Fingersmith (original 2002; edition 2002)

on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 I wrote about this book....


I am sad cause I have finished it. What a good read this was. Especially the last 350 pages.
I loved Tipping the Velvet but I think I like this one even better. Or just as good.

Don't read the book description or reviews.!!!!


I didn't and now I am so glad I did, cause this book surprised me immensely.

( )

It's hard to see this book as primarily a work of historical fiction when everybody considers Sarah Waters to be a lesbian writer. Have to confess, I have a tendency to turn my nose up at books that are toted as "modern feminist writing" or whatever, which is bad of me. Never judge a book by its cover, etc. But I remembered reading a few passages from it in a seminar, early in the spring semester, and wanting to see how it fit into a longer novel. Also, Sarah Waters is Welsh, which helps.

I don't think it's the best book that was ever written. I can't speak for the quality of the research, but the settings are quite well described and vivid, and the language is lively enough to make my synaesthesia spark. It "tasted nice", as I say, but at the same time, it wasn't the best overall taste ever. There are some gorgeous passages and there are indifferent sections -- I couldn't put my finger on why, but that was my impression. It just "tasted" blander. I always wonder if maybe those points are when the writer lost focus or got bored for a moment.

The plot is twisty and turny. I actually read spoilers in advance, which was silly, because I didn't really get the full benefit of the surprises or any moments where everything clicked into place. I think that feeling might have been nice, with this book -- but at the same time I wonder if it was probably led up to... I suppose Susan does constantly drop hints that Maud is not what she seems, in the end. Sometimes I did feel that big surprises were thrown into the readers' faces just for the shock value. I don't really mind that so much when I'm reading, but for a book that is relatively slow paced and detailed, it seems... somehow inappropriate. Then, at the same time, how else would one keep it interesting? It felt like breaking character, though... reading actual Victorian books, like Charles Dickens, the writing is as slow -- slower! -- but it still keeps me interested, and even the plot twists don't seem quite so sharp.

The format, with the Susan POV followed by the Maud POV recounting the same events, was irritating. It was nice to get both sides of the story, on the one hand, but the intricacies of the Gentleman's plot could have come out without it, and Maud's POV didn't bring anything really new to it. The transition wasn't bad -- at least it didn't say in block capitals, "You are too stupid to understand this, but there is a POV change here"! But it wasn't great, either, it wasn't entirely necessary, and the book could have been tighter and neater without it.

Character-wise... I don't know. I guess nobody struck me that sharply. I ended up being in it more to see exactly how the plot unfolded, rather than for the characters, which is unusual for me. I thought some of the interactions between Maud and Sue were good, and liked the ending; I had a strange fondness for Dainty throughout. But I didn't get wildly caught up in it as I would if I really, really cared about the characters.

In conclusion: strangely ambivalent. ( )

Rating: 3.5 of 5

The cover blurb of Fingersmith describes a "Dickensian novel of stunning thrills and reversals...A superbly plotted story of...heartbreaking betrayals," and that it was!

Only, it was filled to bursting with villains. Every character in the book, except the infants and poor Charley Wag, was out for themselves and, having been abused and betrayed by others, believed themselves justified in doing the same villainy to others. On the one hand, I could empathize with Maud and Sue; on the other, I loathed the pair of them. Don't get me started on Gentleman or Nurse Spiller, both of whom I wanted to suffer way more than they did.

It took about 250 pages before anything happened that I did not foresee. I wasn't bored at all, but I was compelled solely out of curiosity as to how the whole long con would play out rather than actual caring for anyone in the story. The ending was fast and pretty which surprised me given the 500 pages leading up to it. Still, it was satisfactory.

Waters is now firmly on my must-read list. ( )

When I began reading this book, I believed it to be a modernized [a:Charles Dickens|239579|Charles Dickens|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1183239979p2/239579.jpg] kind of book. The reference to [b:Oliver Twist|18254|Oliver Twist|Charles Dickens|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1309202887s/18254.jpg|3057979] was probably responsible for that comparison. Because this is no Dickens.
Like Sue, I was totally taken in during Part 1, but then I didn't really like any of the characters. Maybe that's part of the beauty of the writing, getting you on one character's side and then dropping you in a cold bath to completely change your mind (not that I favoured Maud directly, either, because I was more removed from both in the end). I loved the plot twist, found the uncle's books completely unexpected, but had the final mystery figured out by the end of part two (I think the author wants you to have a suspicion at that stage, however).
The exploration of identity and nature versus nurture is done with some originality, and it makes for a very intersting read at the same time. Its atypicalness makes this book worthwhile. ( )

Although the idea is simple enough - use a thief to double cross a lady and win her fortune - there are enough twists and turns throughout the story that kept me guessing right to the end. The novel rarely left my hand in the three days I ripped through it.

I also really appreciate when a writer lets me use my own reasoning without having to spell it all out. There also were enough of the Victorian mainstays to make me very happy: thieves, beggars, proper ladies, dashing villains and ancient, crumbling mansions. The idea of two women falling in love and expressing it openly shone a spotlight on this oppressive social time period when a woman had few rights and even fewer options outside of a traditional marriage. ( )