Skip to main content

Hollow City - Miss Peregrine II

Very occasionally someone comes up with a really impressive and exciting new idea in fiction, a phenomenon that is particularly strong in the Young Adult/crossover market. It isn't necessary for success, of course. Anyone who had read the 'Worst Witch' series would hardly consider Harry Potter to be an original concept, but it didn't stop that doing rather well. (I'm not denying JKR's books had much more to them, just talking as a basic idea.) But in his novel Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (reviewed here), Ransom Riggs really hit pay dirt for originality that makes you gasp.

The story was built around a series of weird and wonderful Victorian/Edwardian photographs, which worked brilliantly to give the story an unusual depth of atmosphere. Now Riggs is back with the sequel, Hollow City. When I reviewed the first book, I was a little concerned that the approach would pall in any future titles, but it soon drew me back in.

In fact, the photos are used very cleverly to bring us back to the action by starting with a dramatis personae with the photographs that inspired all the main characters. This is very clever - I had pretty much forgotten the detail of the plot (I'm very poor at remembering stories and can usually re-read a book in about a year almost as fresh), and this gave me some visual cues to recall and put into context what was happening.

Things are pretty dire for our heroes in this episode in the series (we are told at the back that the next volume is 'coming soon'). The 'loops' where the peculiar children reside have mostly been destroyed and their mentors captured by the evil baddies, who are made doubly nasty by being corrupted versions of the peculiar children (fallen angels, you might say). Miss Peregrine is stuck in bird form and will not be recoverable unless she is treated within a few days, adding a strong time pressure to the plot, which takes the children to wartime London.

It works very well, particularly the second half of the book. As before, Riggs piles in lots of story elements, and there's a twist that genuinely takes the reader by surprise. The best of the photos are truly bizarre and wonderful, including the image on the cover and Miss Wren's remarkable hut.

Things aren't 100 per cent perfect, though. Rather too many of the images are murky - I was reading a rather expensive (for young adult) hardback, and I would have expected better reproduction (or the selection of clearer originals - plenty of photographs of this age still have excellent contrast). I was also a bit disappointed by the use of the striking image on the cover in the storyline, which was surprisingly fleeting. And there was rather too much soul searching and wordy exposition in the early parts of the book. And the ending is very abrupt and 'to be continued'. But that didn't stop this series growing into one of my favourite YA fantasies ever, coming in just behind Alan Garner's work and the stunning Night Circus.

All in all, a must-read if, like me, you are already a Peregrine fan (if it's fuzzy in your mind, re-read the first book to get back into the swing, though it's perfectly possible to pick some of it up here), and a great addition to any YA fantasy shelf (if you haven't read the first book, do read that first).

Find out more an Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com.
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope