The Moonlight Market - Joanne Harris ****

There's a popular marketing approach that involves describing a book as 'X meets Y' - in the case of this new urban fantasy fairy story by Joanne Harris, we're told it's 'Neverwhere meets Stardust' - and I've never seen such an accurate comparison. Yet Neil Gaiman need not worry: although there are strong echoes of both books here, this is never a ripoff of his work.

If you've only ever associated Joanne Harris with romance (perhaps in the form of her novel/film Chocolat) she may seem an unlikely author for the genre - but she has form with her excellent Gospel of Loki - and, as was the case with Neverwhere, this is a romance in its own way, underlining the difference between lust (or glamour) and love.

The similarity to Neverwhere is that the book features a London with a mysterious magical hidden side, including the secret nighttime market of the title, into which our innocent main character Tom is plunged, while the Stardust side comes with the unknown magical nature of the main character and its gradual revelation. We also get a classic fantasy setting of a location that is only visible, or not ruined in moonlight. In this case it's Old London Bridge*, where that market takes place when the moon is out.

The central theme is of a centuries-old enmity between two groups of humanoid creatures, one moth-like, the other butterfly-based. At some point in the past the Moth king and Butterfly queen fell in love and had a child - but this child is no more with only vague echoes of his existence and the creatures have lost their kingdom, been existing in London ever since, in part thanks to the meddling of a mysterious Spider mage. All too often when a fantasy writer invokes fairytale the writing style becomes dull, but Harris avoids this and manages to make these earthbound creatures believable.

The one really irritating thing about this book is the hero, who is perhaps the least perceptive main character ever known. Not only does he repeatedly (many, many times) ignore everyone who tells him that his obsession with a character called Vanessa is both doomed and due to an illusion, he is also totally oblivious to the much more attractive sounding character who loves him. When it is finally revealed that this is the case, he bewails 'But she hit me with a brick!' (technically true, but it was to save his life). Has he not seen practically any romcom from Much Ado About Nothing to the present day? A bit of this sort of thing is entertaining, but it is sustained for too long.

Overall, though, a highly satisfying urban fairy tale fantasy read.

* The cover oddly seems to suggest that Old London Bridge was where Westminster Bridge is now. It wasn't. UPDATE: Thanks to Joanne Harris for pointing out that the image is, of course, St Pancras Station. I was confused as I'd looked at the US cover, which does show Westminster and saw the UK image as a stylised version, imagining I was still seeing the Thames.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can buy The Moonlight Market from Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:

Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog