First published 1993.OK. Having been passed through the hands of two other book-crossers whilst managing to not yet be completely read, I was determined to plough through this one.
How difficult a task had I set myself?
It was whilst trying to explain to my wife how I felt about this book that I think I hit upon a winner: Reading this novel was like watching a film by David Lynch. You know that what is going on is amazing, well-written stuff, but it is all so damn high-brow that it walks that very very fine line between 'brilliant' and 'extremely difficult to understand'.
I am on record for hating David Lynch. He is a talented Director that never seems to use his talents to create coherent stories.
Do I hate this novel? Not quite. The individual scenes - both in present-day London and the pre-scientific world of advanced philosopher John Dee - were sometimes vividly realised and most of time extrememly interesting. Yet it was a deep struggle to maintain enthusiasm for the overall book because of the obscure themes.
Without giving anything away, the final plot twists/revelations are of the kind that either make you re-evaluate the entire novel or shake your head in dismay. Personally, I like the type of questioning of the reality of narrative that the conclusion introduces, but it was too little too late to rescue the ungraspable, high-brow nature of the majority of rest of the book.
This may be an absolute gem for the right person. Perhaps a historian/scholar in early science/magic or someone really interested in philosophical thoughts on the identity of great cities like London over vaste expanses of time.
Give it a go, but don't hesitate to pass it on if you don't like the first three chapters. It doesn't "settle in" at any stage.
One of those deals where you suspect that the fancy ingredients are supposed to impress you, but they're not as good as more common fare. Chicken generally tastes better than pheasant.
This was a book-crossing book.
