The Lost Apothecary
by Sarah Penner
This might be the nugget you want to leave in the mud.
A modern-day London tourist rediscovers her true passion in history as she follows the trail of a glass vial she unearths in the Thames river mud. The vial leads her to two eighteenth century women. The glass vial, unfaithful men, and poison, figure in all three of their lives.
The novel’s parallel narrative alternates between the lives of two women in 1791 London and one in modern day London. In 1791, Nella is an apothecary who has made it her business to help rid the world of evil men through the judicious use of poison, and Eliza is a girl who enters the story as a customer of Nella but aspires to become her helper or apprentice. During the course of the novel Eliza also becomes attracted to the possibilities magick offers to protect her from evil. Present day Caroline finds herself in London on what was supposed to be an anniversary trip but is alone after discovering her husband’s affair. When walking around London she is accosted by a man who runs “mudlarking” expeditions in the Thames, and she decides to try it. She discovers an old vial (we learn later this vial once belonged to Nella) and begins to rediscover her love of history that she had been suppressing since her marriage. The two different stories share only the vial which once held poison, and the women’s betrayal by men they once loved. While the premise is engaging it misses the mark. Caroline’s discoveries come with such speed that they are not believable, and her character never develops meaningfully. Nella’s character is interesting, and the clues into her past make the reader want to learn more. Eliza’s character doesn’t get the time to develop before a precipitous and somewhat magical ending for Nella and Eliza that is tantalizing but develops unevenly.
This might be the nugget you want to leave in the mud.
I have read this book recently and loved it. But after reading your review I realized you did have some good points about what the books have missed. After thinking more about the plot I agree about how the discoveries Caroline made were quick. Overall though I did love the premise.
ReplyDeleteI agree! I also loved the premise! And I really liked Nella. And I really wanted to like Caroline. That one scene where she was in the apothecary and had like 10% or less of her battery really got to me. It may be because my phone's battery isn't good and goes from about 60% to nothing in a very short amount of time. But it just wasn't believable to me. There were a bunch of things like that - where the idea was great but the execution just didn't work for me. But - the book has a good rating so it seems like most people really liked it.
ReplyDeleteHi Janna! I appreciate your honesty and criticism. I've often found that books with multiple perspectives (not all, but some) don't leave much room for true character development. I'm glad you pointed this out.
ReplyDeleteOh I absolutely had to comment on your post. I've been interested in reading this book after hearing about it because it reminded me of the true story of Giulia Tofana in 17th-century Italy. She had a secret business selling "Aqua Tofana" marketed as a cosmetic, but it was actually a poison for women to kill their husbands. I'm grateful for your review because usually, I don't like these kinds of books that have two perspectives in different time periods. The time jumps and tons of characters always throw me off, and the way you described Eliza and Caroline's lack of character development makes me feel that the story would have benefitted much more from just being about Nella. Thanks for the review!
ReplyDeleteIf you do end up reading it I'd love your opinion about it. I didn't feel like I got lost with the different perspectives - it's mostly just one chapter back and forth, and the story isn't complicated enough to get lost. And yes, I think a story just about Nella and Eliza would have been way more fun, I think!
DeleteJanna,
ReplyDeleteYour Kirkus-style final opinion is completely perfect. What intrigues me though, is that I realized your review totally breaks my system of reading Kirkus reviews!
(Bear in mind that 99% of what I look at is non-fiction.)
Typically I glance at the title and cover image. If it's a topic our collection is oversaturated with, I typically move on, unless it was awarded a Kirkus Star. Then I read the first line to get the gist of what the book is, and the last line to see the reviewer's opinion. If I'm still interested, I'll read the whole review.
Your last line made me feel compelled to read the review, even though I had mentally banished the book from consideration.
LOL - I think that's good, right? Or maybe I should have been more obvious so as to save library colleagues time? :)
Delete