PLEASE REMEMBER I HAVE A FAQ POST NOW AND THANK YOU FOR LEAVING A COMMENT IF YOU'RE READING! LOVE AND THANKS TO ALL MY READERS!
The all new 50 Books Challenge!
Title: The Forbidden Garden by Ellen Herrick
Details: Copyright 2017, HarperCollins
Synopsis (By Way of Front Flap): "FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE SPARROW SISTERS COMES A SUMPTUOUS NEW NOVEL, A STORY WHERE FAMILY SECRETS ARE UNCOVERED.. AND LIFE IS RENEWED.
The garden waited. Behind the yew hedges, beyond the crumbling brick wall, within sight of the ancient house, under skies both heavy and light, the garden waited for someone to save it. Beneath the soil, now emptied of any nourishment, seeds huddled, asleep or worse, and still the garden waited.
At the nursery she runs with her sisters on the New England coast, Sorrel Sparrow has honed her rare gift for nurturing plants and flowers. When she is hired to restore the walled Shakespeare Garden at Kirkwood Hall- the ancestral English home of Sir Graham Kirkwood and his wife, Stella-- she is shocked by its desolate condition. According to family lore, generations have tried to return the garden to its former glory, but every attempt has failed. Determined not to let the Kirkwoods down, Sorrel vows to save the garden and turn it into the magnificent, lush space it once was.
But almost as soon as Sorrel steps into the garden's borders, she notices that instead of radiating life, it exudes a sense of heartbreak, betrayal... and perhaps even a dark enchantment. Intrigued by Kirkwood Hall's history-- and also by the haunting tapestries that grace its walls-- Sorrel, increasingly drawn to Stella's enigmatic brother, sets to work. But as she slowly unravels the English garden's secrets, she is stunned to learn that its destiny is irrevocably entwined with her own. "
Why I Wanted to Read It: When I was requesting the first book by this author, The Sparrow Sisters, this popped up as a follow-up. As I had not yet read the first book, I thought, why not?
How I Liked It:
No, you aren't seeing things and no, I am not a glutton for punishment, not really. Yes, I did just review the first book by this author, The Sparrow Sisters, and no, to put it mildly, I did not care for it. So why go ahead and read another book by the same author, let alone a follow-up to the events in the first book? Well, I believe second chances can exist in some cases, that's why! There's been books where I'm glad I gave the author a second chance, and I believe The Sparrow Sisters was the author's first book. Had she improved as an author for her second run?
But before we decide that, it's a trip to England! Oldest sister Sorrel Sparrow, the only Sparrow Sister to not end up with a man at the end of The Sparrow Sisters, is off to England to fix a mysterious estate that has a garden that just refuses to let anything live (including some residents?). But Sorrel wasn't counting on (and neither was he!) the hunky minister brother of her host's wife, with whom we see a familiar trajectory as the first book's main romance with reluctance/testiness to full-blown starry love fairly quickly. But there's a secret her host is covering up, including a mysterious tapestry with a scary secret. Turns out a midwife that worked for the family was accused of being a witch, murdered, and that's all depicted in the tapestry. Oh, and despite it being centuries, a box of her burned remains (and her personal effect she was wearing) was dug up in the garden, thus revealing why the garden was a gray miserable death trap for centuries. With that out of the way, all's great and Sorrel and her new love interest just need to decide where they're going to live.
You can probably tell by my summary where this book landed. Somehow, all the problems that plagued the first book are made even worse. The dialog is even more clunky, the character development and backstory is laughable, we're given an even greater expanse of setting utterly wasted by the author, and I could go on and on but there's got to be some sort of space limit on these reviews.
Why on earth was this so bad? Was the author, having written her first book, eager clearly for a follow-up and this is merely an extension of the first? The way she ended the first book surely suggests that. So this is really The Sparrow Sisters, Volume 2 and despite a more ambitious imagining for the second book, this is how it came out? The romance is barely there, but this should be a rollicking mystery and instead it's a plod to the reveal. At least the first book had the suspense of the trial, such as it was.
As I said, I would argue that just about every problem of the first book is even worse in the second (although I'm grateful this book doesn't have the deeply weird gender politics of the first one), and has bonus issues besides (and we'll get to some of those). This book, almost more than the first, had the potential to be an incredibly entertaining book. Deep, deep, deep within the story are the bare bones of something that could've been a masterpiece of setting, mystery, rebirth, and redemption. Instead, we got this, a book that feels so rushed and poorly done I'm honestly wondering if any of the authors who blurbed the book (more on those folks later, too!) actually read it.
Three strikes and you're out, the saying goes, but when it comes to books like this, for me it's only two strikes. You've got two chances, and that's usually it. Still, I'm the optimistic sort. With a great deal of work and refining her skill, the author could form her concepts for stories into enjoyable books. Maybe someday she will. But for now, her first two books just make you sorry you gave her the second chance.
Notable: The change of setting to England doesn't serve the author. The author, an American who lived in England, according to her brief bio, you would assume could avoid stereotypes and cartoons and write authentically for British characters and setting. But much like a Southern writer dishing up a self-consciously 'Southern' South, there were plenty of times in this book when the author stepped into places she really shouldn't.
The house was empty and still, but the kettle sat on the Aga, and Sorrel found that there was nothing she wanted more than a cup of tea. I've gone native already, she thought. Waiting for it to boil, she looked in the cupboards for the biscuits Andrew had fed her. Jaffa Cakes, they were called, an odd name but a decidedly delicious cookie covered in chocolate, and filled with bittersweet orange marmalade. (pgs 44 and 45)
Given the popularity of Jaffa Cakes outside of the UK, I just found this somewhat embarrassing.
"What ho!" Graham said with the kind of robust good spirits only found at Kirkwood Hall or in a pub on match day. (pg 157)
Nothing about cricket, fish 'n' chips, the Queen, or "jolly good"? Wanker!
________________________________________
And here comes a whole lot of exposition and telling not showing!
"Seriously, Sorrel, try to dewitchify us if you can in the old country," Patience had said and nestled the line-wrapped bottle into a corner of the suitcase. As it turned out, the scent was thoroughly bewitching to Andrew, which was not in anyone's plan. (pg 54)
Did we really need that last part to hammer home that their romance was unexpected? Especially stated that flatly? Very rough draft.
"What makes you such an expert on loss and love and everything in between?" he asked.
"Oh, you have no idea how expert I am on matters of the heart!" Sorrel snapped. "I am the product of any kind of loss you can imagine, and I am stronger and smarter for it so don't you dare question me." (pg 128)
I'm reminded again of Stephen King's book on writing where he talks about walking the fine line between dialog that gets your point across and dialog that sounds like someone is actually talking. The author didn't just put all her eggs in the "getting the point" basket, she smashed to bits the "authentic" basket with a particularly clunky hammer.
It would not be telling tales out of school to say that Graham had always had a bit of a crush on Delphine. (pg 150)
This is the voice of the narrator, and it's very awkward. "It was no secret to anyone that Graham had always had a bit of a crush on Delphine" is much more appropriate.
Her hair was as dark as the sky and smelled of the sea. (pg 165)
Sea-smells I'm with you. But, uh, the sky can change color and there's no mention of a night sky (which would equate to black here) in the scene.
________________________________________
Oh the Witch places you didn't need to go!
"oh dear," Sorrel said. "What happened?"
"A losing skirmish with a bramble." He touched his cheek. "Have you got anything for it, my little wiccan [sic]?" (pg 218)
The lowercase "W" should've been caught by an editor (an editor? What's that?) and... there is really no need for that word. "Sorceress" would have sufficed.
"But given that the bishop is joining me for the consecration at the solstice, I'm pretty sure I could convince him that Anna deserves a Christian burial."
"Even though she's a witch?"
"Well, she's not, obviously, so that's not an issue." (pg 338)
The whole confusion of a midwife healer as a witch is kind of a mess, especially given the fact that since her murder, the garden has been cursed.
________________________________________
Looking more closely at the cover, author Brunonia Berry enthuses "Herrick weaves a rich tapestry of family lore, dark secrets, and love." And I'd make a crack about Berry's own 'Witch' book and there's plenty to crack about there, but in fairness, authors of books I couldn't stand have said flattering things about books I enjoyed, so it's probably safe to say author blurbs are merely a way for colleagues to support colleagues in most cases.
Final Grade: D
No comments:
Post a Comment