why it works, it does fit so well with the other esoteric stuff. The description of the Folly when you've visited the Soane Museum, the Wallace collection and those other amazing collections hidden away makes so much sense.

Posted by The Intrepid Mrs S (# 17002) on :

It's taken me this long to post because I got it as an audiobook (highly recommended - the narrator Kobna Holdbrook-Smith is just excellent, and I am VERY picky about these things). You can't skip with an audiobook, at least not successfully, hence the delay. Otherwise, like Sandemaniac, I'd have devoured it in one sitting and been wide awake at 3 a.m.

I loved it. I like Pratchett, and Pratchett and Gaiman, but I didn't find this reminiscent of them at all. I loved the way you got so much detail about the police, about the history of London, about the rivers - and I didn't find it at all 'As you know, the king, your father...'. The magic just seemed to slot into place, like the personifications of the rivers; I'm not at all sure it would have worked as well if it had been set anywhere else.

I was also surprised that someone complained about the 'gratuitous' sex; to my mind it was remarkably restrained, and I'm with CK... about Peter's attitude to women. Besides which, the final incident of the book should redress a whole load of imbalance about the usual role of women in police procedurals [Devil]

Seriously, either Lesley or Peter had to fall victim to the predator; and leaving Lesley alive at the end of the book seemed - to me at least - to be avoiding the easy way out. Definitely need to read the sequels and find out what happens next!

(PS I have a soft spot for writers like Joan Aiken and J K Rowling who don't shy away from injuring/disfiguring/killing their favourite characters if the plot demands it)

Thanks for introducing me to these!

Mrs. S, about to listen for the second time
[Yipee]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I am conflicted about the character of Lady Ty. I went on an Anglo-Saxon charter boundary walk with the English Place Names Society, round part of the Westminster boundary which follows the Tyburn. It is possible to track the river through distinctive round manholes in the streets (posh streets, I grant you) with ventilation holes in them, up which wells the scent of the water. The smell of dark, dank water which has not seen light for some time, nor been recently infused with oxygen. It isn't foul (well, it wasn't then - I gather the sewers and the storm drains have been co-mingling lately) but it isn't a scent anyone would expect of a lady. (Even though one of those manholes is in the middle of the area in the front of Buck House.)
I wonder how much homework Aaronovitch has done on the courses of the rivers while deciding on their characters.
Back to Whispers. Funny how things echo. One of the completely made up TV Father Brown stories had a sub plot about earthenware from a dubious source radiating stuff it shouldn't.

[ 21. February 2014, 18:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

Back to Whispers.

I think we should confine discussion to the specific book - if only out of fairness to those who haven't (but wish to) read subsequent ones in the series.

Firenze
Heaven Host

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

It would be appreciated if we could keep it to this book. I've just ordered The Moon over Soho from my lovely local bookshop that I hope will keep going now a W H Smiths has opened in town, so I'm miles behind.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Rave was treated as present but not the issue it might be in the United States. Gay and Lesbians characters fit in the mix without fuss. Class is present, but Peter is from working class stock, albeit with a heroin addict musician father. All of these add flavor without being a big deal.

Does this mark the book as contemporary rather than a traditional mystery?

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I'm not enjoying it much. I thought I was going to, but it seems to be a mix out of too many things I have liked, without being brave enough to go deep enough.
Nothing like Harry potter, which really gets in to the characters and stays with them, without worrying about time frames.
A bit like Skulldugery Pleasant but not as funny. A bit like Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently but not as funny. A bit of police insight which is interesting, but a bit of Sherlock in nightingale which feels slightly ripped off. Actually, I think the whole manner between the met and nightingale is totally ripped off from scenes between the police officer and the detective in 'Dirk Gently's holistic detective agency'. And that is what makes me feel slightly antagonistic. And the gods and goddesses are lifted wholesale from the next book in that serious, 'the long dark tea time of the soul.' Also by Douglas Adams.
All of which I wouldn't mind, if it was as clever or funny.

No, I don't mind that they aren't explaining the magic. I can't remember the rest of the questions.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I'm not seeing that, though I am also well-read....

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The talented unique detective and the police who dislike him but find him indispensable is a trope that goes back to the early mysteries. Sherlock Holmes and Poirot and Nero Wolfe are all examples.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Nightingale doesn't really strike me as being in the mould of anti-hero, spiky, genius detectives. Despite all that he does, including blowing up the vampires and all that he's been through, there's a certain kind of gentle, old-world charm about him. It's Peter who is more the action hero - that develops as the book progresses. Nightingale is actually my favourite character, with Molly a sort of close second - I love the way she's presented "as is" with no explanation for the silence or the other oddities, and you're left to draw your own conclusions a lot of the time.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually, I think the whole manner between the met and nightingale is totally ripped off from scenes between the police officer and the detective in 'Dirk Gently's holistic detective agency'.

"Talent borrows, genius steals, and Doctor Who New Adventures writers get it off the back of a lorry, no questions asked." - a Doctor Who New Adventures writer, name of Ben Aaronovitch.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Could someone tell me what's the next book after Moon Over Soho? I've nearly finished it!

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The four books published so for in the U.S. are

The Rivers of London Novels

Midnight Riot
Moon Over Soho
Whispers Underground
Broken Homes

The original UK title for Midnight Riot was Rivers of London.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I had no intention of saying anything else except that the BBC authors seemed to borrowed something.

I will confine myself.

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

1. Is there anyone who didn't enjoy the book?
I didn't really. The characters were unreal, cartoon-like and I didn't like the mix of genres.

2. How believable did you find the characters? I was thinking not just the main protagonists, but the rivers and other characters too.
Not at all believable!

3. Do you find the mixture of London past and present, police procedural and magic works for you?
Er, no! My favourite part of the book is the history of London, especially the part when Peter whizzes back in time. The 'lost' rivers are fascinating ,especially as I glimpsed one just behind Oxford street when a building had been demolished. Could have been the Tyburn?

4. How frustrating did you find the lack of answers about the magic? As frustrating as Peter, more or less?
As it's all fantasy I wasn't frustrated, just uncomprehending.

5. How likely are you to go on and read other books of the series?
No thanks.

6. How much did you enjoy the contemporary references, humour and snark?
Yes, it is a humorous book, I laughed several times. But as I don't know London that well I felt that I missed out on some references.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tree Bee:
The 'lost' rivers are fascinating ,especially as I glimpsed one just behind Oxford street when a building had been demolished. Could have been the Tyburn?

I don't think so. Checking wikipedia it seems that the Tyburn is further west than that. There's a Tyburn Brook, not to be confused, that flows into the Westbourne at the Serpentine in Hyde Park. Otherwise, it could have been some tributary of the Fleet. If it's a river at all and not a manmade drain.

Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :

1. Is there anyone who didn't enjoy the book?

I'd noticed the book (by the UK title) before, this thread got me to pick it up. I went through it in about a day. Very glad this thread got me to read it.

2. How believable did you find the characters? I was thinking not just the main protagonists, but the rivers and other characters too.

In the context of the story, quite believable. What I know about English/London culture is from the Ship, TV, and Films, so admittedly limited, but people seemed to fit their roles.

3. Do you find the mixture of London past and present, police procedural and magic works for you?

Yes, it does.

4. How frustrating did you find the lack of answers about the magic? As frustrating as Peter, more or less?

Probably less than Peter, in part I think because he was the narrator. If we'd had it all laid out for us A-B-C while Peter was still in the dark and narrating, it just wouldn't have worked for me.

5. How likely are you to go on and read other books of the series?

Reading "Moon over Soho" now. I will probably take a break before picking up the third, mostly so I don't get burned out on the series - they're now in my list of series that I'm reading that way (I started the self-imposed hiatuses after burning out on too many Sookie Stackhouse in a row [Hot and Hormonal]

)

6. How much did you enjoy the contemporary references, humour and snark?

I loved the humor and snark, including Peter's architectural commentary. I don't get all the geographic references as well as Londoners (although I probably would be about as lost as if it was set in downtown Chicago, being a suburbanite that rarely gets downtown!). I have Googled a couple phrases/terms, but not enough to distract me - I looked them up later when puttering about on-line.

The books remind me of Paul Cornell's "London Falling", although that's a darker book, without Peter's snark and humor. And, of course, the Bryant and May/Peculiar Crimes Unit fun.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Try this. With the volume down.

Animated rivers

Here's a better map. Lost rivers

You can see that the Tyburn does cross the western end of Oxford Street.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

According to this Tyburn Brook was the branch of the Westbourne which crosses Hyde Park.

The name Tyburn means boundary stream - so the Brook is boundary stream stream! Or so I was told on the boundary walk. This guy has another derivation as well. London geezer river walk

If it does mean a boundary - and it is on the boundary of Westminster - it could explain an association with executions.

Here's the same geezer's take on The Fleet and The Westbourne

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The Placename Society has a different take on Knightsbridge tha given in the Westbourne piece. The name going back to pre-Conquest times, it has the Old English meaning of cniht, namely a young lad. It was, apparently, the bridge where the local yobs hung out.

OK, I got tangented by reading all these watery byways - but maybe they are of interest to those who are further afield. And at least I have found out where Beverley Brook is. (Where we used to have beavers, I surmise.)

[ 24. February 2014, 18:10: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Try this. With the volume down.

Animated rivers

Here's a better map. Lost rivers

You can see that the Tyburn does cross the western end of Oxford Street.

Thanks, that looks right. My cousin pointed it out to me from her flat in Picton Place near Selfridges.
That animated map is rather 'wormy' though!

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

I very much enjoyed this book and will definitely be reading the rest of the series.

I found the people and situations to be realistic on the books' own terms. The characters are rounded and interesting, and the geography and history accurate enough to make the fictional bits believable. It was a pleasure to have Peter, on finding out about the existence of magic, just make his adjustments and get on with his life, rather than the angst-ridden whining in some other series ("Oh why must I know this secret? Why can't I go back to my old life." etc, ad nauseum).

There's an awful lot of urban fantasy on my bookshelves, so having a ghost/vampire detective story is no sort of problem. I did think that the magic ran away with Aaronovitch a little at the end; having Molly bite Peter to enable him to chase Mr Punch seemed a bit of a reach.

It reminded me most of the Malcolm Pryce Aberystwyth books (well worth a read). I wouldn't like to say that anything has been deliberately lifted from other authors as there's a really deep seam of London-based hidden history and magic-in-the-real-world books. It's practically a sub-genre of its own.

Posted by cattyish (# 7829) on :

I'm pleased to have read this book as an audiobook. It was right up my street, even though my street is nowhere near London.

The characters were good fun. I liked that Beverley Brook was reluctant to get into trouble. The dream-like introduction to Lady Ty was an engagingly different interlude within the story.

I also liked the hard work which the magik required of its practitioners,and that magik did not solve all problems.

The main character's variable attitude to women was interesting, and I didn't think it was unrealistic.

Cattyish, running around the countryside while listening to books.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Beverly Brook made me grin when I encountered her because I knew where that one was from walking my dog in that area.

I'll have to dig it out but there's a book on my shelves I last read years ago called the Lost Rivers of London by Nicholas Barton - much prettier edition than my version here.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

Thanks for the link to the websites Penny S. My dad always said a river ran under where we lived when i was a kid. I'm sure he said it was the Fleet, but it was actually the Westbourne, I reckon we lived where the the toll gate in Kilburn used to be.

These books are a great introduction to London history, I feel a walk to visit some of the sites coming on.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

1. Is there anyone who didn't enjoy the book?

2. How believable did you find the characters?

3. Do you find the mixture of London past and present, police procedural and magic works for you?

4. How frustrating did you find the lack of answers about the magic? As frustrating as Peter, more or less?

5. How likely are you to go on and read other books of the series?

6. How much did you enjoy the contemporary references, humour and snark?

(Interleaving quotes are unimaginably fiddly on a phone ...)

1. I am cautious of books that are the first in a series but I'm glad I started this one.

2. Not sure. Sometimes Peter felt like a well-intentioned middle class white guy pretending to be black. I also thought that the elementals ought to be either more famous or less powerful given that magic wasn't a secret in this world. But that's just a niggle.

3. I really liked this. I was surprised to find that Aaronovitch doesn't have a police background.

4. I thought that made it more believable, as well as funnier.

5. Already have.

6. A lot, and it definitely brought the characters to life.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I think that the Nicholas Barton book ends up by touching on an idea that living over a buried river is not good for the health in various ways - which is worrying with regard to a friend who lives over the Effra. (fortunately it has shown no signs of coming to the surface there in the recent exundations).
I agree that animation looks wormy - I had to give up watching it after a bit.

I too thought that the work involved in doing magic and in learning it was a good aspect of the book, as are the costs on the practitioner. (A way round this becomes apparent in book four.) I'm not sure that the existence of magic is generally known in Peter's world, rather hushed up. Rather less known about than Wicca in ours. I got the impression that the incidents caused by Mr Punch were given other explanations. And it had, according to Nightingale, somewhat dropped out of apparent existence since the war. I think a world in which it was generally known about would be a very different one.

I did come across a book recently with a title suggesting it was about underground London - but it wasn't what I expected. Not tunnels and rivers and bomb shelters and war rooms, but a sort of prehistorical survey of unprovable folklore and antiquarian supposition, such as the place where Aeneas' son Brutus set up his base, and the slight rise in the roads round Westminster where there was a Tothill, and the place where Merlin had a cave in a reservoir. I think I passed the book on to a friend, as I usually do with London stuff. As I recall, it was the sort of book which supposes that there might, actually, be some sort of energy to be found in such places. (And not the sort of thing which may produce miasmas over old rivers.) Some people like the idea of a world more like Peter's than ours. I don't.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

It's a kind of Men in Black situation - there is effectively a conspiracy by the authorities to conceal it.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Drat, I've just realised I forgot to go to the library to pick up Soho.

I've been searching for the lost landscape book. This isn't it, but I enjoyed the description - and the nominative determinism of the author's name. Richard Trench. London under London

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Got it.

Unearthing London

And why it did not come up with search words like secret, hidden, beneath, lost, underground, ancient etc I can't tell. All of which words now look weird, and which brought up some very odd stuff indeed. Odder than Aaronovitch's fiction.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
It's a kind of Men in Black situation - there is effectively a conspiracy by the authorities to conceal it.

In Rivers of London it's more of a conspiracy by the authorities to hope it goes away if they don't believe in it.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'm not sure it can be called a conspiracy if the parties do not actually discuss their response, but severally make a point of being seen not to act as if they believe in it.

I am beginning to wonder about Lesley, and how early she was invaded by the thing. And why her. Or, alternatively, how early Aaronovitch decided what he was going to do with her. I'm going to have to reread Rivers. Does he do uncomplicated females at all?

Aaronovitch seems to be afflicted with the NuWho long story arc thing. (I know that seems to be future referencing again, but I find I am seeing the series as one book.)

BTW, did Mrs Hogsmill show up anywhere? Or Mrs Quaggy? And I'm wondering if Beverley Brook was a trigger for the whole rivers thing - none of the others actually sound like a person, and he could have done the story of the Folly and Peter's induction into it without the rivers at all. Other ancient characters are available.

Have you seen this? The Folly

[ 26. February 2014, 21:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

Penny S said:

quote:
BTW, did Mrs Hogsmill show up anywhere? Or Mrs Quaggy? And I'm wondering if Beverley Brook was a trigger for the whole rivers thing - none of the others actually sound like a person, and he could have done the story of the Folly and Peter's induction into it without the rivers at all. Other ancient characters are available.

Don't know about the Quaggy, but the Hogsmill would be a mister as it's above Teddington Lock. I was looking out for him as he's my local river. I agree I couldn't really make sense of the rivers, which is probably why i liked the second book where they hardly feature more. Though I liekd this one a lot too.

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

The rivers seem to play a boundary defining role. Maybe the limits of "London"? They do play subsidiary roles in the other books that in my mind serve as a grounding in place; a reminder of what lurks beneath and has been covered up but is not gone.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Now I've finished the book I wanted to report back. One is that I enjoyed the second half much more than the first. Two is that it reads like the first section of a longer book, which follows someone else's 'story arc' point and three is that I'm reading book two.

Please can the book club read 'Dirk Gently's detective agency' next? I'd be very interested to know what you all think of it.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere would also make an interesting Compare and Contrast.

The discussion of the upcoming programme is going on
here.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Book two is where the criticism of gratuitous sex applies, I have now discovered. If I had come across it first I might well not have continued. But it's easily skipped.

The Hogsmill, should Aaronovitch delve into geomorphology, should be a cause of trouble between the Thameses. I am aware from a friend's thesis that it has been identified as having reversed its direction of flow in the past. (Due to recent micro-tectonic changes.) Looking on the map, it looks very much as though it has captured the upper stretches of Beverly Brook - notice the doglegs in both which follow the same trend, in line with each other. So there might be a problem with gender identity. Should he wish to use that in a future narrative.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not sure it can be called a conspiracy if the parties do not actually discuss their response, but severally make a point of being seen not to act as if they believe in it.

I think he was trying to do a delicate balancing act between a. the authorities are embarrassed that it exists; b. the authorities want to think it's unimportant (in the same way that nobody cares there's still a Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports); c. the authorities need to bring the magical branch in for special cases.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Well, yes - but I suppose I expect a conspiracy to at some time have involved a group of people discussing something and coming to an agreement - though without keeping minutes.

I think the Cinque Ports cares, BTW, I remember all the fuss about HRH the Queen Mother getting installed. (Lived just down the hill.)

[ 01. March 2014, 09:40: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

I know Sir Kevin wanted to discuss Moon over Soho , maybe now it's March we can now discuss the series in general.

I didn't think the sex in Moon over Soho was gratuitous as such, as it did move the plot along. I liked Simone, even though it was obvious from the start she was a bit of a femme fatale.

I like the idea of the Hogsmill and Beverley Brook getting involved. I see the Hogsmill as someone that would like to be seen as a trendy city type, but is really rather suburban. I've already read three of the books now and he's yet to make an appearance.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gussie:
I know Sir Kevin wanted to discuss Moon over Soho , maybe now it's March we can now discuss the series in general.

March it may be, but people have only had 10 days to discuss the current book, which is a week and a bit, and there are some who haven't read any more than one we're currently featuring. Some won't want to, and it'll be spoilers for others. How about we give it a bit longer?

(No reason why people can't chat about it in the cafe meanwhile, though.)

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I don't think the sex happening was gratuitous, but the detail didn't seem all that necessary.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Hogsmill? Must order Book Three and Four...

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

You won't find it there! I was picking up the odder named tributaries that didn't make good personal names. (One of its sources is close to the Epsom Salts well, which could be amusing.)

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

A simple question, one that has deepened upon reading the other books in the series...what is Molly? My fast classification would be "ghoul", which to me means a creature that subsists on blood but not necessarily a vampire (and we know what happens to them in this series.) What is her relationship to Nightingale and The Folly? It has to be than servant, IMO.

[ 02. March 2014, 22:21: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I recall reading that she was found as a child, of a sort described as "incomplete" (or synonym) during a raid on some practioners. That such people arose when people had been exposed to a lot of magical energies, as did the vampires, and that in some cases the condition was hereditary. That she was taken back to the Folly as a temporary expedient preparatory to finding her a good home, and that she then refused to step outside its doors. (She orders the food to be delivered somehow.) (This may be in "Moon over Soho", as it seems relevant to that plot.) As to what she is, I think Aaronovitch is leaving it undefined. Is Mrs Addams a ghoul?

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I recall reading that she was found as a child, of a sort described as "incomplete" (or synonym) during a raid on some practioners. That such people arose when people had been exposed to a lot of magical energies, as did the vampires, and that in some cases the condition was hereditary. That she was taken back to the Folly as a temporary expedient preparatory to finding her a good home, and that she then refused to step outside its doors. (She orders the food to be delivered somehow.) (This may be in "Moon over Soho", as it seems relevant to that plot.) As to what she is, I think Aaronovitch is leaving it undefined. Is Mrs Addams a ghoul?

Wow, I missed all of that somehow. Must have been the late night reading. I remember the food deliveries and the painting with her as the subject. I find Molly quite intriguing. She is coming out of her shell a bit in the later books, at least in a culinary sense. I like that Aaronovitch is taking a dig at Jamie Oliver; that's how I read it.

And Morticia Addams is a dark goddess in my mind!

[ 03. March 2014, 15:52: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Molly as a ghoul is an interesting thought. I had always gotten the impression of Arachnid energy, Would a ghoul be able to make into the Folly?

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Molly as a ghoul is an interesting thought. I had always gotten the impression of Arachnid energy, Would a ghoul be able to make into the Folly?

Arachnid energy, what a great idea. Would the Folly be her lair/nest? Is she protecting her nest? Interesting line of thought.

(Code fix)

[ 03. March 2014, 21:19: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

What's arachnid energy?

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What's arachnid energy?

I took it to mean she has the energy/spirit of a spider. Venom/pincers/teeth, etc...

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Spider is what I meant by arachnid. She does spend a lot of time nesting and feeding.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What's arachnid energy?

That would be telling [Biased]

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

Thanks Firenze.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Well, I knew that an arachnid would be a spider, but the capitalisation and the energy suggested it was a reference to something I didn't know about.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

I like the concept of arachnid energy, but I don't see Molly as a scuttled as such, she is always described as gliding. Maybe she is a mix of spider, ghoul and something else.
I do like the way she isn't properly explained away.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I had Molly pegged as a straightforward vampire who has a bond with Nightingale - probably and quite simply, because he rescued her and gave her a home in the Folly, and understood her situation. In return she seems quite protective about him.

I rather like the way that although she never speaks, Peter manages to have quite convincing one-sided conversations with her!

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There's also Molly's ability to let Peter track Mr. Punch through space and time. That is perhaps a web that the Fates spin, or perhaps a bowl of chitterlings.

If I recall, Molly was taken up by other members of the Folly before Nightingale was involved.

[ 04. March 2014, 20:24: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There's also Peter's question to Molly about the discomfited rugby player at the end of Rivers of London - if she'd been involved in that.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I'm really enjoying the second book, moon over Soho, it's hit its stride now, and this one's deeply grounded in music. Slightly obvious where it's going, but it's not meant to be a mystery, is it? More enjoy the language and atmosphere thing.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The second book is a bit more relaxed in that the author doesn't have to explain the entire world and Peter doesn't have to discover that magic works. The flow between books does remind me of what someone said earlier about the New Dr Who multi episode arc. There are many loose ends in the first book, new ones are added in the second and some are explained.

I also enjoyed that the he was tied back into the regular police routine. That had gotten somewhat missing in the second half of the first book.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

There was a buy two get one half price in Waterstones, so have now read books 2 & 3. I can resist everything apart from temptation [Smile]

Is anyone else having a problem with Lady Ty? I'm finding her motivations a bit opaque. Why does she want a more organised magical police division? Does she want more power/recognition or is she genuinely concerned for the people of London? Hmm.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I too do not feel comfortable with Ty (I'm not going to grace her with ladyship). Given long arcs, I can see her having some sort of relationship - whether antagonistic or something else - with Faceless. Both want power. I preferred the elder Tyburn. I wonder how Mama Thames gets on with her, and what the actual relationship is. Is she a real daughter, or adopted as Thames is. The "joking" reference to a Ministry of Magic carries a lot of luggage with it which would not be tolerable in any sort of "RL".
I realise that I visualise her like a woman who turned up outside my old home organising the drug dealing. The police asked if I had seen a Vietnamese woman there, and I said not, but later realised that the elegant, slender, and authoritatively businesslike black woman with a status symbol car could have been Vietnamese from a mixed relationship during the war.

[ 07. March 2014, 09:46: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

I see Tyburn as trying to reclaim her lost heritage. She bristles at the fact that most people associate "Tyburn" with hanging and public executions a rather than a river arising in a genteel bucolic glade.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Tyburn is clearly interested in power. It may be that the power is just a continuation of the hangings or it may be that it's a reaction to the river being buried.
[spoiler alert from Whispers Underground]
I'm wondering if we will see the elder Tyburn again and if he will compete or collaborate with Lady Tyburn or her son.

Posted by The Intrepid Mrs S (# 17002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There's also Peter's question to Molly about the discomfited rugby player at the end of Rivers of London - if she'd been involved in that.

But if that was her, she must have been able to leave the Folly, then? I must have missed all that stuff about her being 'incomplete', as well, unless that comes from a later book?

Mrs. S, puzzled [Confused]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

It is the next book in the sequence.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Well, I knew that an arachnid would be a spider, but the capitalisation and the energy suggested it was a reference to something I didn't know about.

Cf Benedict Jacka's [Alex Verus]i series...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Well, I knew that an arachnid would be a spider, but the capitalisation and the energy suggested it was a reference to something I didn't know about.
Cf Benedict Jacka's [Alex Verus]i series...

Just starting to read the "Alex Versus" series and liking them so far.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Since we've wandered not only from the original book, but even the original author, it's maybe time to put this one back on the shelf.

Firenze
Heaven's Librarian

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0