This novel was written by a college professor with a PhD in scientific and medical history who had specialized in the research of alchemy. The couple of reviews I read were full of praise, and the book was a bestseller in 2011. I expected a serious novel about magic with a historical background. What I read, however, was a spectacularly silly romance novel in the tradition of the Twilight series, with the lovers being a powerful witch who is a PhD historian writing a paper on alchemy and an alpha vampire who is so drop-dead gorgeous that he turns heads wherever he goes. (Witches and vampires are traditional enemies, wouldn't you know it.) We also have daemons, a third non-human species. And a house that adds rooms when guests are coming. And a band of vampire knights of medieval origin who fight for the right. And the goddess Diana. And time travel. Sorry, no werewolves.
The novel begins in a promising fashion as the heroine researches ancient alchemical manuscripts, including explanations of how to interpret the drawings and text to reveal the alchemists' understanding of science. But then she requests a volume while at Oxford's Bodleian Library which her witchy senses tell her has been enchanted. Since she has relinquished the practice of magic (long story), she sends it back to the stacks.
Very soon the vampire hero shows up, along with a whole library full of witches, vampires, and daemons. They all want the manuscript, which has been presumed to have been lost, and they think she still has it. The powerful vampire steps up to protect her from the rest, and, rather illogically, she trusts him and soon falls totally in love.
From that point on, this is a trite romance novel combined with periodic episodes of witch versus witch, vampire versus vampire, and witch versus vampire conflict, often with bloody results.
Many questions arise in the mind of a reader:
*Will the vampire lover succumb to instinct and bite the witch? Will his friends and family members bite the witch?
*What do you feed a vampire for dinner? For the inquiring minds who want to know it's raw meat and nuts and wine, always bottles and bottles of wine.
*Will the vampire ever sexually consummate his union with the witch? Although she invites him to on several occasions, he asks her to wait and instead they indulge in some heavy petting, like teenagers in a parked car.
*How do you know when a witch has had a sexual climax? Believe me, you will know.
*Why would a centuries-old vampire decide to be a servant who cooks all the meals and makes the beds and lights the fires and candles and prepares the tasty picnic lunches?
*Vampires call those they have "made" (in the traditional vampire blood-sucking way) their children. If he "makes" her, will the witch become the vampire's child, as well as his wife? That's kinky.
About half way through the novel, I began to suspect that author Harkness was having us on. I can't believe an educated historian could seriously write such dialogue as this: "I would rather have had one moment with you--just this one night--than centuries with someone else," and "I'm not worried you're going to eat me for dinner...." Is it possible she intended a spoof which most took seriously? I know I laughed frequently.
I guess this is a step up from Twilight and the rest, because it does provide some interesting historical information, but for the most part it is just silly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment