One thing I
always love from Tracy Chevalier is her theme choices to weave her stories.
Either paintings or culture, Chevalier’s themes are always unique and unusual.
In Falling Angles, she picked
Victorian fetishism of death. Depicting the turn of the century, from Victorian
to Edwardian, Falling Angels is about
two families who were brought accidentally and reluctantly together by
funerals.
The
Waterhouses were more conservative (fanatic Victorian followers) compared to
their neighbours: The Colemans, who were more moderate and progressive. On the
day Queen Victoria died, both families visited their graves in London, which
were located side by side, to mourn. That was how Maude Coleman and Lavinia
(Livy) Waterhouse—both around 9 years old—met and then became best friends. As
their families did not get along well, Maude and Lavinia could only meet and play
together in the graveyard, where they befriended a gravedigger boy called
Simon.
Along with
the changing era, everything around the two families was evolving too. And this
is what Chevalier wanted to portray. Many readers say that Falling Angels was a disappointment after Girl With a Pearl Earring (Chevalier’s best novels until today) because
it lacks poignant story and strong characters. Yes, it may be true, but I think
we derive something else from it in exchange: the peek into the turbulence era;
how society was reshaped after the end of Victorian era; how they evolved and
moved on. We get a glimpse, for example, of mourning etiquette, women
suffragette movement, and how science slowly replaced superstition. And for
that, Chevalier gave each character equal portion in the story by making them
the narrators of themselves. Yes, we literally jump from one person’s to
another’s point of view throughout the book. It’s rather annoying at first, but
soon enough I got used to it; and it really become quite interesting in the end.
And so, Falling Angels might not be the best
book by Tracy Chevalier, and if you analyze the writing more thoroughly, you
might find that the personality of the characters seemed to be inconsistent.
Richard Coleman for example; he was fond of astrology, and even promoted his
daughter’s interest in it, not to mention his idea of swapping sex partner in
chapter one. You would think him as liberal thinker, and that he would have
given his wife more freedom. But no, when Kitty actively involved in women
suffragette, Richard opposed strongly. But, maybe, it’s Chevalier’s way of
emphasizing the turbulent era. It’s when people were timidly looking out for
the future, while still clinging to their past. But nevertheless, time changes,
and either sooner or later, everyone must going along with it.
Like I said,
this book is not my best read, but it’s interesting, and is just the
appropriate book to read around New Year! 3,5 / 5.
