Carriger, Gail: Soulless
Soulless (2009)
Written by: Gail Carriger
Genre: Paranormal Steampunk Romance
Pages: 373 (Mass Market Paperback)
This is another one of those books that I put off getting for quite a while. I loved the cover, and was tempted by it EVERY.TIME. I saw it in the store, but passed, because I knew that comedies of manners and I didn't mix, and I'm not fond of the Victorian era.
What changed my mind, aside from numerous good recs from reader friends of mine, was reading Connie Willis's To Say Nothing of the Dog. Once I got over the jolt of realizing this wasn't one of her more serious titles (and once the plot FINALLY got moving), I did enjoy myself. While not my cup of tea (har, har), it made me think it might be worth giving Soulless a try. After all, I knew what I was getting into, so there'd be no rude shock. Also, there's the sequel whose covering I'm coveting, and I wanted to find out if it would be worth picking up. :)
The premise: ganked from BN.com: Alexia Tarabotti is laboring under a great many social tribulations. First, she has no soul. Second, she's a spinster whose father is both Italian and dead. Third, she was rudely attacked by a vampire, breaking all standards of social etiquette.
Where to go from there? From bad to worse apparently, for Alexia accidentally kills the vampire - and then the appalling Lord Maccon (loud, messy, gorgeous, and werewolf) is sent by Queen Victoria to investigate.
With unexpected vampires appearing and expected vampires disappearing, everyone seems to believe Alexia responsible. Can she figure out what is actually happening to London's high society? Will her soulless ability to negate supernatural powers prove useful or just plain embarrassing? Finally, who is the real enemy, and do they have treacle tart?
SOULLESS is a comedy of manners set in Victorian London: full of werewolves, vampires, dirigibles, and tea-drinking.
Review style: Aside from listing little bits I liked, I want to talk about Carriger's concept of soul, why the Victorian humor worked for me, and the blend of genres that Carriger's slapped together. Expect spoilers, so if those freak you out, just jump to the "My Rating" section of the review, and you'll be fine. :)
Let's discuss genre blending first. You have the following:
Historical fiction
Paranormal fantasy
Romance
Mystery
Steampunk
And… did I miss anything? :)
This book, as a result, is kind of hard to classify, but I think Paranormal Steampunk Romance works best. Because the romance IS important, and the steampunk is decoration. Seriously, there's the Victorian Era (check), dirigibles (check), and glassicals (any funky form of eyewear automatically makes such stories steampunk). Also, while we didn't get a WHOLE lot of details about the machines used to torture and transform our supernatural creatures, I bet if you did, you could make another case for steampunk as well. :)
But steampunk is decoration. The forefront is the mystery and the romance and how those two things work within the era. I'll go ahead and tell you that I wouldn't recognize poorly done research here if it bit me in the rear, okay? I've never been fond of this period of history, so I can't say how accurate or inaccurate Carriger's research is. I can say that the world-building itself felt consistent. I didn't catch any major contradictory glitches, so that helps, and I found the limitations of the era (what little I knew of it) quite useful in providing comedy during the more amorous scenes.
The romance worked for me. I think partially because Alexia and Maccon were such opposites, both defined by their society, that it made their banter (and Alexia's desire to spite him) a lot of fun. I didn't need a lot of background to figure out why these two were attracted to each other. Maccon gave her intellectual stimulation from the start, and she's nothing like the typical Victorian rich girl he's usually forced to entertain. Of course they're attracted to each other!
The physical scenes worked too because there's the whole viewpoint of it NOT being appropriate for this time, and then there's Alexia's reaction to it all. She might not have a soul, but she engaged very intellectually in what was happening, and her observations made such scenes very fun. We don't see that sort of thing very often in paranormal romance, so I liked having fun. It worked in context.
The mystery itself was rather predictable, though I didn't have all of the details figured out, and I did wonder how the characters would get out of their situation. The book kept me turning the pages, and that's good.
Moving on from genre, one thing that struck me about this book was how Cinderella-esque it all was. A hellion for a mother, two sisters who are favored over the heroine, and a heroine who just wants to belong and be loved (who gets her Prince Charming, becomes a kind of Princess, and marries the man she loves). I felt for her during those scenes with her mother (the slaps actually surprised me, but in those days, I imagine they were common), because she's spent years being cataloguing her flaws, so it's no wonder she ruminates on them. If it gets repetitive, I chalk it up to the times. Such things were VERY IMPORTANT back then, so it didn't bother me with each passing mention.
The humor worked because I was expecting it from the onset. Maybe Willis's To Say Nothing of the Dog loosened me up a bit in terms of expectations, but when I knew I needed to go into this book expecting Victorian silliness, I enjoyed myself quite a bit. Sure, the first page is kind of blunt and awkward if you aren't expecting a Victorian comedy (it's one of the reasons I turned away from it initially), but if you have your expectations set right and know just how serious to take this, you can have a lot of fun. I did.
And let's face it: taking what's normally a modern, urban fantasy type story and placing it in Victorian times with a splash of steampunk is kind of genius. I'm surprised I haven't heard of it before (which is to say, maybe it's out there and I haven't heard of it yet), given the popularity of the two sub-genres. I loved the world-building of vampires and werewolves, let alone of Alexia's talent (which I'll touch on in a moment), and can I just say I'm SO VERY GLAD that werewolves have to obey the laws of physics like everyone else. I've never been a fan of werewolves who transform into something insanely bigger than their human counterparts (sorry, Stephenie Meyer), because that's the point where I stop suspending disbelief. People transforming into wolves? Sure. Transforming into wolves that are BIGGER than their human size? Not so much.
Now let's talk souls, because I'm still pondering what Carriger is doing here. I like that, in order to change, one must have an excess of soul in order to become supernatural. The exact opposite, the lack of soul, is Alexia's problem, and that makes her preternatural. And here's the interesting thing: what does soul really mean in Carriger's world?
In our world, we tend to equate a soulless someone with a monster. That Alexia isn't by any means should encourage the reader to look beyond our preconceived notions. I saw one reviewer who was completely offended that the one "a rational, brave, intellectually-inclined and independent-spirited woman" is soulless in a sea of Victorian women who are silly and frivolous but do, indeed, have souls.
I don't think the author is trying to state that women who are "a rational, brave, intellectually-inclined and independent-spirited" are without souls. And I don't think she's stating that because one is soulless, that's the only reason one would be "a rational, brave, intellectually-inclined and independent-spirited woman." That's silly and crazy, but it leads into believability of Alexia.
What is soul, and how would you really write a soulless character? I kind of interpreted Alexia's actions to be the equivalent of a female Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory, if he were in Victorian times and had a more deliberate sense of humor. My take is that Alexia has had so many disadvantages in life (soulless, Italian dead father, big nose) that she's had to go the extra mile to carve a niche for herself in society. She knows she can't be a silly, frivolous, normal Victorian girl (who presumably has a soul), so she turns to learning and whatever else will make her life satisfactory. As a result of this learning, she's BECOME an "a rational, brave, intellectually-inclined and independent-spirited woman" and you know what? Even if she had a soul, she's act this way anyway, because she still would have a dead Italian father and a big nose. ;)
My point in all of this, whether your offended by this one reviewer's notion or not, is that we need to question what soul really means in Carriger's universe. In some regards, I almost equated soul with creativity, but on the other hand, I couldn't call Lord Maccon a creative type by any means. So what does this all mean in the end? I think it's a question that Carriger WANTS the reader to ask. After all, Alexia does have feelings, and I've always equated emotion with soul, and yet Alexia's soulless. What does it mean? I think it's better to ponder than to come to rash conclusions, but hey, that's me. :)
A list of things I enjoyed/thought were done well:
1) A mix of blood and champagne is called a "Pink Slurpie." That is HYSTERICAL, and on par with my college years where we'd get drinks and TGI Fridays and call Cosmopolitans "alcoholic slushies" and Mud Slides "alcoholic milkshakes" (because they are!), so that resonated with me.
2) Carriger handles head-hopping VERY smoothly, and trust me, I am not a fan of head-hopping. It took maybe a chapter or two to get used to, but once I did, I was fine with it.
3) Alexia has a female friend she can turn to, and I love, love, LOVE that she makes fun of Ivy's hats. That's just awesome, because I can only IMAGINE how horrid those hats are, and it makes me want pictures. :) And for the record, the reason this works is that it shows a degree of comfort in the friendship: friends rib each other all the time, so Alexia making fun of Ivy's hats is just part of it. If Alexia DIDN'T make a comment, Ivy would think something is wrong. :)
My Rating
Worth the Cash: But it's close to a must have. The only reason I didn't put it up that high is because the label might suggest the historical parts are accurate, and since I have no way of knowing, I don't want to inadvertently mislead you. I will say this: if you remote liked Connie Willis's To Say Nothing of the Dog (at least, the Victorian period) and you enjoy urban fantasy/paranormal romance, you should give Soulless a shot. It's a hybrid of the Willis (ignoring time travel and focusing on the comedy of manners) and paranormal romance, with a splash of steampunk thrown in for window dressing. As long as you come to this book expecting something fun, you should be fine. Hell, I had mixed thoughts on the Willis, but I ended up enjoying the hell out of this. Don't get me wrong: if I'd read this book when I wasn't in the right mood for it, I probably would've hated the tone and humor. But I was in the right mood for it and found myself delighted and fascinated with the premise. I look forward to seeing how this series progresses, so much so that I bought the second book in the series the day after I finished this one. It's just fun, something I can kick back with and enjoy. I'm glad I broke down and finally read this.
Cover Commentary: Love it. It was a horrible temptation every time I saw it in the store. But I've got to give the cover credit: how can you look at this cover and think the book is anything BUT a fun read? Consider the stamps and the coloring, which is so not of the Victorian Era it's not even funny. Then the tagline: "A Novel of Vampires, Werewolves, and Parasols." Even the backcover copy makes it clear you're in for something FUN, so if you come to this novel wanting anything but, shame on you. But the cover. I love the rather grey/green background and the bright color of her dress. My only complaint is that regardless of the shadows, I keep trying to picture the cover model as blonde, which is so wrong, since the model is SUPPOSED to be Alexia, and Alexia is SUPPOSED to have dark hair. Profiles aren't fair to judge by, but would it have been too much to ask to get a model of obvious Italian decent? EDIT: okay, so the model LOOKS Italian (name sounds like it too) and most definitely NOT blonde. What the hell is up with the coloring of this book that makes me think as such? Here's her website (click on the right image): here.
Next up: The Dead-Tossed Waves by Carrie Ryan