Review: The Double Shadow by Sally Gardner

The Double Shadow is about memory: the way it shapes you, makes you and sometimes breaks you. It follows the lives of two families in the lead up to World War II, each haunted by memory in different ways. The Rubens are rich but miserable, thanks largely to Arnold Ruben's overpowering obsession with creating a memory machine, a device that will allow the user to wipe away bad memories and live forever in happy ones. His daughter, Amaryllis, is deeply affected by the fact that she herself has no memory of the time before she was eight. The Pascoes, on the other hand, are poor but loving, their contentment occasionally interrupted by Mr Pascoe's withdrawals into the vivid memories of his battle experiences in World War I.

The way the two families fates become intertwined is central to the story, but The Double Shadow is one of those books where the less you know going into it, the better. Because the way the story is slowly unravelled, skipping back and forth in time and between character's viewpoints, makes for a fascinating and gripping mystery. It's based on a a truly unique premise, something which can't be said too often these days, and which is thankfully followed through by accomplished world-building and a powerful sense of setting.

The extensive cast of characters are also superbly drawn and well-developed. It's hard to know at first who to trust and who to like, but this ambiguity only makes them all the more intriguing. Through her exploration of memory and emotions - and the way the two are so often intertwined - Gardner gives the reader insight into why her characters (and, by extension, people in general) act the way they do, so even the most despicable characters evoke some empathy, if not any sympathy.

The Double Shadow is a fanciful and thrilling example of what is so wonderful about stories; it transports you to another time and place so effectively, it makes you sit up and think, "this is why I read."


Rating: 4/5

Eye Candy
I pictured Felicity Jones as Amaryllis and Andrew Garfield as Ezra Pascoe.

Source

Source

*This review also appears at Sassi Sam, under my IRL name.

Booking Through Thursday: Stand-alone vs Series

Booking Through Thursday is a weekly meme that centres around book-related questions.This week's question is: Series or stand-alone books?

It's a pretty tough one to answer! I find it difficult to make decisions at the best of times, but I honestly do love both series and stand-alone books. They're totally different reading experiences. So because I can't choose, I've decided to let them battle it out and see who comes out winning (in no way associated with Charlie Sheen).

Round 1: Plot potential

Obviously, stand-alone books can have amazingly intricate plots, but a series just has so much more room for expansion, development and, well, just about everything.

Series 1 

Stand-alone 0

Round 2: Character development

Once again, a stand-alone book can have fantastic character development, while series - despite their length - can sometimes have little to none. But good series allow you to really get to know characters and grow and develop with them, and stand-alone books can't really compete in this area.

Series 2 

Stand-alone 0

Round 3: Commitment

If a book looks too daunting (specifically too long), it can be hard to feel motivated to read it. Sadly, books that look like they require too much commitment are often left languishing on the shelf until I have a decent amount of spare time (which is approximately never). This applies to both mega-sized stand-alones (Shantaram, anyone?) as well as series in general. Series can sometimes trick you if you aren't aware that they ARE in fact series, and instead of reading one book as you intended, you end up reading 10. Then there's series like The Twilight Saga which you can knock out within a (very intense) few days. Still, on the whole, series require way more commitment from a reader, which isn't always a bad thing, but in this case it's a weakness.

Series 2 

Stand-alone 1

Round 4: Enjoyment factor

This all depends on the writing, really. If it's no good, a stand-alone can be just as torturous as a trilogy. However, series risk inconsistency and while you might adore one book, its sequel might make you want to scream. And that can be even more frustrating than if you'd just read one terrible stand-alone story. So, while series can provide more opportunity for enjoyment, there's also a helluva lot more potential for irritation.

Series 2 

Stand-alone 2

Final Round: Closure

If we were comparing an individual book from a series with a stand-alone tale, chances are the latter would definitely win this round. Too often, it seems, series leave a bunch of questions waiting to be answered in subsequent books. But by the time you get to the last book, everything should be effectively resolved. Meanwhile, a stand-alone book can leave you, if not with questions, then at the very least wanting more. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when it comes to a sense of satisfaction and closure, series tend to win out.

Series 3

Stand-alone 2

The winner is... series!

OK, I can live with that.