The Strange Case of the Alchemist's Daughter

This was a fun, silly, adventure story throwing in lots of references to 19th century classic stories like Frankenstein, Jekyll and Hyde, the Island of Doctor Moreau etc. It has a bit of the "first book in a series, here's a bunch of characters" vibe: the story itself chugs along but isn't that interesting.

There were some clanging americanisms and anachronistic speech that snuck into the prose. I think if you're going to do this sort of pastiche, you could try a little harder to capture the style of the language of the original books.

I don't feel compelled to continue with the series.

It has been a while since I experienced such a contrast between my expectations of a book and the reality of reading it. I'll still admit freely that the idea of it is a rather brilliant one, in my opinion - it's worth a whole star for me. Otherwise I'd have given it one star.

Gaslamp fantasy is one of my absolute favourites concerning sub-genres. I have had a soft spot for Victorian literature ever since I was 12 or 13 and had learnt English well enough to read - of all things - Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories in the original version (which has resulted in a deep affection almost 'akin to love' - to mini-quote from A Scandal in Bohemia - for the detective and the whole canon). I know all of the heroines' 'origin' stories as well as a number of other gothic tales and novels. I even studied English literature for a while... This series should have been for me!

But alas!, it wasn't. It wasn't at all - and, to a certain degree I suppose it was exactly because of what I just explained about myself as a reader.

First of all: the Sherlock Holmes dilemma.
I don't think that modern authors taking up the character(s) and "re-using" them is per se a crime or sacrilege. There are examples where it was done absolutely brilliantly in my opinion (i.e. [b:The House of Silk|11093329|The House of Silk (Horowitz's Holmes, #1)|Anthony Horowitz|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1327877129l/11093329.SY75.jpg|16015218]) - where the author paid attention and hommage to the original material. In this case it felt like the author hadn't even bothered to read more than (perhaps) one of the short stories and decided she would figure the rest out by watching a few recent action movies vaguely based on the books. This usually doesn't work when people give a book presentation at school based on this method, and it didn't work here either.
Another part of the problem is that the main reason for Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to be dragged into this seems to have been to use them as love interests, the first for the allegedly exceptionally logical and clever Mary Jekyll, the second possibly for Beatrice Rappaccini, even if it might be only as a kind of cruel comic relief. While Dr. Watson is known to have an interest in women, Sherlock Holmes is basically famous for not having that, no matter what else he might or might not experience concerning more tender passions. But what was far more irritating to me is that a short research on Wikipedia even would have told the author that Sherlock Holmes would have to be over fourty in her story (because he'd be only available in London again after 1894 due to the small matter of him pretending to be dead after ridding the world of the late Professor Moriarty - but who's counting inconsistencies?), about twice the age of his supposed inamorata who is 21. And while Miss Rappaccini might perhaps be slightly older than that, Dr. Watson also is the older of the two men, and recently widowed... Call me unromantic and closeminded - but even Jane Austen's Mr Knightley would have been a few years closer to Emma than that. This is getting close to Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester - and look how well that went!
Honestly, the group of young women would have been totally fine (and capable of solving this mystery) with hardly any changes to the storyline if Holmes and Watson were just taken out of the equation altogether. They feel obsolete and unnecessary. And I'm also not a fan of love stories without 'chemistry' - there could have been far more interesting and believable combinations from the large group of characters more elementary to the plot (which might have made the book less 'straight as a ruler', though).

Secondly: the time paradox.
This might definitely be a point hardly anyone gets upset over aside from me, I'll own that, and happily. When I read books that are set in (pseudo)historical times, I need to see that reflected in the language as well as the attitude of the characters (aside from, obviously, the 'scenery' in respect to dress codes, technical development, etc.) or I won't be able to 'believe' it. This book is hardly the first case of an author failing there for me - and it isn't the worst case I've seen. But still:
Mary Jekyll, for the first few chapters, wasn't even doing too badly in that respect - until she... met people. Which is a pity because she gets to meet a lot of them. And in this first book of a series at least she's the only character who gets to have more than one to two character traits and thus to feel like more than a stock character - at least that's how it felt to me. It works even less for the rest. It felt as if there was so much attention given to making each character 'quirky' in a different way that giving them depth or a historically believable attitude was somehow forgotten in the process.
The problem is that there are simply too many historically contemporary examples (even outside the 'origin' narrations of the characters) of Victorian social life and etiquette in literature to not notice when an author fails by using the period merely decorationally without managing to get the characters to behave, well, in character.

Thirdly (and finally): the author's distrust in the reader.
Again, this might well be a pet peeve of mine, and mine only. But when an author takes the time to place hints for the reader, maybe even not that subtly at times, to come to the right conclusions - maybe don't have characters state the obvious again, and again, and again, just in case somebody missed all the broad hints because they somehow managed to read with their eyes shut? Also, it doesn't necessarily make the reader believe in a character's brilliance of mind if they only get to a certain explanation/solution half a book after the reader did... An especially prominent example for this were the interjections into the story (which I found quite interesting in the beginning but learnt to be wary of later because they turned into a mixture of 'captain obvious's corner', 'tell-don't show-theatre' and a less humourous version of the 'Mythenmetz'sche Abschweifung').

To sum it all up again, this book wasn't for me, and I will not continue the series for my own peace of mind. And I feel somewhat cheated for that.

When Mary Jekyll's mother dies, she discovers a secret bank account used to make payments in connection with Mr Hyde. Mary cannot fathom why and faced with an uncertain financial future, she seeks out Sherlock Holmes to find out if there's still a reward for the capture of Mr Hyde. Their investigation leads them to meet many other young ladies who have been wronged by a mysterious society of alchemists.

The Strange case of the Alchemist's Daughter is the first book in Theodora Goss's Athena Club series, which follows family members from classic genre fiction. Whilst Mary is obviously Mr Jekyll's daughter, when her father was Mr Hyde, he had another daughter. There are also characters from Frankenstein, The Island of Doctor Moreau and Dracula.

Beatrice Rappaccini is a character from a short story (by Nathaniel Hawthorne) that I had to look up, but like the others she is given life beyond that short fiction. Some of the characters have had to lead lives as sideshow freaks in order to make a living, until Mary takes them in. I liked how it explored what happens outside those stories, that there are innocent people left behind.

I listened to this on audio and the characters interrupting the narrative all the time was a bit pointless and distracting. I don't know if this works better in print at all. Catherine is the one supposedly writing the story and they other characters keep chiming in to correct her or agree.

This first story also borrows from the Whitehall Murders attributed to Jack the Ripper and, like many writers before have done, an alternate narrative is given with a supernatural angle.

It was a little slow in places, spending a lot of time on each woman's backstory as well as the character comments. I think now that I'm familiar with all the characters I would consider reading more. It was simple, escapist fun set in a mock Victorian era, where attitudes to women and science are just starting to turn.

3.5*



You don't usually have to do homework for a book you read for fun. But after reading about 50 pages of this book, I knew I would have to do just that. I felt in over my head at the mentions of Beatrice and Diana and Catherine. Who were these people? Why did it feel like I needed context for them, when this was the start of the series?



So I put the book aside and, with some easy research, found the other books I should read and started on them. If you're at all confused by the start of this book, you should definitely read [b:The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde|51496|The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde|Robert Louis Stevenson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1318116526s/51496.jpg|3164921], [b:Rappaccini's Daughter|364985|Rappaccini's Daughter|Nathaniel Hawthorne|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1390176453s/364985.jpg|1189453], [b:The Island of Doctor Moreau|29981|The Island of Doctor Moreau|H.G. Wells|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388230211s/29981.jpg|68894], and [b:Frankenstein|35031085|Frankenstein|Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1498841231s/35031085.jpg|4836639]. For more context, some other books you should read would be the modern [b:The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein|38255342|The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein|Kiersten White|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1518635930s/38255342.jpg|58014825], and of course, any of the Sherlock Holmes stories.



At this point, you might be thinking this story is crazy, and you'd be right. I haven't read a published book that read more like fanfiction in my life. And yet, it's just crazy enough to work. It's fun, and well-characterized. It's incredibly silly at times, but there's an interesting mystery here and aren't crossovers just so much fun to read or watch?



It's an odd little book, for sure. Somewhere in the realm between outright fanfiction like you find online, and a retelling. It's unique, and an easy read once you get the characters sorted out. And you don't need to read all those classics I listed in order to do so, things get explained in time. However, I feel I got more out of the characters knowing their original backstories and comparing them to how they were changed for this book. If there were women mentioned at all in the original tales, they got the short end of the stick. In this book, they're given a new chance at life in a way.

I just couldn't get past all of the narrator interruptions. I completely get that the author clearly thinks this is funny and/or cute, but it's distracting to say the least, and serves no purpose.

Not bad, a fun little romp of a story, the writing was good and the story very engrossing, I found the interjections more distracting than anything and the characters a bit flat but otherwise a very good book