The very concept of this gothic is outrageous. I really like astrology you guys, I am such a Virgo, but it’s like, a fun lens to look at yourself through not a scientific way to prejudge people? Looking at some of the ~negatives~ associated with being a Virgo has helped me work on those things, so it feels like a tool for self reflection to me, not something to base real decisions on or an excuse for bad behavior. But this book is billing itself as basically: to introduce an Aries into your life is to be DOOMED. It’s gonna be some real hot nonsense I think. Let’s go!
OFTEN MEET A VIOLENT DEATH.
I haven’t even gotten to the actual first page of this book yet.This implies the existence of false Paperback Library Gothics.The movie tie-in cover. Leah St. Aubyn is shown on this cover, instead of the 1970 edition gothic that features her secretary, Sherida.
“One couldn’t have called her in the least degree beautiful; her features were too irregular for that. The shape of her face was square at the cheekbones, with a firm jaw line, a pointed chin, a blunt-tipped nose and a long, mobile mouth that smiled crookedly. An uneven face that was full of character that was, in a way, bafflingly contradictory. Her eyes were gentle but her chin obstinate, her mouth gay but her expression rather serious.”
“The evening air was sharply cold, and it lifted her dark brown hair vigorously, like the hands of a masseuse, and pressed it’s fingers against her scalp. The smooth dark fringe that lay across her wide forehead was twisted up into little curls and horns.”
I suspected pretty early on that the astrology angle was just back of book clickbait and it’s true. We never even so much as find out the birthday of the supposedly evil Aries! What I find most interesting is that the 1948 film also used astrology in promotional materials and the title of the book is the original, so presumably the author did intend to imply that Leah was an Aries, but it’s not in the actual text of the novel at all. If it was it was so subtle I didn’t catch it.
This is a pretty good book, with some solid Daphne du Maurier vibes and almost nothing on the back of the book was strictly accurate. “When she learns that her employer, Mrs. St. Aubyn was born in April under The Sign of The Ram, she knows for certain that her life is in danger.” Nope. That’s just not how it plays out at all. 🤷🏻♀️
This was another one with absolute cracker jack character descriptions. Here’s one I hadn’t shared yet, the ubiquitous gossipy neighbor, Mrs Brastock:
“Everything about her matched the sickly gooseberry color of her tweeds; her limp hair was greenish yellow, her marble round eyes yellowish green, her face suet colored, and her eyebrows and eyelashes of an almost invisible sandiness. The only touch of color about her that wasn’t yellowish was her full-lipped mouth, and that was a very pale, damp looking prawn pink.”
Onto my favorite burning question, did Sherida go walking about the grounds at night? Yes! But not in a white sheet night dress and black cloak, as pictured on the front cover
Leave a Reply