Dianna's Reviews > The Book of Life

These are thoughtful questions that should have been answered during the editing process. I would also add: why didn't Diana and Matthew time travel again to better manage the characters with blood rage? Too many issues were left unresolved.

Another question - if Phillipe made the blood vow in the 1500s, why did the year and a day start when they returned to the present? Wouldn't that have been over a long time ago?

Yeah, I thought of that too, it was really weird-did it start the minute in the future that he did in that past? What I am most angry about is that she never solve the mystery of the book, which was the entire freaking premise of her book series. GAH.

Yeah, I thought of that too, it was really weird-did it start the minute in the future that he did in that past? What I am most angry about is that she never solve the mystery of the book, which was the entire freaking premise of her book series. GAH.

Your questions 1,2,3, and 11 are so right. How is it that these weren't explained/resolved?

I think she's setting up for a Gallowglass spinoff. The diehard fans love him as much if not more than Matthew. Just because the Diana/Matthew trilogy is "finished," doesn't mean she is going to leave the characters completely. But I have no idea.

4: Who originally wrote the book? Still unknown. My best guess would be it was written way too long ago to perhaps even have names associated with it, but appears to be have been a collaborative effort of early "bright born" ancestors. But why does it matter? They wanted the book for the information in it, not because of who wrote it. As for why: Daemons, Witches, & Vampires all coveted the book because they thought it would help unlock the secrets of their kind, the "origin of their species", and it did, but not in that simplistic of terms. The secret is that these creatures are not three distinct species separate from the human race, but rather humans with additional abilities (evidenced in their chromosomal DNA). The congregation has been working for years to segregate, and define their differences. The "truth" locked in The Book of Life is not how they are different, but that they are all part & parcel of the same.
5: It is a book of knowledge, and historically knowledge is often feared and thus marked as evil. The fact that the book was made of creature skin & DNA was not meant to represent some weird sociopathic endeavor, but a testament to the fact that their ancestors foresaw that one day the DNA evidence would help others understand what they knew but did not have the science to prove. So no, the "evil" is not inside Diana. The knowledge that was in the book in now in Diana.
7: The book still exists, but the pages are now blank. Those words are in Diana. My guess would be that if & when she dies, the knowledge returns to the book.
10: There is no cure or treatment for blood rage. Like so many "diseases" today there is an inherited genetic component, but also multiple other factors that all have to come together just so for the chromosomes to be expressed.
12: They aren’t that unique or special, just the first to openly admit to what they are. Those they meet along the way, like Sophie & Nathaniel’s baby and the Janet Gowdie are proof there have been others of mixed descent. They are just the first to openly admit it and challenge the Congregation. Up until this point, people hid their differences for fear of being killed by the Congregation.

Jennifer wrote: "I think she's setting up for a Gallowglass spinoff. The diehard fans love him as much if not more than Matthew. Just because the Diana/Matthew trilogy is "finished," doesn't mean she is going to le..."

I love Gallowglass, but it really would have been good if that particular love storyline had had relevance in this book, as well, and was not just a set up, especially since this was a trilogy. Such a big thing should be introduced and, to some extent, resolved within the series. Then, a sequel could be a spin-off (series, even). It seems forced in this way.

Mariah you could extrapolate all of that-for sure, and it seems to be the most logical explanation-but what I can't get over is that the entire premise of the series was glossed over at the end or totally ignored. I might have been ok with that, but in my opinion, she didn't replace with anything better or more interesting or relevant-like she creates a conflict that isn't really a conflict at all, and then leaves the main character with a tree growing out of her neck. I guess I am especially resentful of this because the idea of a lost book was the hook for me. To find out that it was made out of People-and then that it lives in Diana-and then to not even have the purpose clearly explained-what was the point of having this book in the trilogy at all?

I'd read about Gallowglass.

I agree with this. I was also left feeling a tad hollow by the fact that Diana is far from safe, having been given another arrow! Also Matthew was so adamant that she shouldn't be turned into a vampire but didn't think twice about his wife being turned into a walking book. Diana will also still age which I'm not happy about as Matthew made it clear he cannot live without her, but their children will live for perhaps two centuries. Also Satu and Gerbert are brushed under the carpet and I wasn't on board with that at all. No development for Phoebe and Marcus really which bemused me, we were to just accept her presence with very little grounding. I don't know... It all just seems unfinished still.

I was also frustrated with all the loose ends and unresolved stories, but I can understand why they are not all wrapped up neatly. Harkness is a historian. History is fascinating, but full of unanswered questions. In the first book Diana and Matthew are talking about history and she says it appealed to her because of the neat, complete story arcs. Matthew says it isn't that neat in real life, which Diana agree with and had realized. Real life doesn't wrap up neatly, and neither does this book. Having said that, I missed having interaction with Sophie, Margaret, and Nathaniel, and YES, how in the world did Diana comfort Philippe in the 40's?!?!

In what chapter does it mention Diana comforting Philipe in the 40's? Does it imply she was physically present or just that his knowledge of her & all that her relationship with Matthew would bring was comforting to him?

Brenda wrote: "I was also frustrated with all the loose ends and unresolved stories, but I can understand why they are not all wrapped up neatly. Harkness is a historian. History is fascinating, but full of unans..."

Brenda wrote: "I was also frustrated with all the loose ends and unresolved stories, but I can understand why they are not all wrapped up neatly. Harkness is a historian. History is fascinating, but full of unans..."
I just think she had no idea where she was going to take the story-So, she spent a lot of time introducing Sophie and Nathaniel in the first story-because she didn't know where the story was going to go.

In chapter 3 Alain tells Diana and Matthew that at the end of his life,Philippe spoke to Diana almost everyday about his troubles and Diana gave comfort to him.

And why oh why would a smart girl like Diana who is hunted all the time go off by herself so much?

Brenda - re: Phillipe speaking with Diana I took it to mean that in his darkest hours, when his mind took him back to face his daemons, he thought he was speaking with Diana and he was comforted. Before she left him in the past she whispered to the wind "you'll never be alone" or something to that effect. I assumed it was some magic she unintentionally did. I don't read very literally though...

Samantha wrote: "Brenda - re: Phillipe speaking with Diana I took it to mean that in his darkest hours, when his mind took him back to face his daemons, he thought he was speaking with Diana and he was comforted. B..."

I wondered if she went time walking?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dianna! I loved the series but had the same questions.

#1 They made a huge deal about understanding the tree in the fireplace but never came back to it.
#1.5 Seriously, who was feeding information to the congregation? For awhile I was thinking it was Gallowglass but yet again, they never went back to it.
#3 I understand she becomes the "Book of Life" but her turning into a tree really threw me off. I actually thought that after she saved Matthew she would put all the knowledge back in the book and she would turn back into her normal self. Apparently she will always be a tree. Weird.
#6 I had the same question! Especially because Goody spoke so highly of her familiar and that was the true sign of a Weaver.
#8 I read this quite literally that she timewalked to visit Phillipe. Especially with her statement she made in Book 2 and Alain's statement in Book 3. I was actually looking forward to reading the dialogue between the two.
#10 Yes!!! Chris and Miriam suggested they had treatments available, not a cure, but a treatment. How come this information was never released?

At the end it sounded like she still was working with the congregation and therefore still needed the knowledge of the book. Also, at the meeting she said the power was unsettled still which is why she had words and the tree visible. I am assuming once the magic settled she could control it.

How does she sleep at night with a tree growing out of her neck? Lol, perhaps Deborah just wanted to see if we where paying attention. In the end it was still a good read.

Yeah, I was entertained. But really annoyed too.:-)

It was quite clear that Gerbert was the snitch

I too kept waiting for resolutions. I actually wondered if this was the last book. So much left unsaid. Also, if she could use her powers to find Waldo? the daemon owner of the one of the pages from the book of life, why couldn't she use that same ability to find Benjamin? I thought the book wasn't very thought out.(less)

Patty wrote: "I too kept waiting for resolutions. I actually wondered if this was the last book. So much left unsaid. Also, if she could use her powers to find Waldo? the daemon owner of the one of the pages fro..."

Dianna I kind of got the feeling in the second novel that she had no idea how she was going to end it-I think it was all of that stuff about being a weaver-and how the book was made from skin-which-I didn't get how she'd miss the fact that the book was made from skin from examining it in the library-why no one picked up on it-not her aunt, or her wife, nor the vampires when they were examining it in the house. It seemed like she decided to take the novels in a different direction. So I think she didn't know how to resolve it before-and worse still- couldn't remember all the things she had set up in the beginning.

Thanks you! I felt like the only person on the planet who did not appreciate this series.

Agree! So weird! So many odd things that they focused on that made no sense to how the overall arch of the story was supposed to be about. They hopped around to so many houses I couldn't keep track of any of it

I was also bothered by #3 and #6. Like Danielle, I was hoping that all of the knowledge would go back into the book after Matthew had recovered. And the change in Cora was totally unexpected and one I didn't like. After waiting so long for this book, I expected better resolutions to the plots.

I agree with all your points. I wanted to throw this book across the room several times. It seemed to me that there could possibly be a fourth book, what with all the work still left to do...

I'd be happy with a Gallowglass spinoff. He was my fave character.

And seriously, she can't walk around with those eyes!

Go back and reread the book. Most of the answers to these questions are in there. Her writing doesn't always say it out right but it's all definitely implied. Reading is meant to open your mind and make you think, she does that very well and why I enjoy it so much.
There were a couple parts that I had to reread to make sure I caught what she was saying, it could be easily be missed. She is actually a phenomenal writer and makes you really pay attention.

Joey wrote: "Go back and reread the book. Most of the answers to these questions are in there. Her writing doesn't always say it out right but it's all definitely implied. Reading is meant to open your mind and..."

I'd truly be interested in hearing those answers. I found her two first books to be well-written. Using those as a gauge, I'd have to say this one did not measure up. I didn't have questions for the first two.Does that mean her first two weren't meant to make us think? Really, I'd be interested particularly to hearing the answer for questions 1 and 3. Thanks.

Your review was spot on and I wholeheartedly agree and wondered every one of your discussion questions. I appreciate that you admit you got into it and enjoyed the read as I struggled with the same feeling of enjoyment and critical confusion of her writing.
Thank you for being so eloquent.

Thank you for this review, these are the questions I had after finishing the book as well, and I feel less like I was missing pages from this book like the Ashmole. I liked the books but the last one feels unresolved and a bit scattered. The threads weren’t all woven.

Amen and thank you! I had the exact same (unanswered) questions!!

Thank you!

Totally spot on review. I had all the same questions and it felt a bit like the author forgot what she’d written in the other books.