The Strange Case of the Alchemist's Daughter

Two stars just because I only asked once “why doesn't this shit ever end?”
Not more, because I said a LOT of OMGs. A lot.

So... this is sort of The League of Extraordinary Teenaged Gentlewomen.

The idea is great! Finding the characters of her Athena Club was well done. I mean; Mary Jekyll, Diana Hyde, Beatrice Rappaccini, Catherine Moreau and Justine Frankenstein! I hadn't even heard of Rappaccini's Daughter! or poor little Justine Moritz... I have to admit I hadn't read any of these books, but you can be sure I have now :-D
That's great!

But...

Theodora Goss didn't bother doing any research of the time she is writing, and to me that's unforgivable. If you write a historical novel, even if it's fantasy, you have to know what you are talking about. I get the feeling all “research” Theodora did was to read other YA historical fantasy novels. Now, I know a lot of people don't give a dime about the historical inaccuracies, probably because all they know about the historical times is what they learned from YA historical fantasy novels like this one, so let's move on.

She has these interjections - the book is written as if Catherine is reading the book as she writes it to the girls, and she decided to write in what the girls said in the book, like footnotes, except they are in the middle of the page. It's a “new way of writing”, she says, and I say “no, it just hasn't been done before BECAUSE IT'S REALLY STUPID WAY OF WRITING!!! Stop it! They are distracting, irritating, don't add anything to the story, but make the characters seem even more unlikable.

And the characters are unlikable, especially Mary and Diana. I can't stand either of them.

Mary is a marysue and better-than-thou, pretentious little shit.
Diana is a foulmouthed, childish, entitled little brat. The description of how Mary and mrs. Poole puts her to bed the first night she's there is... incredible. SHE IS FOURTEEN!!!

I mean, being opinionated is not being a strong female character. (Being opinionated means that one is conceited, full of oneself and stubbornly hanging on one's “opinions”, whether they are reasonable, sound, based on facts, educated or intelligent, and most often an opinionated person's “opinions” are anything but.)
Being potty-mouthed is not being witty and sassy. Insulting people is not funny.

Theodora tells, she doesn't show. That is, we are told Mary is SOOOO “keenly intelligent” and has a “logical mind” so much so that Sherlock Holmes is impressed and interested. But she never does or says anything intelligent or logical. We just have to accept it, because the author tells us it is so.

There's a lot of things we are told, and then there are the inserts to tell us if we missed we are being told. The author keeps patting herself for being such a great writer, by letting her characters praise the one who supposedly is writing this story.

Besides, I hate people who think they are SOOO witty and funny. it's probably a good sign to scrap that part of your manuscript, if you are pleased with how witty and funny you were there. It's like watching comedy shows where the comedian can't stop giggling for his own jokes, which aren't very funny, and the audience is just sitting there, looking at the idiot.
Theodora does this every now and then.

Then, I suppose Theodora wanted to add some socialism and feminism and civil rights and all that kind of things, but she does it very crudely, about the same way she does everything else. Something happens, and then she decides to put in a discussion about it, and then there's an insert to pound the point in, and it's usually off.

Like all the jabber about how easy it was for women to get into trouble, especially servants, who constantly got raped by their masters and then were kicked out on the street and had to become whores, but then she leaves it at that. We are just told this, often by one of the characters giving a sanctimonious speech, and that's it.
She puts in a visit at an insane asylum, but doesn't say a word about the inhuman treatment of the patients, or how a lot of women were thrown in just to get rid of them.
She uses a lot of time whining about women's clothing, but there had been clothing reform since 1860s, there were women not wearing corsets and women wearing pants. So, maybe somewhat eccentric, but not unheard of, not something these women couldn't have done. I'm 100% sure of that Catherine would never have worn a corset, and no-one would have forced one on her.
Also, there were more pockets in Victorian women's clothing than in 20th century women's clothing. The thing is that Theodora hasn't researched this issue either. She's just assuming.

“No wonder men did not want women to wear bloomers. What could women accomplish if they did not have to continually mind their skirts, keep them from dragging in the mud or getting trampled on the steps of an omnibus? If they had pockets! With pockets, women could conquer the world!”
Victorian women's clothing had pockets. Even their underskirts had pockets.
1890s walking dress didn't touch the ground. It was at least two inches above the ground. Hence “walking dress”. So they didn't drag in the mud. And no-one stopped you from using bloomers and not wearing a corset.
I really wish people wanting to write historical fiction spend a week in the costume of the time period they write about, and if they have never worn a historical costume, then accompanied by someone who is used to wearing them, to find out what it REALLY is.

I also hate that this book is full of stereotypes. Justine Moreaux was a pretty girl, totally normal in height and built, but Justine as brought to life by Frankenstein just has to be 2 meters long. Why? Why would Dr. Frankenstein be forced to add height on her? It's not explained. She just has to be huge. The cougar woman likes fish, because cats like fish. Wolves are aggressive and attack people on sight. Wild animals rather attack than flee.

Also, Mary seems to have anorexia. She eats very seldom, finds excuses to not to eat, when she eats, she nibbles.

I hate these fan fiction YA crap novels. Here we have a woman with a University degree (and Ph.D. in that) in English, who doesn't understand or know anything. I especially hate her retellings of the original stories. Now, I can understand that she must change things around, because the original Catherine died, the original Justine died and wasn't made into monster's bride, the original Beatrice died and Doctor Jekyll was never married and had no children. But Theodora makes all the men suspect and nasty, and twists the stories into something... blah.
Reminds me of Sofia Coppola, who just had to remake The Beguiled, and then strip it of the original meaning and feminism, and put in HER understanding of feminism, getting it all wrong. The old Beguiled was more feminist that the new one.
It's saddening and horrifying to see the actors and critics praise it for the feminist values... Are we really a society that think telling is showing? That when the author tells you the MC is intelligent, we accept it?

I was thinking about this... that perhaps people like heroines, not because they find something identifiable in them, something they would like to be, but because these heroines are the kinds they would like to write, and they are identifying themselves with the author, idolizing the author?

Here's my reading notes: https://www.facebook.com/ketutar/posts/10156222440736914