Call number
Series
Collection
Publication
Uncorrected proof
Pages
367
Description
A tale set in Victorian London introduces the characters of a stage magician and detective and his silent sidekick, whose fiendish plot to re-create the apocalyptic prophecies of Samuel Taylor Coleridge threaten the British Empire.
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2007
Physical description
367 p.; 11 inches
Local notes
My copy from the LT Early Reviewers program came as a "Kinkos-bound" sheaf of 8.5"x11" paper. This "edition" does not have an ISBN.
Similar in this library
Library's review
The publishers' promotional material compares this to Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell, and to Neil Gaiman (presumably Neverwhere, though it's not specified.)
It's sort of right. Plotwise it's like neither, of course, though if you reduce either of them to single cartoon sentences
I enjoyed this book, though I suspect it will have difficulty finding its audience. The fantastic elements are disconnected, lacking a unifying structure; the character of the Somnambulist himself, a man living backwards in time like Merlin, possibly genuine mindreading, and steampunk-style technologies all make appearances but are neither connected to one another nor explained. The net result is more similar to magical realism in its "don't try to make sense of this" outlook than to any more systematic fantasy. The writing itself is one of the main joys, as is evident from the first paragraph, as are the characters (well-written, but repulsive almost to a man, like Gormenghast brought to London). The plot is not its strong point, and the wheels fall off in the last few chapters; readers looking for plot-driven work with characters they can wholeheartedly support should look elsewhere, but those with a taste for unreliable narrators and purple-gothic prose will have a fun read.
It's sort of right. Plotwise it's like neither, of course, though if you reduce either of them to single cartoon sentences
Show More
it's a bit more plausible. The rather grotesque tone is more like Gaiman than Clarke, and a better comparison than either of these is probably Priest's The Prestige, at least in the early parts of the book.I enjoyed this book, though I suspect it will have difficulty finding its audience. The fantastic elements are disconnected, lacking a unifying structure; the character of the Somnambulist himself, a man living backwards in time like Merlin, possibly genuine mindreading, and steampunk-style technologies all make appearances but are neither connected to one another nor explained. The net result is more similar to magical realism in its "don't try to make sense of this" outlook than to any more systematic fantasy. The writing itself is one of the main joys, as is evident from the first paragraph, as are the characters (well-written, but repulsive almost to a man, like Gormenghast brought to London). The plot is not its strong point, and the wheels fall off in the last few chapters; readers looking for plot-driven work with characters they can wholeheartedly support should look elsewhere, but those with a taste for unreliable narrators and purple-gothic prose will have a fun read.
Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member bcquinnsmom
The last book I read even close along these lines was Gordon Dahlquist's "The Glass Books of the Dream Eaters," and as I began The Somnambulist, I immediately thought of Dahlquist's book and then my mind sort of wandered to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics. Let me state right now that I
At the outset the reader is warned that the narrator (whose identity remains unknown until nearly the end of the story) is unreliable, and that the "book has no literary value whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and willfully bizarre." If those two facts do not scare you off, then you're in for an incredibly wild ride
Edward Moon is a stage magician and when he's not busy performing magic with trained apes he often moonlights as a detective who has helped Scotland Yard in more than one instance. His partner is known as "the Somnambulist," and stands about eight feet tall, can be pierced through with swords and shed no blood, and does not speak but makes himself heard through the medium of a chalkboard. He cannot spell, his grammar is quite bad, and the significance of why this book is named for him doesn't reveal itself until the end (which I will not divulge here). Anyway, Scotland Yard's Inspector Merryweather now turns to the pair because of a series of bizarre and inexplicable deaths. This sets the pair onto a path that seems to have been somewhat predestined, involving a rather strange plot that has its origins under the city of London. Moon is warned away several times by some rather odd characters, none the least of which is a man who claims to be able to travel through time, a psychic, and a human fly. Adding to Moon's problems, a rather strange albino who works for some government bureau called "The Directorate" enlists him as well when these mysterious deaths lead to the uncovering of the plot. Need I continue?
The writing is fantastic (if you enjoy this sort of thing), and the characters are quite well drawn. I would definitely recommend it to fans of pulp fiction (this is among the pulpiest!) and to those who enjoy a wee bit of steampunk in their reading. As noted earlier, this isn't for everyone, but if you're inclined toward this sort of craziness, you're going to love it.
FYI: I enjoyed this so much I'm buying a copy for my home library collection of quirky pulp.
My thanks to Librarything for the opportunity to preview this novel.
Show More
am a MAJOR fan of pulp and The Somnambulist fed my craving well. I will also state that this book is not for everyone.At the outset the reader is warned that the narrator (whose identity remains unknown until nearly the end of the story) is unreliable, and that the "book has no literary value whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and willfully bizarre." If those two facts do not scare you off, then you're in for an incredibly wild ride
Edward Moon is a stage magician and when he's not busy performing magic with trained apes he often moonlights as a detective who has helped Scotland Yard in more than one instance. His partner is known as "the Somnambulist," and stands about eight feet tall, can be pierced through with swords and shed no blood, and does not speak but makes himself heard through the medium of a chalkboard. He cannot spell, his grammar is quite bad, and the significance of why this book is named for him doesn't reveal itself until the end (which I will not divulge here). Anyway, Scotland Yard's Inspector Merryweather now turns to the pair because of a series of bizarre and inexplicable deaths. This sets the pair onto a path that seems to have been somewhat predestined, involving a rather strange plot that has its origins under the city of London. Moon is warned away several times by some rather odd characters, none the least of which is a man who claims to be able to travel through time, a psychic, and a human fly. Adding to Moon's problems, a rather strange albino who works for some government bureau called "The Directorate" enlists him as well when these mysterious deaths lead to the uncovering of the plot. Need I continue?
The writing is fantastic (if you enjoy this sort of thing), and the characters are quite well drawn. I would definitely recommend it to fans of pulp fiction (this is among the pulpiest!) and to those who enjoy a wee bit of steampunk in their reading. As noted earlier, this isn't for everyone, but if you're inclined toward this sort of craziness, you're going to love it.
FYI: I enjoyed this so much I'm buying a copy for my home library collection of quirky pulp.
My thanks to Librarything for the opportunity to preview this novel.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jmeisen
An absorbing and compelling novel. You are drawn by the self-admitted unreliable narrator into a story that meshes mystery, horror, and political thriller, all in the style of Victorian "sensational" novels, but with witty postmodern touches. I loved it -- right up to the ending, which I found
Show More
baffling, and which left me ultimately disappointed. I would most likely read the author's next book, but another incomprehensible ending would put me off him for good. Show Less
LibraryThing member graspingforthewind
"Be warned. This book has no literary merit whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and willfully bizarre. Needless to say, I doubt you'll believe a word of it."
Any novel
Those moviegoers who saw The Illusionist or The Prestige (also a book by Christopher Priest) will be delighted with Barnes’ tale. The chief character is Edward Moon, a magician and conjurer whose sidekick is the mute and amazingly impervious Somnambulist. Like the characters in those movies, Moon has a gift for observation, a skill that in Victorian London gives provides him with the diversion of amateur detecting. His methods are similar to those of his contemporary Sherlock Holmes, although Barnes does not write of them in any detail. When two brutal murders occur that seem unexplainable by Scotland Yard, Moon is brought in to help solve them. In the meantime, the Directorate, represented chiefly by the albino, Skimpole, wants to have Moon work on a separate case that the Directorate believes means that the city of London’s survival itself is at stake. Moon is convinced that the two cases are connected and sets out to discover the truth, along the way meeting the stranger characters of Victorian London such as a bearded lady, a man traveling backward in time, a famous poet, and a human fly.
What Barnes has done with his novel is not truly original. Like Christopher Priest’s The Prestige and The Illusionist starring Edward Norton and Jessica Biel, Barnes novel is a gothic Victorian tale centered on the character of a magician. Also copying Neil Gaiman’s novel and miniseries Neverwhere, The Somnambulist uses the characters of London’s history (Gog and Magog, Lud) as part of the warp and weft of the story. He even goes so far as to introduce a pair of murderers that are very nearly carbon copies of Gaiman’s Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemaar. This will make the novel appeal to fans of those books and movies certainly, but it makes me wonder at Barnes ethics.
Still, the novel is very fun to read. The story is fast pace and exciting. The identity of the villain is not revealed till late in the book and I must confess, I was surprised at who it was, although it should have been obvious. This is a mark of a good mystery. The scenes are varied and interesting, but not always well-connected. The ideology of the villain is fantastic and humorous. It provides a few chuckles through the narrator’s sardonic wit.
Barnes has a great facility with the English language. All though not difficult to understand or verbose, Barnes is not afraid to use large words where a simple one would work. Take the title for instance, The Somnambulist. Somnambulism is essentially sleepwalking, but sleepwalking is not really a part of the story, but the word is interesting. It does provide some of the metaphor for the story, as Moon's name, the Somnambulist and a character called the Sleeper all relate back to the title. It is also the name of Moon’s conjuring assistant, who is a minor character throughout the story, but who plays a vital role in the climax. The title is actually really unrelated to the story, having only a tenuous connection to the plot, so I do feel that the publishers did the book a disservice by calling it that. Barnes’ use of weird and wonderful words gives the story a panache that greatly enhanced my enjoyment of it.
Although the story is unexceptional in plot, the characters are interesting if lacking in depth (but I was warned about that, after all.). All are the dregs and outcasts of London society, or at least those on their way out, such as Moon. Choosing such characters story drive the story adds a bit of penny-dreadful sensationalism to the novel. The only characters whose psyches we really explore are Moon’s, the narrator’s, and Skimpole’s and those really only on the surface. Barnes is telling a mystery/adventure story in the setting of Victorian London so the reader should approach this as a story that is fun to read but in any way philosophical.
Barnes’ use of the first person narration and the memoir style of writing are part of the fun of reading it. I spent a goodly portion of the book wondering who the unreliable narrator was, and the reveal of who he is in fact is rather fun scene. The narrator interjects, to humorous effect, several times into the story. It reminded me a lot of the novel I, Strahd in its style although with a more humorous cast. I’d like to see Jonathan Barnes use this style again, as I think he cleverly uses it.
I thought that this was very fun to read. Barnes has a wit and humor of the type I enjoy. The novel is that type of story that author John Zakour would call “bubblegum for the brain”. It is entertainment for a horrible-no good, very bad day. Fans of Gaiman’s urban fantasy will enjoy this novel (although they should be aware that there are some very suspicious similarities) as well as any moviegoer who enjoyed the mystery of The Illusionist (though it is not quite so clever). There are a lot of correlations between this book and Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell although where that was literary in form (and massive), The Somnambulist is pulp fiction (and short).The Somnambulist is a comedy and a farce, written to make its reader’s laugh. If you are looking for some light entertainment this is an excellent novel to pick up.
Copied in full from my blog, Grasping for the Wind
Any novel
Show More
that warns you, up front and without any real apology, that it will be a bad a piece of fiction, certainly piques my interest. In The Somnambulist, Jonathan Barnes does just that. Told entirely as a history from a witness to the proceedings, this novel, while unoriginal, was still fun to read.Those moviegoers who saw The Illusionist or The Prestige (also a book by Christopher Priest) will be delighted with Barnes’ tale. The chief character is Edward Moon, a magician and conjurer whose sidekick is the mute and amazingly impervious Somnambulist. Like the characters in those movies, Moon has a gift for observation, a skill that in Victorian London gives provides him with the diversion of amateur detecting. His methods are similar to those of his contemporary Sherlock Holmes, although Barnes does not write of them in any detail. When two brutal murders occur that seem unexplainable by Scotland Yard, Moon is brought in to help solve them. In the meantime, the Directorate, represented chiefly by the albino, Skimpole, wants to have Moon work on a separate case that the Directorate believes means that the city of London’s survival itself is at stake. Moon is convinced that the two cases are connected and sets out to discover the truth, along the way meeting the stranger characters of Victorian London such as a bearded lady, a man traveling backward in time, a famous poet, and a human fly.
What Barnes has done with his novel is not truly original. Like Christopher Priest’s The Prestige and The Illusionist starring Edward Norton and Jessica Biel, Barnes novel is a gothic Victorian tale centered on the character of a magician. Also copying Neil Gaiman’s novel and miniseries Neverwhere, The Somnambulist uses the characters of London’s history (Gog and Magog, Lud) as part of the warp and weft of the story. He even goes so far as to introduce a pair of murderers that are very nearly carbon copies of Gaiman’s Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemaar. This will make the novel appeal to fans of those books and movies certainly, but it makes me wonder at Barnes ethics.
Still, the novel is very fun to read. The story is fast pace and exciting. The identity of the villain is not revealed till late in the book and I must confess, I was surprised at who it was, although it should have been obvious. This is a mark of a good mystery. The scenes are varied and interesting, but not always well-connected. The ideology of the villain is fantastic and humorous. It provides a few chuckles through the narrator’s sardonic wit.
Barnes has a great facility with the English language. All though not difficult to understand or verbose, Barnes is not afraid to use large words where a simple one would work. Take the title for instance, The Somnambulist. Somnambulism is essentially sleepwalking, but sleepwalking is not really a part of the story, but the word is interesting. It does provide some of the metaphor for the story, as Moon's name, the Somnambulist and a character called the Sleeper all relate back to the title. It is also the name of Moon’s conjuring assistant, who is a minor character throughout the story, but who plays a vital role in the climax. The title is actually really unrelated to the story, having only a tenuous connection to the plot, so I do feel that the publishers did the book a disservice by calling it that. Barnes’ use of weird and wonderful words gives the story a panache that greatly enhanced my enjoyment of it.
Although the story is unexceptional in plot, the characters are interesting if lacking in depth (but I was warned about that, after all.). All are the dregs and outcasts of London society, or at least those on their way out, such as Moon. Choosing such characters story drive the story adds a bit of penny-dreadful sensationalism to the novel. The only characters whose psyches we really explore are Moon’s, the narrator’s, and Skimpole’s and those really only on the surface. Barnes is telling a mystery/adventure story in the setting of Victorian London so the reader should approach this as a story that is fun to read but in any way philosophical.
Barnes’ use of the first person narration and the memoir style of writing are part of the fun of reading it. I spent a goodly portion of the book wondering who the unreliable narrator was, and the reveal of who he is in fact is rather fun scene. The narrator interjects, to humorous effect, several times into the story. It reminded me a lot of the novel I, Strahd in its style although with a more humorous cast. I’d like to see Jonathan Barnes use this style again, as I think he cleverly uses it.
I thought that this was very fun to read. Barnes has a wit and humor of the type I enjoy. The novel is that type of story that author John Zakour would call “bubblegum for the brain”. It is entertainment for a horrible-no good, very bad day. Fans of Gaiman’s urban fantasy will enjoy this novel (although they should be aware that there are some very suspicious similarities) as well as any moviegoer who enjoyed the mystery of The Illusionist (though it is not quite so clever). There are a lot of correlations between this book and Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell although where that was literary in form (and massive), The Somnambulist is pulp fiction (and short).The Somnambulist is a comedy and a farce, written to make its reader’s laugh. If you are looking for some light entertainment this is an excellent novel to pick up.
Copied in full from my blog, Grasping for the Wind
Show Less
LibraryThing member mamajoan
The misleadingly titled "The Somnambulist" is horror/gothic/fantasy/steampunk/potboiler set in post-Victorian London. It starts off as a murder mystery and quickly evolves into a fantastically complicated plot involving political conspiracy, personal revenge, deranged megalomaniacs, time travelers,
The myriad plot twists and convolutions ultimately undermine what starts off as an extremely engaging and fascinating read. I zipped through the first half very quickly, drawn to the narrator's sardonic self-deprecating style and got myself very involved in the predicament of the protagonists Edward Moon and the Somnambulist. But the second half falters: new characters and plot complications are thrown at you fast and furious, and the ultimate resolution of the mystery -- as well as the plot's final denouement -- is unsatisfying. The author leaves too many plot holes gaping and threads dangling for my personal taste. In particular, I do wish the author had done more with the title character, who really does not receive enough focus in the story to merit having it named for him.
There's a lot to like here, e.g. in the writing style, the atmosphere, and the myriad Terry-Pratchett-esque absurdities of plot. But overall the book suffers from a lack of focus and "kitchen-sink-itis," and does not live up to the promise of its first half. I look forward to Jonathan Barnes's next effort.
Show More
and a bizarre quasi-religious cult dedicated to the worship of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.The myriad plot twists and convolutions ultimately undermine what starts off as an extremely engaging and fascinating read. I zipped through the first half very quickly, drawn to the narrator's sardonic self-deprecating style and got myself very involved in the predicament of the protagonists Edward Moon and the Somnambulist. But the second half falters: new characters and plot complications are thrown at you fast and furious, and the ultimate resolution of the mystery -- as well as the plot's final denouement -- is unsatisfying. The author leaves too many plot holes gaping and threads dangling for my personal taste. In particular, I do wish the author had done more with the title character, who really does not receive enough focus in the story to merit having it named for him.
There's a lot to like here, e.g. in the writing style, the atmosphere, and the myriad Terry-Pratchett-esque absurdities of plot. But overall the book suffers from a lack of focus and "kitchen-sink-itis," and does not live up to the promise of its first half. I look forward to Jonathan Barnes's next effort.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lewispike
A book that starts with the line "Be warned. This book has no literary merit whatsoever." really needs to be excellent or dire.
For most of the book I'd say it lived up to the former, but I found I was obscurely let down by the ending, it seemed trite and although it was announced as a deus ex
Nevertheless, for large parts of the book very entertaining and well worth reading.
For most of the book I'd say it lived up to the former, but I found I was obscurely let down by the ending, it seemed trite and although it was announced as a deus ex
Show More
machina, it felt that way too much, and the post-modern commentary saying it would didn't really save it.Nevertheless, for large parts of the book very entertaining and well worth reading.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TheCriticalTimes
If a novel or any other text begins with: "You will be highly disappointed with the quality of this work", then two things happen tend to happen. First of all you will most likely be disappointed with the quality of the work and second you will start to doubt the confidence of the author in his own
We follow the adventures of a dubious protagonist by the name of Edward Moon who owns and runs an cabinet of curiosities theater in which he works as an illusionist together with a strange man known to the readers for most of the book as 'The Somnambulist'. Immediately in the beginning of the novel the author draws a parallel with Sherlock Holmes, since in the past Edward Moon, the main character, has solved many complicated criminal cases. Conan Doyle who wrote the Holmes novels understood readers very well, he wasn't unsure about his prose, something we can't say about Jonathan Barnes the author. Doyle used Dr. Watson as an instrument of narration. We saw the world through his eyes, which made the eccentric behavior of Holmes digestible, understandable and most of all entertaining. Edward Moon has the Somnambulist, who in a lot of ways plays the same role, except he doesn't speak. Perhaps a joke on Doyle by Barnes?
If we forgive this misplaced sense of literary humor, we are still left with some very bad character decisions, some major plot holes and a story that is so full of itself that it makes for some difficult reading at times. Holmes would frequently analyze a situation, clarify deep mysteries and most of the time baffle us with amazing feats of detection and deduction. Edward Moon does this just once and feebly at best. Moon later on seems to have lost all his deduction abilities to such extend that he doesn't even recognize his own sister who is sitting next to him in a disguise. Hard to believe for someone who used to be a celebrated sleuth. Any of this odd behavior can not be explained by a later major plot twist which I will not reveal here for those still interested in reading the book. Needless to say from reader's perspective after the twist, the behavior of Moon would still seem suspect to say the least. Even if we take into account that the narrator already told us he would lie. Why?
Three quarters through the book the perspective of the reader changes and we're now reading the story first person perspective through the eyes of Moon's nemesis. Think Moriarty, except less brilliant and not as interesting. If one wants to paint oneself a master of criminal achievements, wouldn't it make sense to make the enemy you just defeated the best there ever lived? Wouldn't you want to ensure that you did not portray your nemesis as an incompetent bungler? Instead, Moon is depicted as someone who bungles from one disaster into another. Through one adventure after another Moon follows a trail of hints and suggestions instead of clues and signs, a character trait that can not be explained by either Moon's nemesis' opinion or the fact that Moon has lost his powers of criminal deduction at his present age.
Besides the many strange decisions in storytelling, the author takes odd liberal allowances for tone of voice. I'm not by any means an expert in Victorian historical fiction, but I'm fairly certain the people living on the streets of 19th century London did not use words like 'prolly', which is better placed in good contemporary chick-lit.
Most reviews I've read state something like "I kept reading for some reason but didn't really like the book, but I could not explain why". I hope to have explained some of the uneasiness readers might have. The novel has some interesting descriptions of people and places, but not enough to give it a good rating.
Show More
writing skills. The intended effect 'the book is so amazing that adding this sentence will make it even more wondrous' will not happen since all the reader remembers is 'you will be highly disappointed'. The novel The Somnambulist does just this and more. As a reader you are immediately told that the narrator will tell a lie at least once in the coming chapters. Does this truly setup a novel well? Or is it a plot device intended to make sure the big plot twist was already announced and the author can go: see, told you so. Readers usually have no problem gauging the confidence and abilities of an author, we do not have to be explicitly told. Usually mechanisms like the ones discussed here are used by those who are not sure their intended effect will come over and they add insurance in case it doesn't. Why then is this author so unsure about this novel's effect? Surely he has plenty of knowledge and experience, he is after all an Oxford graduate, which we know by reading the back flap of the hardcover edition. A critical piece of information I'm sure.We follow the adventures of a dubious protagonist by the name of Edward Moon who owns and runs an cabinet of curiosities theater in which he works as an illusionist together with a strange man known to the readers for most of the book as 'The Somnambulist'. Immediately in the beginning of the novel the author draws a parallel with Sherlock Holmes, since in the past Edward Moon, the main character, has solved many complicated criminal cases. Conan Doyle who wrote the Holmes novels understood readers very well, he wasn't unsure about his prose, something we can't say about Jonathan Barnes the author. Doyle used Dr. Watson as an instrument of narration. We saw the world through his eyes, which made the eccentric behavior of Holmes digestible, understandable and most of all entertaining. Edward Moon has the Somnambulist, who in a lot of ways plays the same role, except he doesn't speak. Perhaps a joke on Doyle by Barnes?
If we forgive this misplaced sense of literary humor, we are still left with some very bad character decisions, some major plot holes and a story that is so full of itself that it makes for some difficult reading at times. Holmes would frequently analyze a situation, clarify deep mysteries and most of the time baffle us with amazing feats of detection and deduction. Edward Moon does this just once and feebly at best. Moon later on seems to have lost all his deduction abilities to such extend that he doesn't even recognize his own sister who is sitting next to him in a disguise. Hard to believe for someone who used to be a celebrated sleuth. Any of this odd behavior can not be explained by a later major plot twist which I will not reveal here for those still interested in reading the book. Needless to say from reader's perspective after the twist, the behavior of Moon would still seem suspect to say the least. Even if we take into account that the narrator already told us he would lie. Why?
Three quarters through the book the perspective of the reader changes and we're now reading the story first person perspective through the eyes of Moon's nemesis. Think Moriarty, except less brilliant and not as interesting. If one wants to paint oneself a master of criminal achievements, wouldn't it make sense to make the enemy you just defeated the best there ever lived? Wouldn't you want to ensure that you did not portray your nemesis as an incompetent bungler? Instead, Moon is depicted as someone who bungles from one disaster into another. Through one adventure after another Moon follows a trail of hints and suggestions instead of clues and signs, a character trait that can not be explained by either Moon's nemesis' opinion or the fact that Moon has lost his powers of criminal deduction at his present age.
Besides the many strange decisions in storytelling, the author takes odd liberal allowances for tone of voice. I'm not by any means an expert in Victorian historical fiction, but I'm fairly certain the people living on the streets of 19th century London did not use words like 'prolly', which is better placed in good contemporary chick-lit.
Most reviews I've read state something like "I kept reading for some reason but didn't really like the book, but I could not explain why". I hope to have explained some of the uneasiness readers might have. The novel has some interesting descriptions of people and places, but not enough to give it a good rating.
Show Less
LibraryThing member drneutron
The Somnambulist is a mashed up stew of Holmes pastiche, occultish mystery, steampunk-ish elements, and just plain weirdness. I thoroughly enjoyed it - read it front to back with only one break, which is unusual for me - especially the unreliable narrator and the surprise at the end when the
The book has a few novice-author flaws. In spots, I had to backtrack a few lines to picture action as it occurred, and the characters could have been fleshed out just a hair more. Despite this, I highly recommend the book.
Show More
narrator identity was revealed. The book has a few novice-author flaws. In spots, I had to backtrack a few lines to picture action as it occurred, and the characters could have been fleshed out just a hair more. Despite this, I highly recommend the book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member pauljessup
As far as Neo victorian fantasies go the Somnabulist is a passable affair. Good enough to read over the weekend for a few thrills, but in the end lighter and less intellectual than other works of similiar fair. Some of the choices the writer made just seem tacked on, and you could even tell at
On the whole, it is decent but not as good Strange and Norwell. Too much happens to fast, and even though the Neo Victorian literature talks about modernity through a victorian lens, this book did feel like it would have worked better if it would have shaken off it's victorian and gothic aspirations and just was a good story on it's own.
An example of the writing that should not be is a bad impression of Victorian wit. Something the author knew nothing about. Another is the convoluted plot with no actual gravitas for the actions.
Like a bastard child of Bronte and Stephen King, the text weedles about seeking for a plot. The motives of the main character(s) are never truly announced, and it seems that the Casanova inspired hero of the piece is doing all of his plot coupon collecting in attempt to stave off boredom.
And the only thing more boring than working towards removing boredom is reading about someone else doing it. The book does have it's charms, but it is a far cry from what a good neo-victorian book should be.
Show More
which points the author got bored of his own work and had to "bring in a man with a gun" to shake things up a bit and make them interesting again.On the whole, it is decent but not as good Strange and Norwell. Too much happens to fast, and even though the Neo Victorian literature talks about modernity through a victorian lens, this book did feel like it would have worked better if it would have shaken off it's victorian and gothic aspirations and just was a good story on it's own.
An example of the writing that should not be is a bad impression of Victorian wit. Something the author knew nothing about. Another is the convoluted plot with no actual gravitas for the actions.
Like a bastard child of Bronte and Stephen King, the text weedles about seeking for a plot. The motives of the main character(s) are never truly announced, and it seems that the Casanova inspired hero of the piece is doing all of his plot coupon collecting in attempt to stave off boredom.
And the only thing more boring than working towards removing boredom is reading about someone else doing it. The book does have it's charms, but it is a far cry from what a good neo-victorian book should be.
Show Less
LibraryThing member smammers
I'm sad to say that I was pretty disappointed by this one. I thought it would be some sort of mix between Neverwhere and Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, but was most certainly not.
It was promising. The characters were quirky and intriguing. Edward Moon is an aging, washed-up detective who does
The ending was pretty out-of-the-blue, and there's no real depth of characters. None of the supernatural happenings are ever explained. I can't even figure out the title of the book, because The Somnambulist is never more than a bit player. If this author writes another book, I'd like to give it a go, because I think he could be pretty good... but he completely missed the ball here.
It was promising. The characters were quirky and intriguing. Edward Moon is an aging, washed-up detective who does
Show More
magic shows for a living. The Somnambulist is his giant-like, mute partner. They start solving a really weird case in which a circus freak known as The Human Fly pushed an actor off the top of a building. The mysterious Thomas Cribb steps in, giving Moon cryptic clues and being frustratingly vague. And Moon does end up solving the mystery, but it's not a satisfying reveal at all. It leaves you with more questions than anything. Two-thirds of the way through the book I was forcing myself to finish it.The ending was pretty out-of-the-blue, and there's no real depth of characters. None of the supernatural happenings are ever explained. I can't even figure out the title of the book, because The Somnambulist is never more than a bit player. If this author writes another book, I'd like to give it a go, because I think he could be pretty good... but he completely missed the ball here.
Show Less
LibraryThing member tapestry100
I've been in need of an escape and what my fellow LT'er Irish calls a "brain candy book," and that's just what Jonathan Barnes The Somnambulist is, an escape. A fun romp through a Victorian London that isn't quite ours, with characters that are just not quite believable, telling a story that
Be warned. This book has no literary value whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and willfully bizarre. Needless to say, I doubt you'll believe a word of it.
Well, let me tell you right up front, that there is probably no literary value whatsoever found by the end of the book, but that does not take away from the book at all.
The Somnambulist centers around Edward Moon, an aging, falling from fame magician, and his enigma of a partner, who is known only as the Somnambulist. While being the title character to the novel, the Somnambulist doesn't actually play in the starring role in the book, but is simply always there at the right time it seems, and is the perfect foil to Moon. In his time, it comes to light that Moon has also aided the London police on several occasions, helping them solve seemingly unsolvable crimes. And this presents my one great complaint with the book: we hear about several of these cases from Moon's past, but that's all; we are never given anymore than off-the-cuff remarks about them, no details. I want to know more about Moon and his earlier cases!
The characters in The Somnambulist are just as much fun as the story. Obviously, Edward Moon and the Somnambulist, but there is also the Human Fly, the Albino, the Prefects, the Chairman, Mrs Grossmith, Mr Cribb, Barrabas, the bearded-lady whore... the list goes on and on. Each has a part to play in the story from beginning to end, and each person's story is, for the most part, tidied up by the end of the story.
My hope remains that Jonathan Barnes continues thrilling us with tales of Edward Moon and the Somnambulist; tales of their earlier adventures and cases that are only hinted at in The Somnambulist. This book may not be for everyone, but as escapist reading, I don't think you can do much better than this!
Show More
borders on the absurd... and I loved every page of it! Part historical fantasy, part murder mystery, part political intrigue, the best way to describe the book is in the authors own words, from the very opening lines of the book:Be warned. This book has no literary value whatsoever. It is a lurid piece of nonsense, convoluted, implausible, peopled by unconvincing characters, written in drearily pedestrian prose, frequently ridiculous and willfully bizarre. Needless to say, I doubt you'll believe a word of it.
Well, let me tell you right up front, that there is probably no literary value whatsoever found by the end of the book, but that does not take away from the book at all.
The Somnambulist centers around Edward Moon, an aging, falling from fame magician, and his enigma of a partner, who is known only as the Somnambulist. While being the title character to the novel, the Somnambulist doesn't actually play in the starring role in the book, but is simply always there at the right time it seems, and is the perfect foil to Moon. In his time, it comes to light that Moon has also aided the London police on several occasions, helping them solve seemingly unsolvable crimes. And this presents my one great complaint with the book: we hear about several of these cases from Moon's past, but that's all; we are never given anymore than off-the-cuff remarks about them, no details. I want to know more about Moon and his earlier cases!
The characters in The Somnambulist are just as much fun as the story. Obviously, Edward Moon and the Somnambulist, but there is also the Human Fly, the Albino, the Prefects, the Chairman, Mrs Grossmith, Mr Cribb, Barrabas, the bearded-lady whore... the list goes on and on. Each has a part to play in the story from beginning to end, and each person's story is, for the most part, tidied up by the end of the story.
My hope remains that Jonathan Barnes continues thrilling us with tales of Edward Moon and the Somnambulist; tales of their earlier adventures and cases that are only hinted at in The Somnambulist. This book may not be for everyone, but as escapist reading, I don't think you can do much better than this!
Show Less
LibraryThing member silvereyes
Conjuror Edward Moon is a handsome, charismatic man, popular in the best circles. But his assistant is by far the more eye-catching of the two. The Somnambulist is freakishly tall, mute, drinks only milk, and can suffer numerous swordthrusts with no apparent damage. The two are good friends, even
Moon, like Sherlock Holmes before him, is subject to ennui unless he has a case to engage his wits. Unfortunately, cases have been few and far between of late. But when a wretched actor is thrown from a tower, Moon and the Somnambulist are drawn into a bizarre mystery that will, in the end, threaten London itself.
The Somnambulist is a marvelous, convoluted tale. Within its labyrinthine twists are a man who lives backward, a totally unreliable narrator who confesses to lying to the reader, secret organizations, bizarre nightmare Tweedle-Dee and -Dum assassins, and the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Barnes' lyrical writing complements his just-post-Victorian setting and, combined with the inspired madness of the plot, makes this novel very difficult to put down.
Show More
living together beneath their theatre. And when London's finest occasionally request Moon's assistance with a case, the Somnambulist is right there to back him up.Moon, like Sherlock Holmes before him, is subject to ennui unless he has a case to engage his wits. Unfortunately, cases have been few and far between of late. But when a wretched actor is thrown from a tower, Moon and the Somnambulist are drawn into a bizarre mystery that will, in the end, threaten London itself.
The Somnambulist is a marvelous, convoluted tale. Within its labyrinthine twists are a man who lives backward, a totally unreliable narrator who confesses to lying to the reader, secret organizations, bizarre nightmare Tweedle-Dee and -Dum assassins, and the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Barnes' lyrical writing complements his just-post-Victorian setting and, combined with the inspired madness of the plot, makes this novel very difficult to put down.
Show Less
LibraryThing member anderew
Started well, lost the plot about halfway through. I was really excited at first because this is a really cool book AND it's a murder mystery whodunnit. It got to a point where it gave up being clever whodunnit and just piled on the secret societies and ancient curses etc. Ah well.
LibraryThing member jmgold
The Somnambulist proved to be a truly frustrating novel for me. I kept reading in the hope that it would improve, but somehow the text always disappointed just when it seemed to be on the cusp of improving. When a story hinges on the reveal of a zombified romantic poet and you see the twist coming,
The story also flounders a bit by trying to be a few too many things at once. The prose is equal parts Arthur Conan Doyle and Susanna Clarke. The introduction is straight out of a Series of Unfortunate Events, so you start right off thinking the book seems slightly unoriginal.
Still, there are quite a few redeeming qualities to the book. Barnes spends a lot of the novel trying to show off how clever he is, but does genuinely succeed on occasion. The atmosphere is excellent, with a just slightly tweaked version of London serving as the real star of the story. Barnes shows a lot of promise for a novice writer, but this is clearly the work of a Freshman.
Show More
there's a problem.The story also flounders a bit by trying to be a few too many things at once. The prose is equal parts Arthur Conan Doyle and Susanna Clarke. The introduction is straight out of a Series of Unfortunate Events, so you start right off thinking the book seems slightly unoriginal.
Still, there are quite a few redeeming qualities to the book. Barnes spends a lot of the novel trying to show off how clever he is, but does genuinely succeed on occasion. The atmosphere is excellent, with a just slightly tweaked version of London serving as the real star of the story. Barnes shows a lot of promise for a novice writer, but this is clearly the work of a Freshman.
Show Less
LibraryThing member gonzobrarian
Originally posted on my library's blog:
The Somnambulist: a bizarre, not so modern mystery
Edward Moon is a "conjurer", an entertainer struggling to preserve what little reputation and income he has left. Among polite society he is now more likely considered a laughingstock than the once promising
As far as crime solving duos go could this very well be the Victorian era predecessor to our modern day Starsky and Hutch? As far as mysteries go, probably not so much, as Sherlock and Watson might have proven a more apt comparison. At least Watson talked. The Somnambulist, on the other hand, doesn't; he would rather accompany Moon silently grasping his pints of milk.
If such a bizarre introduction to The Somnambulist intrigues you, then by all means delve deeper than the surface just scratched, as this book by Jonathan Barnes turns more curious by the page. But it is as entertaining as it is strange; Moon is as stubbornly cynical, full of snark as he is determined to solve what is the most important threat facing London. And the Somnambulist is, well, the Somnambulist. But will that threat be The Directorate, an assassin known only as The Mongoose, the fun-loving Prefects, or the very literary Chairman itself? Full of intrigue, murder, and curiosity, this story is all wrapped up into a very sharply-written novel. It's dark, creepy, and humorously suspenseful. And it's only the first novel written by Barnes.
The Somnambulist: a bizarre, not so modern mystery
Edward Moon is a "conjurer", an entertainer struggling to preserve what little reputation and income he has left. Among polite society he is now more likely considered a laughingstock than the once promising
Show More
investigator propelled by his sharpened abilities of examination. Considered past his prime, his Las Vegas-styled evening show, set in Victorian era London, is now only attracting the fanatically faithful. So Moon, along with the Somnambulist, his giant, deathly pale, almost human-like partner in crime-solving and fright inducing sidekick, is bored. Yet that is about to change.As far as crime solving duos go could this very well be the Victorian era predecessor to our modern day Starsky and Hutch? As far as mysteries go, probably not so much, as Sherlock and Watson might have proven a more apt comparison. At least Watson talked. The Somnambulist, on the other hand, doesn't; he would rather accompany Moon silently grasping his pints of milk.
If such a bizarre introduction to The Somnambulist intrigues you, then by all means delve deeper than the surface just scratched, as this book by Jonathan Barnes turns more curious by the page. But it is as entertaining as it is strange; Moon is as stubbornly cynical, full of snark as he is determined to solve what is the most important threat facing London. And the Somnambulist is, well, the Somnambulist. But will that threat be The Directorate, an assassin known only as The Mongoose, the fun-loving Prefects, or the very literary Chairman itself? Full of intrigue, murder, and curiosity, this story is all wrapped up into a very sharply-written novel. It's dark, creepy, and humorously suspenseful. And it's only the first novel written by Barnes.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bertilak
Here is my review from early January, 2008. I don't see it here so I am posting it again:
I have just finished The Somnambulist by Jonathan Barnes. Will someone please explain it to me?
It starts off simply enough as a Sherlock Holmes pastiche set in London shortly after the death of Queen Victoria
We soon meet some disagreeable people with distasteful habits who are murdered horrifically for no apparent reason. There is a conjuror and amateur detective and a mute giant who, if you prick him, does not bleed. There are many odd individuals who have too many or too few body parts. There is a taciturn gentlemen who seems to swim upstream in Time, but is not Merlin. There are several sinister conspiracies, one of which is determined to 'liberate' London whether the Londoners wish it or not. Even the Okhrana is there. I expected the Spanish Inquisition or the Bavarian Illuminati.
The author seems to have prepared for writing this book by gazing long into the Aleph, the sphere which contains the entire world. He has delved deep into the pleroma and tried to fit all he found into the Great Chain of Being. The book seems a mess but it is artfully contrived and it all fits together.
What is bewildering about the book is all the loose ends. The amoral fiend named Barabbas does not seem to be needed. And what of the Survivor's Club? What do they do apart from the one member who survives but must resign from the club?
I am an old-fashioned reader. Fiction needs more resolution and coherence than this. One tolerates incompleteness in 'reality' because there is no choice – who killed the Princes in the Tower (an agent of Richard III?); who was The Man in the Iron Mask (someone who resembled the King too well?); who killed JFK (space aliens escaped from Roswell?). There is a resolution to the narrative which is half-satisfactory (except to the hundreds of dead victims) but one wishes to know why some of the characters have supernatural powers.
The sound and fury of The Somnambulist are great fun, but what does it signify?
I have just finished The Somnambulist by Jonathan Barnes. Will someone please explain it to me?
It starts off simply enough as a Sherlock Holmes pastiche set in London shortly after the death of Queen Victoria
Show More
– there are still hansom cabs, fortunately. There are references within the text to Conan Doyle and Poe, so the proprieties are being observed. Not for long.We soon meet some disagreeable people with distasteful habits who are murdered horrifically for no apparent reason. There is a conjuror and amateur detective and a mute giant who, if you prick him, does not bleed. There are many odd individuals who have too many or too few body parts. There is a taciturn gentlemen who seems to swim upstream in Time, but is not Merlin. There are several sinister conspiracies, one of which is determined to 'liberate' London whether the Londoners wish it or not. Even the Okhrana is there. I expected the Spanish Inquisition or the Bavarian Illuminati.
The author seems to have prepared for writing this book by gazing long into the Aleph, the sphere which contains the entire world. He has delved deep into the pleroma and tried to fit all he found into the Great Chain of Being. The book seems a mess but it is artfully contrived and it all fits together.
What is bewildering about the book is all the loose ends. The amoral fiend named Barabbas does not seem to be needed. And what of the Survivor's Club? What do they do apart from the one member who survives but must resign from the club?
I am an old-fashioned reader. Fiction needs more resolution and coherence than this. One tolerates incompleteness in 'reality' because there is no choice – who killed the Princes in the Tower (an agent of Richard III?); who was The Man in the Iron Mask (someone who resembled the King too well?); who killed JFK (space aliens escaped from Roswell?). There is a resolution to the narrative which is half-satisfactory (except to the hundreds of dead victims) but one wishes to know why some of the characters have supernatural powers.
The sound and fury of The Somnambulist are great fun, but what does it signify?
Show Less
LibraryThing member phoebesmum
What a strange book. It starts out as a pastiche of the Victorian detective novel, with Edward Moon as the Great Detective, here moonlighting as a stage magician, his faithful sidekick, a devoted housekeeper, a fake psychic, the obligatory funny policeman, a couple of sinister government agents,
I’m not sure how seriously this novel was intended to be read, or whether it was conceived as a novel at all. Possibly the author just started writing one day, chucked in everything his brain could come up with, and never went back to check if he was making sense or not. There are so many stray unresolved threads that you start to think they can’t be left hanging by accident, but, on the other hand, why anyone would write them on purpose is another question. To list but a few: we hear a great deal of something that happened to Moon in Clapham some years before; we never learn what. His previous assistant fell from grace and is now a bloated wreck of a man, awaiting death in Newgate; we never find out how. Moon and his sister can’t spend too much time together or Bad Things will happen; we never find out what. (I'm guessing incest.) Why does one character experience time backwards and, having made that decision, why can’t the author keep that timeline constant? What’s the significance of that character being, apparently, Lud, the founder of the ancient city of London, and how does he manage this when he’s supposedly from the future? Have the anachronistic schoolboy assassins Hawker and Boon, who seem oddly familiar, crept in from another book altogether? And, most pressing of all, why is the book called 'The Somnambulist' when the Somnambulist himself is only a minor character – and why is the Somnambulist called the Somnambulist when he isn’t one?
Add to this that the book is liberally peopled with grotesques and freaks, with not a decent or a pleasant character to be found – with the possible exception of the policeman – and you have, as I said before, a very strange book indeed. But, oddly, quite a compelling read for all of that.
Show More
and a fiendish conspiracy to be unravelled. Then, somewhere toward the end, bam! Zombie Samuel Taylor Coleridge. After that, everything goes a bit pear-shaped.I’m not sure how seriously this novel was intended to be read, or whether it was conceived as a novel at all. Possibly the author just started writing one day, chucked in everything his brain could come up with, and never went back to check if he was making sense or not. There are so many stray unresolved threads that you start to think they can’t be left hanging by accident, but, on the other hand, why anyone would write them on purpose is another question. To list but a few: we hear a great deal of something that happened to Moon in Clapham some years before; we never learn what. His previous assistant fell from grace and is now a bloated wreck of a man, awaiting death in Newgate; we never find out how. Moon and his sister can’t spend too much time together or Bad Things will happen; we never find out what. (I'm guessing incest.) Why does one character experience time backwards and, having made that decision, why can’t the author keep that timeline constant? What’s the significance of that character being, apparently, Lud, the founder of the ancient city of London, and how does he manage this when he’s supposedly from the future? Have the anachronistic schoolboy assassins Hawker and Boon, who seem oddly familiar, crept in from another book altogether? And, most pressing of all, why is the book called 'The Somnambulist' when the Somnambulist himself is only a minor character – and why is the Somnambulist called the Somnambulist when he isn’t one?
Add to this that the book is liberally peopled with grotesques and freaks, with not a decent or a pleasant character to be found – with the possible exception of the policeman – and you have, as I said before, a very strange book indeed. But, oddly, quite a compelling read for all of that.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LiteraryFeline
The first paragraph of the novel instantly had my attention. I knew I was in for something different. It is difficult to describe a book like this. It isn’t quite what one might expect from the description offered by the publisher. It certainly is a bit of a detective story, but it also flows
Edward Moon, stage magician and detective, is bored of doing magic tricks and reading minds. He has not faced a memorable foe in a very long time, and so even while he pretends to be quite reluctant, he agrees to help the police solve a rather unusual and gruesome murder. What unfolds is a dark and magical tale, one fraught with horrors and conspiracy galore.
The characters lean toward bizarre and unbelievable, just as the narrator warns readers at the beginning of the book. Of course, this is what makes them all the more interesting. There is the albino, Skimpole, who nobody seem to like; the ugly man, Thomas Cribb, who is knows much more than he is able to say; the giant, milk guzzling Somnambulist who does not speak; Miss Grossmith, the ever faithful housekeeper; Barabbas the Fiend, who is quite crazed while still brilliant; Mrs. Puggsley, the brothel madam, who serves a clientele with rather special tastes; and Edward Moon, who is past his prime but is not quite ready to let the world forget him.
The narrator’s voice throughout the book is entertaining to say the least. The narrator, however unreliable, was witty and amusing, even with his asides that sometimes had me rolling my eyes. “I expect by now that your disbelief is not so much suspended as dangling from the highest plateau of credulity.” [p334] And with that quote, I found myself nodding in complete agreement.
Although I take no issue with the choice in narrator and actually think it makes for a more interesting twist to the story, my opinion of the narrator was not so high after learning his true identity. The mystery gone and the motive clear, the narrator seemed rather ordinary. Perhaps that was exactly what the author intended.
The Somnambulist is quirky, dark and utterly entertaining. Jonathan Barnes has written a novel that at times will confound the reader and yet everything comes together in the end in unexpected ways. This was one book in which I never guessed what might happen next.
Show More
over into the macabre and fantastic. Edward Moon, stage magician and detective, is bored of doing magic tricks and reading minds. He has not faced a memorable foe in a very long time, and so even while he pretends to be quite reluctant, he agrees to help the police solve a rather unusual and gruesome murder. What unfolds is a dark and magical tale, one fraught with horrors and conspiracy galore.
The characters lean toward bizarre and unbelievable, just as the narrator warns readers at the beginning of the book. Of course, this is what makes them all the more interesting. There is the albino, Skimpole, who nobody seem to like; the ugly man, Thomas Cribb, who is knows much more than he is able to say; the giant, milk guzzling Somnambulist who does not speak; Miss Grossmith, the ever faithful housekeeper; Barabbas the Fiend, who is quite crazed while still brilliant; Mrs. Puggsley, the brothel madam, who serves a clientele with rather special tastes; and Edward Moon, who is past his prime but is not quite ready to let the world forget him.
The narrator’s voice throughout the book is entertaining to say the least. The narrator, however unreliable, was witty and amusing, even with his asides that sometimes had me rolling my eyes. “I expect by now that your disbelief is not so much suspended as dangling from the highest plateau of credulity.” [p334] And with that quote, I found myself nodding in complete agreement.
Although I take no issue with the choice in narrator and actually think it makes for a more interesting twist to the story, my opinion of the narrator was not so high after learning his true identity. The mystery gone and the motive clear, the narrator seemed rather ordinary. Perhaps that was exactly what the author intended.
The Somnambulist is quirky, dark and utterly entertaining. Jonathan Barnes has written a novel that at times will confound the reader and yet everything comes together in the end in unexpected ways. This was one book in which I never guessed what might happen next.
Show Less
LibraryThing member craso
This is a novel populated by many unusual characters. The main character, Edward Moon, is an out of fashion magician and a Sherlock Holmes type detective. Once the toast of London society, he is now out of favor even though he has solved over sixty extraordinary criminal cases. His partner is the
Show More
Somnambulist, a mute, hairless, milk drinking, indestructible giant. Edward’s nemesis is an albino named Skimpole who belongs to a secret British government organization called The Directorate. As he investigates the bizarre death of an aspiring actor, he meets a carnival freak, deformed prostitutes, a man who lives backwards, and sadistic killers dressed as school boys. He uncovers a cult that’s purpose is to destroy London and raise a utopian society from its ashes. By-the-way, you can’t trust the narrator because he admits to a tendency to lie and may actually be insane. A fun, baffling, fast paced novel, you won’t know what’s going on until the end and even then you will doubt what you have read. Show Less
LibraryThing member 30oddyearsofzan
Hugely imaginative - if not always entirely coherent - Victorian fantasy. This is a first novel, so I can forgive Jonathan Barnes throwing everything but the kitchen sink in here. I can also forgive him dropping tantalising hints about Edward Moon's earlier cases (after all, Conan Doyle never did
But hey, if you're going to be influenced, be influenced by the best; and the breadth of creativity and wit on display here is enough to ensure I shall be watching Mr Barnes' progress with interest.
Show More
decide if the world was prepared enough for the Giant Rat of Sumatra). On the other hand, fantasy must stay true to its own internal logic, and The Somnambulist never explicitly sets down what its internal logic is, allowing for two blatant (albeit hugely entertaining) dei ex machina towards the end. Also, the influence of Alan Moore, in his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen/From Hell mode, is all over this. But hey, if you're going to be influenced, be influenced by the best; and the breadth of creativity and wit on display here is enough to ensure I shall be watching Mr Barnes' progress with interest.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ursula
The Somnambulist is a book that wears its inspirations on its sleeves. Within the first few pages, I was already jotting down notes of "Dracula?" and "Sherlock Holmes." Between that and the tongue-in-cheek manner the story begins (within the first few pages, we're introduced to Cyril Honeyman with
The plot is convoluted, as you'd expect, and happenings are strange, as you'd expect. Eventually, though, I felt like it all sort of spun out of control, like when you are mixing a cake and lift the mixer's beaters up without turning off the power first. The delicious ingredients are all still there, but your cake will lack some substance and you have quite a mess to clean up. I don't think Barnes ever fully pulls it all together, and for that reason, for the last third or so I was really reading just to finish, not even to find out what happens. After a while, it was pretty clear to me there weren't going to be any real answers forthcoming - in that expectation at least, I wasn't disappointed.
Recommended for: people who like Terry Gilliam movies.
Quote: "The ape Moon had used in his act for the past two years fell unexpectedly ill and was prescribed by his veterinarian a rest cure of indefinite duration. The zoo sent a replacement but he was an obstreperous, troublesome fellow with none of the natural talent of his predecessor."
Show More
the lines: "Please don't get attached to him. I've no intention of detailing his character at any length -- he's insignificant, a walk-on, a corpse-in-waiting."), I thought I was in for a fun little read. For a while, that's true. Edward Moon is a magician who is past his best days, and he also consults occasionally with the London police on strange cases, which is where Cyril Honeyman comes in. Moon's assistant is the titular Somnambulist, a mute giant who seems to be made of something not entirely human.The plot is convoluted, as you'd expect, and happenings are strange, as you'd expect. Eventually, though, I felt like it all sort of spun out of control, like when you are mixing a cake and lift the mixer's beaters up without turning off the power first. The delicious ingredients are all still there, but your cake will lack some substance and you have quite a mess to clean up. I don't think Barnes ever fully pulls it all together, and for that reason, for the last third or so I was really reading just to finish, not even to find out what happens. After a while, it was pretty clear to me there weren't going to be any real answers forthcoming - in that expectation at least, I wasn't disappointed.
Recommended for: people who like Terry Gilliam movies.
Quote: "The ape Moon had used in his act for the past two years fell unexpectedly ill and was prescribed by his veterinarian a rest cure of indefinite duration. The zoo sent a replacement but he was an obstreperous, troublesome fellow with none of the natural talent of his predecessor."
Show Less
LibraryThing member kbuxton
I'm not quite sure what to think of this book. It took me awhile to get into it, but I was enjoying it by the end. There are unsettling characters, gloomy London, a secret plot, a medium, a weird cult and much more, but set at a slower pace than most of that would make you imagine.
LibraryThing member gann
_The Somnambulist_, by Jonathan Barnes, falls in the relatively recent Steam Punk genre and is very reminiscent of _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norell_ in atmosphere. Both mix paranormal events with a dark, gas-lit view of Victorian London. The plot of _The Somnambulist_ is engaging, and the characters
My only major criticism is that the book felt a bit sketchy, drawn with large brush strokes. I never really got into the details of the environment such that I could picture it clearly, and the characters never become so real that I quite cared about what happened to them. This aside, though, I would recommend this book as an enjoyable, reasonably light read.
Show More
are interesting and bizarre while still staying, for the most part, in the realm of the believable. It's a fun book with an unusual narrator, the pacing was good, and I was easily carried through the novel to an unpredictable but satisfying ending.My only major criticism is that the book felt a bit sketchy, drawn with large brush strokes. I never really got into the details of the environment such that I could picture it clearly, and the characters never become so real that I quite cared about what happened to them. This aside, though, I would recommend this book as an enjoyable, reasonably light read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member purpledragon42
As it seems quite a few people have said before me, the is one of the strangest books I've read in a long time. Also, like many others, I can't fully decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing - at the very least it was refreshing. The story itself was engaging and kept me guessing right up until
Show More
the very last page. Barnes also does an excellent job of making you feel like this world has always existed and will always exist, even after you've finsihed the book and closed its pages. Some people will enjoy that fact, I think; I did. However, there will be just as many that will likely find it annoying because it almost reads like you've missed something - like this is the last book in a series. There are so many characters that beg to be explored more thoroughly! That alone makes me crave some sort of sequel, prequel or companion - anything set in the same universe/time period. With all of that said, I would happily pick up Barnes' next title with full expectations for something wholly unique...with a fun flare of the bizarre. Show Less
LibraryThing member luciavargas
While reading this book I kept waiting and hoping for something that would make me connect with the characters, but they seem to be too broadly sketched out to connect with them. Where it succeeds is in the creation of a dark, victorian atmosphere for London, which at times feels like the best
There were a lot of imaginative passages, but the total result was not as engaging as I had hoped for.
Show More
developed character in the book. At some point in the book, the narrator tells us: "You needn't worry yourself about Moon (as if you care).." and this being the fate of the main character just 10 pages from the end, I found it very telling that I really didn't care that much. There were a lot of imaginative passages, but the total result was not as engaging as I had hoped for.
Show Less