Audra Carter, a popular deejay in Manhattan, won’t let mere blindness keep her from living life her way, sometimes even riding her bicycle through town, relying on keen hearing and uncanny instincts to guide her. Her father, Jenson Carter, a neuroscientist, has devoted his career to finding a cure for her particular form of blindness. He now believes he has. With Audra and several other test … subjects, Jenson takes his research to the next level, only to face apparent failure. Jenson becomes alarmed by several bizarre deaths involving the test subjects. He fears his experiment was hijacked by former colleagues with a secret agenda, but the police blame him for the deaths. Audra is kidnapped and forced to survive a series of terrifying ordeals designed to hone a new and dangerous kind of vision that the hijacked experiment unleashed: Darksight. As Jenson races to discover the truth and find his daughter, Audra struggles to survive increasingly-deadly challenges. Will Audra master her mysterious Darksight and defeat her captors to keep both her and her father alive?
more
Thanks to Netgalley, Black Opal Books, and D. C. Mallery for a copy of Darksight in exchange for an honest review.
My thoughts:
In a word: freaky. While this is fantasy, there’s a realistic edge. Whenever science proclaims medical “progress”, there is the flip side: what are we giving up in exchange for the cure? Are the side effects worth the treatment? Or is the cure worse than the illness?
What worked for me:
1. The father-daughter relationship
Jenson, consumed by guilt from the accident that caused his daughter’s blindness, obsesses over curing her. But Audra’s content with her freedom and empowering lifestyle and wrestles against her father’s will. He wants to cure her; she doesn’t want to be cured.
It’s the age-old child-parent tug-of-war, freedom versus protection, with the complication of blindness, both literal and metaphorical. They love each other, but neither truly understands the other’s concerns.
2. The scientific/medical aspect
Mallery does a great job integrating and explaining the complicated science of sight and blindness. Some people have cortical blindness: the optic nerves and retina function, but the visual cortex (part of the brain that processes vision) is damaged. “Blindsight,” Jenson explains, is the ability among some with cortical blindness “to sense objects even though they have no visual field, even if totally blind” (chapter 2). That’s how Audra is able to ride her bike, work her way through complicated mazes, and find her way through New York City.
This is fascinating. As best I can tell, it’s all true, too. It’s not echolocation (like bats have).
3. The protagonists
It’s easy to root for Audra. She’s snarky, spunky, good at yanking other people’s chains, reckless, and empathetic. She was an art major (!) who’s made a life for herself and refuses to give up her independence, even for her father. Just as importantly, she’s empathetic and a natural leader. Though she doesn’t want to undergo the procedure, her reasons for doing so make sense.
Jenson is also easy to care about. What dad wouldn’t want his daughter’s sight restored? Who wouldn’t feel consumed by guilt over the accident that killed his wife and blinded his daughter? What person wouldn’t develop a bit of a blindspot, tunnel vision over their scientific quest?
4. The plot
Mallery cranks up the tension over and over and over. I stayed up late reading because I needed to find out what happens. Ironically, this happened even though I’d read the ending first: I needed to see all the story dots connected, and I couldn’t bear to leave Audra and company in danger over night.
What didn’t work for me:
1. The antagonistic characters
In my opinion, Mallery doesn’t quite develop all of the antagonistic characters in depth, unfortunately. But people like Sasha (the blind stripper with snake tattoos) and Stefan (Jenson’s colleague with the massive ant colonies) are given more development and a chance at redemption. (Though whether either will take that chance is a different story!)
Some of the other test subjects feel a bit cliched. Connie, for example, seemed a stereotype of an overly devout woman. Frank Parker feels over-the-top as a blind, paranoid, bad-to-the-bone attack dog trainer.
2. Some of the writing quirks
Frequently, words are italicized for emphasis. It’s a style quirk that I personally dislike, as I don’t need the author to stress which words should be emphasized: my mental reading “voice” fills that in well enough. There are a few typos, as well. “Gate” instead of “gait”, “now” instead of “know”, that sort of thing.
Whether either of these are things that other readers notice or care about, I don’t know. But they distracted me.
Overall, a good thriller.
For fans of fantasy thrillers and those who love a spooky read, Darksight will please you and make you think.
Thanks to Netgalley, Black Opal Books, and D. C. Mallery for a copy of Darksight in exchange for an honest review.
My thoughts:
In a word: freaky. While this is fantasy, there’s a realistic edge. Whenever science proclaims medical “progress”, there is the flip side: what are we giving up in exchange for the cure? Are the side effects worth the treatment? Or is the cure worse than the illness?
What worked for me:
1. The father-daughter relationship
Jenson, consumed by guilt from the accident that caused his daughter’s blindness, obsesses over curing her. But Audra’s content with her freedom and empowering lifestyle and wrestles against her father’s will. He wants to cure her; she doesn’t want to be cured.
It’s the age-old child-parent tug-of-war, freedom versus protection, with the complication of blindness, both literal and metaphorical. They love each other, but neither truly understands the other’s concerns.
2. The scientific/medical aspect
Mallery does a great job integrating and explaining the complicated science of sight and blindness. Some people have cortical blindness: the optic nerves and retina function, but the visual cortex (part of the brain that processes vision) is damaged. “Blindsight,” Jenson explains, is the ability among some with cortical blindness “to sense objects even though they have no visual field, even if totally blind” (chapter 2). That’s how Audra is able to ride her bike, work her way through complicated mazes, and find her way through New York City.
This is fascinating. As best I can tell, it’s all true, too. It’s not echolocation (like bats have).
3. The protagonists
It’s easy to root for Audra. She’s snarky, spunky, good at yanking other people’s chains, reckless, and empathetic. She was an art major (!) who’s made a life for herself and refuses to give up her independence, even for her father. Just as importantly, she’s empathetic and a natural leader. Though she doesn’t want to undergo the procedure, her reasons for doing so make sense.
Jenson is also easy to care about. What dad wouldn’t want his daughter’s sight restored? Who wouldn’t feel consumed by guilt over the accident that killed his wife and blinded his daughter? What person wouldn’t develop a bit of a blindspot, tunnel vision over their scientific quest?
4. The plot
Mallery cranks up the tension over and over and over. I stayed up late reading because I needed to find out what happens. Ironically, this happened even though I’d read the ending first: I needed to see all the story dots connected, and I couldn’t bear to leave Audra and company in danger over night.
What didn’t work for me:
1. The antagonistic characters
In my opinion, Mallery doesn’t quite develop all of the antagonistic characters in depth, unfortunately. But people like Sasha (the blind stripper with snake tattoos) and Stefan (Jenson’s colleague with the massive ant colonies) are given more development and a chance at redemption. (Though whether either will take that chance is a different story!)
Some of the other test subjects feel a bit cliched. Connie, for example, seemed a stereotype of an overly devout woman. Frank Parker feels over-the-top as a blind, paranoid, bad-to-the-bone attack dog trainer.
2. Some of the writing quirks
Frequently, words are italicized for emphasis. It’s a style quirk that I personally dislike, as I don’t need the author to stress which words should be emphasized: my mental reading “voice” fills that in well enough. There are a few typos, as well. “Gate” instead of “gait”, “now” instead of “know”, that sort of thing.
Whether either of these are things that other readers notice or care about, I don’t know. But they distracted me.
Overall, a good thriller.
For fans of fantasy thrillers and those who love a spooky read, Darksight will please you and make you think.