EPBOT Readers discussion

This is the space for your final thoughts for the Strange Case of the Alchemist's Daughter.

Spoilers are allowed here, so don't check this thread out until finished! I'll post some reading questions here as well. I picked a few i found most interesting. Feel free to answer as many or as few as you like!

1. The book begins with the epigraph “Here be monsters,” followed by an argument between Mary and Catherine as to its appropriateness. In what way is this a fitting introduction to the themes presented in the book? Discuss the different examples of monstrosity in the story. Who are the real monsters?

2. Catherine decides to leave the other women’s comments in the narrative so that the reader “will be able to see how annoying and nonsensical most of them are, while offering the occasional flash of insight into character.” Do the interruptions afford you a better understanding of the characters? Are they nonsensical? How would the story have been different without these interruptions? If Goss had formatted them differently—as footnotes, for example—would they have had the same effect?

3. Dr. Rappaccini believed that “the forces of natural selection are no longer acting on man. So it has become [the scientist’s] duty to direct evolution, to create the higher forms that man can become.” Do the other members of the Alchemical Society believe this is true? Do you think there is any truth to his belief? How successful is Dr. Rappaccini in “directing evolution”? Do any of the other scientists succeed?

4. Why do the scientists of the society feel that women are the best subjects for their experiments? How does this play into or work against the prevailing attitudes toward women at the time? Do Mary and the other characters fit Victorian society’s ideas of womanhood? Are there any instances where the general expectations of women help them in their work?

5.When he is injured, Justine holds Watson “as tenderly as though he were a young bird in a nest. It is the way she holds everything—when you are as strong as Justine, the world is terribly fragile.” Is Justine as strong emotionally as she is physically? How has she learned to deal with her “monstrosity”?

6. In many ways, Catherine is the most independent of the women. How much is this due to her essential nature as a wild creature, and how much can be attributed to all that she went through during and since her transformation?

7. Victor Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll, Dr. Rappaccini, Dr. Moreau, Mr. Hyde: Did any of these men love their daughters? Which man has the most to atone for? What lasting effects do their actions have on their daughters? Can you think of any reasons these women could feel gratitude toward their fathers?

I'm going to put my own random thoughts in here to start. I may come back to answer the specific questions in another post. I reread this book, both times on audiobook. I first read it in Jan 2019. I listened on 1.5 speed this time.

One of my first thoughts is surprise at the short timeline of the book. It takes place over the course of only a few days. The coincidence of all of them finding each other and doing all the things they did in such a short span is remarkable.

As someone with a STEM mindset and today's knowledge about transplants and the body rejecting them, I had to suspend reality for the experiments.

I enjoyed the story plenty though and am listening to the second book. I don't mind the switching back and forth between "discussion of writing our book" and telling of the particular segment of the story. Even in the audiobook, it is clear to me when they switch back and forth.

I skim-read back through this and discovered that I had somehow forgotten Sherlock Holmes was in it??? How is this possible? I found the portrayal sufficiently faithful if superficial (which, fair, he is not the protagonist).

I'll take a stab at a couple of questions.

1. Catherine and Mary have different opinions on the reclamation of the word "monster" in the same way as something like "queer". Catherine is aiming for monster pride, but Mary sees it as an insult. The theme of the book is I guess the same as Disney's Hunchback: "Who is the monster and who is the man?" (or woman, in this case). I will here add that I found it somewhat annoying that the book kept dropping little hints about how Mary is a monster, too, but as far as I can tell all we get is "we know why you can't cry" with nothing further. One can speculate, of course, and there are sequels, but I'll read the sequel if I want to spend more time in your characters' world, not because you left loose threads hanging around.

2. The comments from the peanut gallery seem to be divisive in the reviews of this book. I thought they worked as a way to introduce the other characters earlier in the narrative; we don't get Justine's backstory until after the climax, for example, but we at least know something about her personality from the earlier comments. If they were footnotes I think you would lose the immediacy, because you'd likely finish reading the page before going down to them.

Does anyone have thoughts on the sequels? I liked this one OK but the next book is over 700 pages. If she keeps doing the interruptions, it'll read shorter than that, but still I'm not sure I'm up for double the length. Not super into Dracula, either, although I like Mina Harker and it seems like she'd be a good fit for this universe. Sounds like Holmes may not be prominently featured, though.

I read the second one, it was a bit ago. I liked it pretty well. The series isn’t a “oh run out and grab the next the second it comes out” type, but I will probably continue it. I don’t know if the third is out but I’ll probably read it if I either find a kindle deal (like I did for book 2) or I happen to see it when browsing library and suddenly remember the series