Michèle Roberts (1949–)

This novel read like a love letter to London and I've given it 7/10 mostly for this. I walked its streets, corners and alleys in 1851 and in the 21st century, getting to know Walworth and the city. Michele Robertis has a fantastic sense of the place and conveys that well. The two stories, that intertwine, between Joseph in 1851 and Madeleine in the 21st century weave along in the odd and unexpected way that people's lives go and both characters walked miles around the city, my preferred way of getting around and this gave the novel a step by step flow. While, for me, Madeleine seemed a friendly and warm person, Joseph comes from a different time and while has some sympathetic characteristics is more difficult to like with his lack of fidelity and sympathy. A love of cooking and good food peppers the pages in both ages and once Joseph is able to be someone else he becomes more likeable. As well as Apricot Place, objects appear in 1851 and the 21st century, including a turquoise jar and an earring giving readers a sense of how the past touches our lives in a literal sense. I found the ending slightly disappointing as it seemed to be building up to something more.… (más)

While the book tried to evoke Victorian Southwark, and succeeded to some extent, I had very little sympathy for the protagonist. Most of the characters were sketchy. I had great hopes for learning more about Mayhew, who created the book still referenced today about the poor of London, but he was just used as the boss who fires Joseph. The novel goes back and forth between Victorian and contemporary times, and although there are a few intriguing threads between the two, it is not "An atmospheric ghost story" (according to the Mail on Sunday, quoted on the cover), but just a story.… (más)

This book was an almost-random selection from he library shelves on a day when none of the books on my TBR list was available. I think I was swayed by two things: the "Booker shortlisted author" tag on the cover, and the cover flap summary that revealed the story was partly about a retired academic. In fact, "Booker shortlisted" is a real mixed bag. As a general rule, these days I think the Man Booker committee are out of step with my conservative reading tastes, but as my previous book (Fridlund's History of Wolves, Man Booker shortlist 2017) taught me, sometimes they're spot on. In this case, however, the fact that Michele Roberts was shortlisted at some time in the past cannot in any way be taken as an endorsement for this particular work. I can't see that it has anything remarkable to offer. In fact, I took the Nancy Pearl option and returned it to the library shelves after around 100 pages of reading failed to inspire me to go further. It follows a rather well-worn trope of two stories set a long time apart but with a connection between them. This can work well, but here the apparent connection between the stories hadn't really added anything to my enjoyment or interest by the time I called it quits. I think I was really looking for more depth of character than was apparent. There was plenty of evidence of the author's historical research - perhaps even too much - so I didn't doubt the authenticity of the older story's setting and that provided a certain amount of interest. However, as I said, one of the reasons for selecting the book was the story of the retired academic but that story seemed somewhat less convincing and didn't seem to be going anywhere interesting. We didn't really get very deep into the character of this person, and in a way it almost seemed to me that she was there simply to fulfill the connection of the *real* historical story with the current world. All that being said, I didn't read past about 100 pages and maybe it develops substantially in the later pages and I would have ended up liking it much more.… (más)