Rivers of London book review

Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch
Published by Gollancz on January 10, 2011
Pages: 392
Goodreads

Probationary Constable Peter Grant dreams of being a detective in London’s Metropolitan Police. Too bad his superior plans to assign him to the Case Progression Unit, where the biggest threat he’ll face is a paper cut. But Peter’s prospects change in the aftermath of a puzzling murder, when he gains exclusive information from an eyewitness who happens to be a ghost. Peter’s ability to speak with the lingering dead brings him to the attention of Detective Chief Inspector Thomas Nightingale, who investigates crimes involving magic and other manifestations of the uncanny. Now, as a wave of brutal and bizarre murders engulfs the city, Peter is plunged into a world where gods and goddesses mingle with mortals and a long-dead evil is making a comeback on a rising tide of magic.

I don’t even know where to start with Rivers of London, this book promised so much more than what it delivered. I was so angry with this book and how everything ended up working out, I have to say there was no real explanation for anything that happened throughout. I definitely wanted more in that regard especially because of how weird everything ends up being. I did enjoy that they tried to explain things scientifically throughout but it all just fell a little flat. I am actually so surprised that I managed to finish the book. I’m not even sure who would enjoy this book and type of story, there was so much potential but it was underutilised in favour of things that shouldn’t have been a part of the story.

Where to start with the characters? I’m not even sure that they deserve their own section in this review. I didn’t like or understand any of them. I thought the main character Peter was a disgusting creep and the other characters weren’t developed enough to stand on their own. Far too much time was spent on Peter and his thoughts and not enough was spent on building the lives of the other characters so the only person I had to connect with was him. It wasn’t a good thing, he ruined the story for me. Suppose you win some or lose some.

I hate doing this because I genuinely try to find something I enjoyed about every book I read and review. This one? I don’t think there is, I didn’t connect with any of it enough to love it enough to become a best bit. Sorry!

This could end up being a really long section, so I’m going to try my best to keep it as short as possible. First and probably my biggest issue with Rivers of London would have to be Peter’s obsession with women and their breasts or getting into their pants. I’m not sure whether it was supposed to be funny or not but actually, it came across as gross and it really put me off Peter as a character in general. I would have preferred for the time spent on him trying to sleep with anything that moved to be put into the story and explaining what the hell was happening within the story and the characters. This brings me onto the second thing that really annoyed me about this book, there is literally NO explanation for anything that happens in this book. I don’t need things spelt out for me but something would be nice, I felt like a lot of this book was supposed to be and had to be taken on face value. Which isn’t how I roll, unfortunately. All in all this just wasn’t the book for me and I’m kinda sad about it.

I don’t think anyone will be surprised when I say NO I wouldn’t recommend Rivers of London, I wish I hadn’t spent the time reading it, to be honest. Wouldn’t want to punish anyone else like that! So you have been warned, read at your own risk!

Have you ever been completely disappointed with a book before? Let me know which one it was!