downgraded this from one to two stars after hearing so much about how this was Reeve's manifesto for the patriarchy. Suddenly the whole thing makes sense. Uck. ( )

This isn't very good. The author wrote this as an attempt to produce something like The Castle of Otranto but without the unrealistic and over-the-top supernatural elements that jarred her out of the story. And, indeed, the supernatural elements here are almost subdued compared to Otranto. But what it makes up for in credibility, it more than loses in terms of predictability.

Also: emotions run dramatically wild.

Towards the end, the book needlessly drags out revealing the central conceit to side characters, with characters intentionally withholding crucial information so as to build up to an emotional tension in preparation for dramatic reveals and scenes of emotional release. That gets old really fast. Coupled with endless marriage preambles, it makes the final third a chore to sit through. ( )

Probably one that only need be read by the most committed fans of gothic fiction. Basically a toned-down "Castle of Otranto" with the setting changed and the outcome pretty obvious from the get-go. ( )

The author says she wrote this in response to Walpole's The Castle of Otranto. It doesn't compare. Unlike Walpole, who made a private study of it, Reeve knows nothing about the Middle Ages. Consequently, her barons live and behave like Georgian country squires. She refers to the younger characters as "Mister" which is entirely anachronistic. And I think the narrowness of her own horizons shows in the way she spends pages on the division of the estates, right down to tableware and linens, like some penny-pinching housewife. Somehow the phrase "a nation of shopkeepers" sprang to mind.
Of academic merit only to people who study Gothic literature in depth.

ETC ( )