Year of Wonders - Geraldine Brooks

Author: Geraldine Brooks

Genre: Historical Fiction

Rating: 1 star!

In a Nutshell: The more the expectations, the bigger the disappointment. Utterly dismayed at this ‘Hollywoodised’ version of the Eyam plague story.

Story:

1666. Anna Frith is a young widow who works as a housemaid to support herself and her two little boys. When the rector sends a boarder her way to supplement her income, she readily agrees. Little does she know that this boarder brings with him some cloth infected with ‘plague seeds’. As the disease begins spreading its virulence, the villagers turn to religion as well as superstition.

The story comes to us in the first person pov of Anna.

Where the book worked for me:

😊 The author’s vocabulary is outstanding. The lingo of 1600s Britain is visible on every page. Never have I used my Kindle dictionary so much, and it didn’t even have an answer every time!

😊 I liked most of the initial quarter of the novel when it proceeds logically and focusses only on how the virulent disease began.

Where the book could have worked better for me:

☠ The GR blurb declares this as “inspired by the true story of Eyam” (pronounced “Eem”) but the book turned out to be more “inspired” than “true”. Heck, it doesn’t even mention Eyam anywhere except in the author’s note.

☠ When a book promises me a story of the plague, what I want is the story of the plague. Instead, the plague just turns out to be the background of a plot. While the bare outline of the plague is included, the focus is elsewhere after the 25% mark. It feels as if the plot just galloped away from the author’s control after this point and she rode along with it rather than trying to rein it in.

☠ The author seems to have listed out every possible cringe-worthy thought/action of that era and included it in the narrative. Thus the plot has witch hunts, religious divisions, superstitions, self-flagellation, class discrimination, extreme corporal punishments, underdeveloped medical knowledge, midwifery issues, single parenthood, domestic abuse, parental abuse, patriarchal domination, and the kitchen sink. (Okay, not the kitchen sink.) The plague itself is a dark topic. Did the content require so much of sensationalising with all these add-on masalas?

☠ To distinguish between the factual and fictitious elements, the author has resorted to using real names for those characters whose behaviour was supposedly not fictionalised (Example: Rev. Stanley the old rector, George Viccars the first person to contract the plague) and fictional names for characters who behave differently. (Example: The real Rev. William Mompesson is turned into Rev. Michael Mompellion, his wife Catherine is ‘Elinor’. Anna Frith is fictitious as are the Gowdies.) This isn’t the problem. The problem is the drastic difference in facts and fiction. How do those who don’t know the facts understand what’s real and what was falsified? The author’s note clarifies a few of the details but there is plenty left unsaid. The real William Mompesson would have rolled over in his grave if he were to know what his counterpart did in this story.

☠ Had I not already read about the plague in another novel late last year, I would have been left with plenty of questions because there’s barely any concrete information provided. Even basic details such as when was the ‘Cordon Sanitaire’ imposed or how many months did the plague last in Eyam are glossed over. (It isn’t even called ‘Cordon Sanitaire’ in this book!) At the same time, unnecessary gory details are provided to enhance the shock factor. We can be told that the bubonic plague created large pus-filled boils. Was it necessary to write in detail how those boils burst and what happens next? Can’t some things be left to our imagination?

☠ I didn’t like the choice of first person narrator. Anna Frith the housemaid knowing so much and telling us what happened was farfetched. As a barely educated maid, she wouldn’t have possessed the depth of knowledge she shows. And of course, she seems to come out on top of the situation every time. So many of her scenes are unbelievable. Moreover, there is a discrepancy in the wording of her narration and her first person dialogues. Ideally, both should have been written in the same kind of English but her spoken lines seem more archaic than the narrative text.

☠ The title presents a very different picture of the book. It is taken from a John Dryden poem written about the year 1666, the same year in which the events of Year of Wonders take place. The idea is to look at the positives after a tragedy. But in a book that has nothing but catastrophes, where are we to search the wonders? There’s no thread of hope anywhere except in the epilogue.

☠ The ending sinks faster than a stone. It is one of the most absurd finales I have ever read, right up there with the ending of Murakami’s ‘Norwegian Wood’. Actually, no. It overtakes ‘Norwegian Wood’ and is the new title holder for ‘Stupidest Ending Ever!’ What happened to the notion of character development? A person who is shown as a model character suddenly and illogically turns rogue. How, why, what the heck?

☠ When you've read two books on the same topic, it's but natural to make a comparison even if you don't want to. Last October, I had read a debut indie novel named “Three: A Tale of Brave Women and the Eyam Plague” by Jennifer Jenkins. While that book had myriad writing flaws, it was still a marvellous and true-to-life depiction of what transpired in Eyam during those fourteen months. I still remember how shattered I felt after reading “Three”. Its chosen narrators were apt for the story, its factual content was spot on, and its narrative thread never lost focus. I was expecting a similar emotional impact with “Year of Wonders”, but nada! I felt NOTHING for any of the characters.

In short, this has been an utter and complete disappointment. It is almost like a ‘Hollywoodised’ version of the plague, replete with OTT scenes and bizarre plot progressions and an idiotic fit-me-somehow-into-a-HEA ending. Not for me. If it is for you, please go ahead. It is still rated high enough on GR for you to give it a valid consideration.