Retro Review: Tulip Fever

When I started this blog, I had been posting reviews on Goodreads for about 6 months. In the interest of having all of my book writing in one place, I will post one of these old reviews every Friday. They weren't written with a blog in mind, so please forgive the lack of summary and off-the-cuff tone.

72872.jpg

3 stars. The experience of reading Tulip Fever reminded me so much of wandering through a curated exhibit. Each chapter starts with a referential quote, chosen perfectly to provide context, ambiance and a backdrop for the action to follow. Scenes are set in still life, as though each act is a painting and we are reading its description. The writing is absolutely gorgeous - delicate and sensual and thoughtful.

This is a quick, deceptively heavy read that will appeal to lovers of art and all things visually beautiful. There is some truly great character-building here and despite the simple plot, there are many underlying themes to explore. I'm fascinated by tulip fever and Dutch history and art history and other things on which this book offered a new perspective. And I applaud Deborah Moggach for proving what a pro she truly is.

Didn't totally hit the spot for me though: the plot is completely predictable, frustratingly so, and I just kind of didn't enjoy, on a very basic level, intensely emotional people doing intensely stupid things. So melodramatic! But the climax made me sit up and pay attention - it is misery on a different, twisted level. I admired that and found myself invested. SPOILER: When the singularly most important, crucial object in the book got eaten, I couldn't decide whether to laugh, clap or yell WTF at how simply ridiculous that was.

So here we are, at three stars, my way of saying good not great. Or maybe: there are great aspects but most of it is just okay. Or maybe: I didn't hate it. Ahh, three stars, a tricky place to land. I don't regret reading it. Can we leave it at that?

Tulip Fever on: Amazon | Goodreads