Björn recenserade The Daylight Gate av Jeanette Winterson
None
3 stjärnor
The Daylight Gate has the makings of a very good historical horror novel. Set during a witch trial in the early 17th century, it gives Winterson a chance to delve into a lot of things - how "witch", in times of political, social and scientific upheaval, becomes a very deliberate synonym for "heretic", "terrorist", "deviant", anything that threatens the Order Of Things. "Witch" is a powerful word to use against someone, impossible to defend yourself against since its definition also includes "uppity woman". If you're poor, you're obviously a witch because why wouldn't you do anything to be rich. If you're rich, you're obviously a witch because how else would someone as powerless as you become rich. But then again, by using that word you give power to the ones you use it on...
But sadly, 'twas not quite to be. While there are passages where Winterson shines and it …
The Daylight Gate has the makings of a very good historical horror novel. Set during a witch trial in the early 17th century, it gives Winterson a chance to delve into a lot of things - how "witch", in times of political, social and scientific upheaval, becomes a very deliberate synonym for "heretic", "terrorist", "deviant", anything that threatens the Order Of Things. "Witch" is a powerful word to use against someone, impossible to defend yourself against since its definition also includes "uppity woman". If you're poor, you're obviously a witch because why wouldn't you do anything to be rich. If you're rich, you're obviously a witch because how else would someone as powerless as you become rich. But then again, by using that word you give power to the ones you use it on...
But sadly, 'twas not quite to be. While there are passages where Winterson shines and it feels like we're walking through a slightly more conscious Hammer movie, the novel as a whole feels rushed, clunky. She drops exposition clumsily into the middle of dialogue, goes on long flashbacks, skims over dramatic scenes and overwrites and repeats ones that are less so, throws in a cameo by Shakespeare himself for no apparent reason... It's not enough to ruin what should have been a better novel, and the worst of it is early on, but it's enough to turn it into a rather halfbaked affair. Pity.
