mrkgnao
New Member
I am currently reading The Egyptologist by Arthur Phillips. At first, I thought I'd compare it with books like Dracula and The Historian - historical suspense written in the form of letters and diaries. But this one has a twist...
Usually in this type of book the narrators are implicitly objective and trustworthy. In The Egyptologist however, you realise rather soon you can't trust them. The two main narrators are an egyptologist writing his diary during an expedition in 1922, and a private detective writing letters in the 1950s, describing his 1920s investigation of the egyptologist.
The detective's story shows the would-be reliable, academic and heroic egyptologist as a conceited pathological liar with a very naughty imagination. And then you realise: then why should I trust the detective to be reliable?
It's a fun play on the genre, and it keeps you guessing and revising your opinion of what's going on - on several levels. I like that in a book! (I just hope Phillips can keep it up to the end...)
*mrkgnao*
Usually in this type of book the narrators are implicitly objective and trustworthy. In The Egyptologist however, you realise rather soon you can't trust them. The two main narrators are an egyptologist writing his diary during an expedition in 1922, and a private detective writing letters in the 1950s, describing his 1920s investigation of the egyptologist.
The detective's story shows the would-be reliable, academic and heroic egyptologist as a conceited pathological liar with a very naughty imagination. And then you realise: then why should I trust the detective to be reliable?
It's a fun play on the genre, and it keeps you guessing and revising your opinion of what's going on - on several levels. I like that in a book! (I just hope Phillips can keep it up to the end...)
*mrkgnao*