A review of "Year of Wonders" — 14 weeks ago
This book has been sitting on my to read pile for entirely too long, particularly since it is so wonderfully written. Set in England in 1665-6, it’s about a village that suffers from the Plague and chooses to quarantine themselves in the hope it won’t spread further. It is written in first person from the point of view of Anna Frith, an 18 year old widow and housemaid to the young rector and his wife.
The book is divided into four sections. It starts out in the fall of 1666 to set the scene and then goes back to the spring of 1665 to tell of how the Plague befell the village and how they survived it. It returns to 1666 to finish off the tale and an epilogue forms the final section.
I was hooked as soon as I read the first small section. It really is wonderfully written. The whole tale was underpinned by the powerful emotions of those suffering through tragedy—not only the profound grief, but also the small moments of joy, though they are more rare. The historical setting has also been brought beautifully to life, not only in the details of day-to-day life but also in terms of the words Anna uses to tell her tale.
It is definitely a tale with feminist leanings, particularly towards the end. I also especially liked the different portrayals of witchcraft with the real witches being surprisingly modern. It seemed a much more intelligent—and, to me, more realistic—than current stereotypes of the time.
Unfortunately, I did have a few issues with the book. Perhaps the most simple (and probably least relevant) was the titling of the sections, particularly the middle and largest section. It is titled “Spring, 1665”, which is when the section begins. However, it covers the remainder of that year and halfway into the next, and I found it irritating to see the section title heading up every left-hand page.
Another issue was the manner of Anna’s telling the story. In the third section she makes reference to previously having “set down” the first section, giving the impression that she is writing the tale. However, this allusion is never followed up and the rest of the tale is free from any indication it is being written at all. I feel it would have been more consistant to simply leave the reference out.
When I got to the end of the second section, I though to myself that I could probably have finished reading there and be happy. It turns out that impression was right. A revelation about one of the major characters just pages away from the epilogue left me struggling to reconcile the new information with what had taken place before. I felt that, like Life of Pi, it was aiming for a last-minute revelation that shows the rest of the tale in a completely different light. Unlike Life of Pi, I didn’t feel it succeeded, but left me rather disappointed.
I feel it was a great shame because on the whole I really enjoyed the book.
