Soulless: Alexia Tarabotti, #1 -- Gail Carriger

Of course, the minute I post about how I won't be posting much, I start to feel like posting again. 

I had extremely high hopes for Soulless, which isn't a good thing for any book -- in some cases I think it'd be impossible to achieve the level of awesome that my expectations... expect.  (I haven't been writing much lately, so you'll have to bear with me.)  In this case, ultimately, I ended up with mixed-to-negative feelings.  (Does that sound like an emotional weather report?)

I still think the cover is fantastic, though I can't imagine walking (or even standing) like that.  I'd fall over.  Then again, I can fall over standing normally.

Ultimately, I had very mixed feelings.  Now, that can certainly partly be chalked up to my high expectations, but even setting those aside, there were issues.  The book had a fun premise and occasionally made me giggle, but was full of stock characters and mostly unbelievable dialogue.  If the characters had been interesting or the dialogue had been stronger, the been-there-done-that plotting wouldn't have been an issue.  As it was, it, well, was.  I'll elaborate.

The book begins:

Miss Alexia Tarabotti was not enjoying her evening.  Private balls were never more than middling amusements for spinsters, and Miss Tarabotti was not the kind of spinster who could garner even that much pleasure from the event.  To put the pudding in the puff: she had retreated to the library, her favorite sanctuary in any house, only to happen upon an unexpected vampire.

She glared at the vampire.

Fun, right?  I love "to put the pudding in the puff" -- there are lots of little enjoyable lines like that throughout the book that made me smile.  Sometimes they didn't sound remotely right for the period:

The voice was low and tinged with a hint of Scotland.  It would have caused Alexia to shiver and think primal monkey thoughts about moons and running far and fast, if she'd had a soul.  Instead it caused her to sigh in exasperation and sit up.  (page 7)

but as we're dealing with an alternate reality, that didn't bother me so much.

What did bother me were lines like this:

"Starvation would explain why the vampire was desperate enough to try for Miss Tarabotti at a ball, rather than taking to the slums like the smart ones do when they get this bad."  (page 12)

The speaker is talking to his partner, someone who is perfectly aware of how vampires act -- it's the kind of dialogue that is there purely to convey information to the reader, doesn't make sense given the situation or the speakers, and drives me completely bananas.  In this next line, from the same conversation, the speaker provides a definition that his partner, as an employee of the Bureau of Unnatural Registry AND ALSO A WEREWOLF AND THEREFORE PROBABLY UP ON HIS PARANORMAL KNOWLEDGE, wouldn't, I'm assuming, really need:

"We must have a rove on our hands, one completely without ties to the local hive."  (page 12)

Anyway, that sort of dialogue did lessen as the book progressed and as the author had conveyed the information she needed to -- but it made for clumsy-feeling worldbuilding. 

In general, the prose felt a bit like the novelization of a movie or a television show, and, well, I tend to be much more forgiving about that sort of dialogue when it comes to television.  ("We're DEMON HUNTERS, Dean!  Dad raised us like WARRIORS!"  "Oh, really, Sam?  Did he?  I'm so glad that you told me about it -- because seriously, I had COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN."  Thank goodness that they stopped doing that early on.)  Maybe because in a book, it pulls me right out of the story -- doesn't give me the chance to believe in the world and the characters, to forget about the author? 

I think, really (and this is probably a strange thing to say), that the book would almost work better as a television show -- the descriptions of the characters' facial expressions were described so often that I found it grating and very Tell-y rather than Show-y -- if there were actors actors... erm... acting out the described facial expressions and whatnot, it could work.

As I mentioned, the characters are likable but are also very familiar -- Alexia is the Strong Willed Hot Tempered Buxom Heroine (read: Amelia Peabody), Lord Maccon is the Tall Broad Growly Grouchy Hairy Love Interest (read: Radcliffe Emerson), Professor Lyall is the Mild-Mannered, Good Humored Very Intelligent Second in Command, and poor Lord Akeldama (while certainly very likable) can't seem to enter a scene without being described as "mincing".  All of those types can be totally enjoyable, but I didn't feel that any of them ever became more than their own general descriptions.  They just ran around the book like very broadly-sketched... sketches.

Soulless won a 2010 Alex Award and has been extremely popular in the blogosphere, so there are plenty of dissenting views out there.  I'm sure that there will be plenty of older teen readers who'll enjoy it.  (Younger readers -- and some parents -- may experience a bit of an eyepop at the sex.)

__________________________________________________________________________

Book source:  Bought my own copy.

__________________________________________________________________________

Amazon Associate.  If you click through and buy something, I get a small commission.

Comments

[Jeremy]

It was enjoyable candy reading for me, but I can definitely see all of your points. You're right, I think this would be better in a TV/movie medium. Maybe it was written with that in mind.

[Leila]

I wondered about that -- the television vibe was so strong for me.

[tanita]

See, I love that cover, too. Just because I know she's totally Steampunk down below and is wearing some really hefty, awesome platform boots with propellers or something.

I do want to read this still - and yours IS the first sort of "meh" review, but you're one of the people whose tastes I trust (I mean, come on: INCARCERON? I will never doubt you.), so I will put it slightly lower on my TBR since it's only partially great.

[Citizen Reader]

I had the same high hopes for this one and was completely bored after two chapters. The only two descriptive words that occurred to me were "PHONED IN"--meant only to cash in on the current frenzy about all things paranormal and genre-bending. It also reminded me I have to take all the millions of glowingly positive book reviews available on both blogs and library journals with a big old hunk (no longer just a grain) of salt.

[Chrissy]

Yeah, completely valid and accurate criticisms. I, however, think I read the whole thing in Julie Andrews' voice and it just cracked me up. I may have also read it (unfairly) as a spoof of Victorian literature, which added to the humor value for me. It got points for originality with the soulless aspect, paranormals that make me go "huh, interesting" are few and far between these days. I guess I stopped having high expectations for them a bit ago, so when they do something different it earns them lots of points. I hope the in next one the writing is more refined, but I worry about where the characters have left to go.

[Elizabeth]

Agree with all of that. Cover art is fab. And I have no problem with authors trying to recreate the Amelia Peabody magic--the world can never have enough Amelia Peabodies--but when they fail I get pretty annoyed. In fact, I sort of hoped she wouldn't get rescued in the end. She did...I think..I actually can't remember. That's not a good sign, either.

[Lisa]

Good take on this book. I couldn't get through the first chapter of this one. I wanted to like it and tried very hard more than once to finish that first chapter... just couldn't.

[Elizabeth]

Chrissy, maybe I should have tried the Julie Andrews voice. I went with a Kate-Beckinsale-as-Flora-Post narrator, but that just made me wish I were reading Cold Comfort Farm.

[Ana]

Thank you, I felt exactly the same way and could not even finish the book. It reminded way too much of Amelia (down to the parasol!) and Emerson.

[Colleen]

The cover art is apparently taken from a steampunk site (with permission). I don't have a link handy right now (of course)but did read about it at some point and it is a pretty cool likeness from the original model.

I liked the book a lot - I thought it was just flat out fun and after reading a rash of books about Iraq, Burma etc. (for a variety of reviewing duties), I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciated the novelty of it. Yes there is certainly some Amelia Peabody here - but of a sexier sort to be sure and the whole paranormal aspect is different. But it's not total sex trash like Laurell K Hamilton has become and while there is some talking to the reader, I think that will disappear in the sequels.

I also didn't read her as a weak female at all - in fact she is pretty key to the rescuing of others in the end and never faints, screams, etc which was nice to see. I thought it was a great mash-up of steampunk/romance and will buy the next one (Changeless) and see where things go. (The next cover is pretty cool looking as well.)

[Colleen]

Ah - found the link for the Soulless cover. Check it out - very well done!

http://clockworkcouture.com/?q=node/126

[Emily P.]

I am stuck trying to picture how you would put pudding in a puff, since English pudding is quite a different thing than American pudding. It ought properly to say "custard in the puff," except then you would lose the lovely alliteration.

[Sleepingkoala]

I am so glad to know I am not alone in not really being able to read Soulless. I have tried twice. I really wanted to like it. I think the voice was more what the author thought she should have rather than an authentic character voice. It also didn't sustain...there'd be a good line or two, then along comes something trite, flat, or pretentious.

Is there anyone else kind of getting sick of paranormals?

P.S. I am glad you posted

[Beth Kakuma-Depew]

Thanks for the review! I mostly read Teen Paranormals, and felt bad for putting this one down after one chapter. But you were right: stock characters + weak dialoge just kill it. Also I had theological problems with the whole "souless" concept. Isn't your soul an extension of your conciousness? Maybe someone in a coma wouldn't have a soul, but a thinking, complex person? I couldn't buy it...