Glen Duncan's I, Lucifer begins one steamy summer as some heavy negotiations are taking place in Heaven. God has decided to give Lucifer, the furthest-fallen of all fallen angels, a second chance. The Prince of Darkness can return to the fold, provided he manages to last one month on earth without sin. The human form chosen for this celestial experiment? A depressed novelist of little renown, currently contemplating suicide in his Clerkenwell garret.

Lucifer eagerly grasps the opportunity for a holiday on earth, and uses his host's identity to re-write the story of Creation in a format that has Hollywood moguls kissing his feet. It's not popular with Him Upstairs, of course, what with the Devil being portrayed as a maverick free-thinker and God as a humourless autocrat. But Lucifer's having too much fun to care. He's experiencing the pleasures of the flesh for the first time and everything - the odour of sweaty tube trains, cocaine, ice-cream, dirty sex--delights him. By the time the archangels are dispatched to bring him back, the Lord of all that's inhumane can't think of anything he'd rather be than human.

Lucifer befogs his audience, alternately spitting fury at them like some sulphur-charged Dennis Leary and then insisting that he's a nice guy, just misunderstood. What's clear, however, is that Glen Duncan is not merely one of those writers who can come up with amusing concepts. He's a sharp, sometimes savage observer of the human condition, whose talents are as many as the legions of Hell.--Matthew Baylis

The best Glen Duncan work so far, 22 Oct 2007
I suppose I have to preface this review by saying that I am already a Glen Duncan fan, and have read all of his published novels save The Bloodstone Papers (on the reading list). At the point of my first reading of 'I, Lucifer', I had only read one other - 'Weathercock', which rocked my world and left me wanting more.

If 'Weathercock' ended up hovering around the top of my 'favourite reads' list, 'I, Lucifer' shot straight to first place. Where some of Duncan's books fall down is in the personality of the protagonist, frequently a young man musing on life after a catastrophic emotional event - they sometimes end up infuriating me with their whininess. Not so here. Lucifer has suffered, yes, has possibly been done wrong to, and yes, he complains about it; but his ultimate motive is to win over the reader, and so he narrates charmingly, persuasively and wittily.

Even while sympathising with the Devil, though, you are being shown his flaws. The more obvious ones he doesn't attempt to deny (namely, his urge to do evil), but there is more to him. This becomes more pronounced a subject towards the end of the book.

Glen Duncan's style is perhaps, as has been said, self-indulgent, but also wonderfully descriptive. He says exactly what he wants to say, sometimes in less, sometimes in more words. And what's more, what he's saying is often what a lot of us would rather ignore. He pinions human nature perfectly, using his fallen angel.

Good to Bad, 09 Aug 2007
The start of 'I, Lucifer' is, to be frank, very good. In fact, the brilliance of the beginning few dozen pages is the main reason I'm giving it three and not two stars. The opening of the novel suggests and promises that an original book looms within the ensuing pages. But then you read those pages...and you find yourself bitterly disappointed.

One of the biggest problems I have with it is that it rambles. The "plot" doesn't really go very far, and it just tells the same story that we all know in a very familiar way, which doesn't deliver on the unique stance promised by so many positive reviews. In fact, Lucifer himself continually apologises for digressing. In many ways, the whole novel could be summarised one big digression, but without a main concept present from which to digress.

This having been said, there are some very good aspects of the book. For one thing, the way Glen Duncan has written it makes it extremely readable, and also very funny at times. His characters are also extremely well-developed within a fairly short space of time, a hard feat given the novel's length.

In short, 'I, Lucifer' had the potential to be a brilliant novel, especially when you consider Glen Duncan's abilities as a writer. But the whole book simply leaves you with the overmastering feeling that something is missing from it, maybe because Duncan set himself a very narrow subject on which to base a novel, given the amount of literature already out there on the subject. The idea is brilliant, and the overall gloss of the novel is impressive. But it's only a good novel, not the great one it could have been.

Wrong end of the Devil's tail, 31 Jul 2007
I personally found I, Lucifer one of the most unsufferable reads I've ever had to subject myself too. And to think that it's being adapted for the big screen makes me shudder with anticipated dread. In total agreement with some of the comments here, Glen Duncan's prose, storyline and linguistic gimmicks all reveal an immature, self-conscious and most of all self-indulgent author, who would like to pass himself off as a British Bret Easton Ellis but only ever convinces as a wannabe. Christopher Fowler's mid 90's Spanky, which Mr Duncan very obviously drew his inspiration from for I, Lucifer, is altogether a smarter kind of read. Ignore the latter and embrace the former, that's my advice.

Lucifer fails to catch fire, 04 Jul 2007
It seems a shame that when reviewers give a book few stars, their take often gets deemed `unhelpful' to other readers; there seems a pattern of four and five star reviews being the ones granted `helpful' status. Surely it's good to have a balance, especially when, as in the case with I, Lucifer, the book is really not going to light everyone's fire. I've thought as to why: my hunch is that it's a boy's book. I agree with the previous reviwer on this, and say `boy' advisedly. My guess it will appeal far more to young men still hell bent on hedonism than 40-something women like my good self who have come somewhat out the other side. Contrary to the TLS, I didn't find it a `wonderful act of ventriloquism', but then I've never been a huge fan of Orville anyway. I found the writing self conscious to the point of irritating - if I'd not been reading the novel for a book club I'd never have finished it. (All those asides. Jeez! Get ON with it.) Duncan writes like an author desperate to prove how clever he is. Granted, his vocab is broad, but good writing is about so much more than that. Then there was the fact that I couldn't' rid myself of the niggling feeling `I've seen this, heard this, got the t-shirt' long ago. 17th century Milton - even films such as Angel Heart - seem to `do' the devil so better. And as for all that endless snorting of coke and prostitution, it seemed so 1980s to me. But for me the real failing of the novel was its glibness. Is indulging in the sins of the flesh really the ultimate evil? I think not. Yet when it came to tackling more than mere rebelliousness but the terrible reality of man's cruelty to man, Duncan can't cut the mustard. The Spanish Inquisition, paedophilia, even the Holocaust for goodness' sake, he skates over these issues like a man on very thin ice, dodging the questions they raise with his oh-clever-me! writing style. And this, for me, is the book's ultimate failing. Thus two stars, max.

Predictable, boring, childish and crude., 15 Apr 2007
It's offensive, but it's called I, Lucifer, so I expect that.

What I don't expect is how crude and childish and far worse, predictable it is. It reads like the writing of a teenager. What a boring interpretation of the Devil. I'm achingly unimpressed.

Now, I have to admit, ashamedly, that I didn't finish reading the book. So it may get much better. Presumably it does, because it is very popular, and what I read can't possibly attract that attention. But what I did read was poor, and I couldn't put myself through any more. I had no desire to read on after half a page but I kept at it, admitting after a while there was no foreseeable chance of improvement.

Reading this book with its attempt at an unreliable narrator/anti-hero, which involves a patronising and deliberately offensive narrator, is like having a conversation with someone you can't stand, on purpose. My main problem is the lack of originality and flair in this interpretation of the Devil.

I think some teenagers may enjoy this, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

The best Glen Duncan work so far, 22 Oct 2007
I suppose I have to preface this review by saying that I am already a Glen Duncan fan, and have read all of his published novels save The Bloodstone Papers (on the reading list). At the point of my first reading of 'I, Lucifer', I had only read one other - 'Weathercock', which rocked my world and left me wanting more.

If 'Weathercock' ended up hovering around the top of my 'favourite reads' list, 'I, Lucifer' shot straight to first place. Where some of Duncan's books fall down is in the personality of the protagonist, frequently a young man musing on life after a catastrophic emotional event - they sometimes end up infuriating me with their whininess. Not so here. Lucifer has suffered, yes, has possibly been done wrong to, and yes, he complains about it; but his ultimate motive is to win over the reader, and so he narrates charmingly, persuasively and wittily.

Even while sympathising with the Devil, though, you are being shown his flaws. The more obvious ones he doesn't attempt to deny (namely, his urge to do evil), but there is more to him. This becomes more pronounced a subject towards the end of the book.

Glen Duncan's style is perhaps, as has been said, self-indulgent, but also wonderfully descriptive. He says exactly what he wants to say, sometimes in less, sometimes in more words. And what's more, what he's saying is often what a lot of us would rather ignore. He pinions human nature perfectly, using his fallen angel.

Good to Bad, 09 Aug 2007
The start of 'I, Lucifer' is, to be frank, very good. In fact, the brilliance of the beginning few dozen pages is the main reason I'm giving it three and not two stars. The opening of the novel suggests and promises that an original book looms within the ensuing pages. But then you read those pages...and you find yourself bitterly disappointed.

One of the biggest problems I have with it is that it rambles. The "plot" doesn't really go very far, and it just tells the same story that we all know in a very familiar way, which doesn't deliver on the unique stance promised by so many positive reviews. In fact, Lucifer himself continually apologises for digressing. In many ways, the whole novel could be summarised one big digression, but without a main concept present from which to digress.

This having been said, there are some very good aspects of the book. For one thing, the way Glen Duncan has written it makes it extremely readable, and also very funny at times. His characters are also extremely well-developed within a fairly short space of time, a hard feat given the novel's length.

In short, 'I, Lucifer' had the potential to be a brilliant novel, especially when you consider Glen Duncan's abilities as a writer. But the whole book simply leaves you with the overmastering feeling that something is missing from it, maybe because Duncan set himself a very narrow subject on which to base a novel, given the amount of literature already out there on the subject. The idea is brilliant, and the overall gloss of the novel is impressive. But it's only a good novel, not the great one it could have been.

Wrong end of the Devil's tail, 31 Jul 2007
I personally found I, Lucifer one of the most unsufferable reads I've ever had to subject myself too. And to think that it's being adapted for the big screen makes me shudder with anticipated dread. In total agreement with some of the comments here, Glen Duncan's prose, storyline and linguistic gimmicks all reveal an immature, self-conscious and most of all self-indulgent author, who would like to pass himself off as a British Bret Easton Ellis but only ever convinces as a wannabe. Christopher Fowler's mid 90's Spanky, which Mr Duncan very obviously drew his inspiration from for I, Lucifer, is altogether a smarter kind of read. Ignore the latter and embrace the former, that's my advice.

Lucifer fails to catch fire, 04 Jul 2007
It seems a shame that when reviewers give a book few stars, their take often gets deemed `unhelpful' to other readers; there seems a pattern of four and five star reviews being the ones granted `helpful' status. Surely it's good to have a balance, especially when, as in the case with I, Lucifer, the book is really not going to light everyone's fire. I've thought as to why: my hunch is that it's a boy's book. I agree with the previous reviwer on this, and say `boy' advisedly. My guess it will appeal far more to young men still hell bent on hedonism than 40-something women like my good self who have come somewhat out the other side. Contrary to the TLS, I didn't find it a `wonderful act of ventriloquism', but then I've never been a huge fan of Orville anyway. I found the writing self conscious to the point of irritating - if I'd not been reading the novel for a book club I'd never have finished it. (All those asides. Jeez! Get ON with it.) Duncan writes like an author desperate to prove how clever he is. Granted, his vocab is broad, but good writing is about so much more than that. Then there was the fact that I couldn't' rid myself of the niggling feeling `I've seen this, heard this, got the t-shirt' long ago. 17th century Milton - even films such as Angel Heart - seem to `do' the devil so better. And as for all that endless snorting of coke and prostitution, it seemed so 1980s to me. But for me the real failing of the novel was its glibness. Is indulging in the sins of the flesh really the ultimate evil? I think not. Yet when it came to tackling more than mere rebelliousness but the terrible reality of man's cruelty to man, Duncan can't cut the mustard. The Spanish Inquisition, paedophilia, even the Holocaust for goodness' sake, he skates over these issues like a man on very thin ice, dodging the questions they raise with his oh-clever-me! writing style. And this, for me, is the book's ultimate failing. Thus two stars, max.

Predictable, boring, childish and crude., 15 Apr 2007
It's offensive, but it's called I, Lucifer, so I expect that.

What I don't expect is how crude and childish and far worse, predictable it is. It reads like the writing of a teenager. What a boring interpretation of the Devil. I'm achingly unimpressed.

Now, I have to admit, ashamedly, that I didn't finish reading the book. So it may get much better. Presumably it does, because it is very popular, and what I read can't possibly attract that attention. But what I did read was poor, and I couldn't put myself through any more. I had no desire to read on after half a page but I kept at it, admitting after a while there was no foreseeable chance of improvement.

Reading this book with its attempt at an unreliable narrator/anti-hero, which involves a patronising and deliberately offensive narrator, is like having a conversation with someone you can't stand, on purpose. My main problem is the lack of originality and flair in this interpretation of the Devil.

I think some teenagers may enjoy this, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

The more things change . . .., 15 Mar 2008
Many of Duncan's favourite themes - there's always that lost love, always the edge of kinkiness. Some of the most memorable and beautiful phrases in his career - Pasha 'sails his archipelago of kips', and his libidinal flag will still flutter in the right oestral breeze (or something like that). Vividly visual, and so observant, so clever ('a Radio 4-style self-congratulatory side-stepping of the obvious'). Excellent as always in conveying that peculiar ease of a good friendship. Also on the way our own egos and libidos distort our perceptions of cities, deities, activities, objects, motivating us in strange and exhilarating ways which are then lost, in a moment's Gestalt switch, forever. Anything pursued to escape the self leads back to the self. A gimlet, but forgiving, eye cast upon his parents: the way siblings all drift from mother because they have all irrevocably realised she cultivates an ugly self-pity, an apathy. The 'flotsam' of family memories. And, perhaps most importantly, being Anglo-Indian: you can really begin to flesh out that niche, sense all the boundaries of that difference. As usual - but differently - it's bleddy good.

Simply amazing.., 01 Dec 2007
Really poignant book flipping between the lives of father and son, how though the times have changed, God, destiny and fate plays it's funny game. Emotively written, honest and powerful - pretty much a perfect read.

The best Glen Duncan work so far, 22 Oct 2007
I suppose I have to preface this review by saying that I am already a Glen Duncan fan, and have read all of his published novels save The Bloodstone Papers (on the reading list). At the point of my first reading of 'I, Lucifer', I had only read one other - 'Weathercock', which rocked my world and left me wanting more.

If 'Weathercock' ended up hovering around the top of my 'favourite reads' list, 'I, Lucifer' shot straight to first place. Where some of Duncan's books fall down is in the personality of the protagonist, frequently a young man musing on life after a catastrophic emotional event - they sometimes end up infuriating me with their whininess. Not so here. Lucifer has suffered, yes, has possibly been done wrong to, and yes, he complains about it; but his ultimate motive is to win over the reader, and so he narrates charmingly, persuasively and wittily.

Even while sympathising with the Devil, though, you are being shown his flaws. The more obvious ones he doesn't attempt to deny (namely, his urge to do evil), but there is more to him. This becomes more pronounced a subject towards the end of the book.

Glen Duncan's style is perhaps, as has been said, self-indulgent, but also wonderfully descriptive. He says exactly what he wants to say, sometimes in less, sometimes in more words. And what's more, what he's saying is often what a lot of us would rather ignore. He pinions human nature perfectly, using his fallen angel.

Good to Bad, 09 Aug 2007
The start of 'I, Lucifer' is, to be frank, very good. In fact, the brilliance of the beginning few dozen pages is the main reason I'm giving it three and not two stars. The opening of the novel suggests and promises that an original book looms within the ensuing pages. But then you read those pages...and you find yourself bitterly disappointed.

One of the biggest problems I have with it is that it rambles. The "plot" doesn't really go very far, and it just tells the same story that we all know in a very familiar way, which doesn't deliver on the unique stance promised by so many positive reviews. In fact, Lucifer himself continually apologises for digressing. In many ways, the whole novel could be summarised one big digression, but without a main concept present from which to digress.

This having been said, there are some very good aspects of the book. For one thing, the way Glen Duncan has written it makes it extremely readable, and also very funny at times. His characters are also extremely well-developed within a fairly short space of time, a hard feat given the novel's length.

In short, 'I, Lucifer' had the potential to be a brilliant novel, especially when you consider Glen Duncan's abilities as a writer. But the whole book simply leaves you with the overmastering feeling that something is missing from it, maybe because Duncan set himself a very narrow subject on which to base a novel, given the amount of literature already out there on the subject. The idea is brilliant, and the overall gloss of the novel is impressive. But it's only a good novel, not the great one it could have been.

Wrong end of the Devil's tail, 31 Jul 2007
I personally found I, Lucifer one of the most unsufferable reads I've ever had to subject myself too. And to think that it's being adapted for the big screen makes me shudder with anticipated dread. In total agreement with some of the comments here, Glen Duncan's prose, storyline and linguistic gimmicks all reveal an immature, self-conscious and most of all self-indulgent author, who would like to pass himself off as a British Bret Easton Ellis but only ever convinces as a wannabe. Christopher Fowler's mid 90's Spanky, which Mr Duncan very obviously drew his inspiration from for I, Lucifer, is altogether a smarter kind of read. Ignore the latter and embrace the former, that's my advice.

Lucifer fails to catch fire, 04 Jul 2007
It seems a shame that when reviewers give a book few stars, their take often gets deemed `unhelpful' to other readers; there seems a pattern of four and five star reviews being the ones granted `helpful' status. Surely it's good to have a balance, especially when, as in the case with I, Lucifer, the book is really not going to light everyone's fire. I've thought as to why: my hunch is that it's a boy's book. I agree with the previous reviwer on this, and say `boy' advisedly. My guess it will appeal far more to young men still hell bent on hedonism than 40-something women like my good self who have come somewhat out the other side. Contrary to the TLS, I didn't find it a `wonderful act of ventriloquism', but then I've never been a huge fan of Orville anyway. I found the writing self conscious to the point of irritating - if I'd not been reading the novel for a book club I'd never have finished it. (All those asides. Jeez! Get ON with it.) Duncan writes like an author desperate to prove how clever he is. Granted, his vocab is broad, but good writing is about so much more than that. Then there was the fact that I couldn't' rid myself of the niggling feeling `I've seen this, heard this, got the t-shirt' long ago. 17th century Milton - even films such as Angel Heart - seem to `do' the devil so better. And as for all that endless snorting of coke and prostitution, it seemed so 1980s to me. But for me the real failing of the novel was its glibness. Is indulging in the sins of the flesh really the ultimate evil? I think not. Yet when it came to tackling more than mere rebelliousness but the terrible reality of man's cruelty to man, Duncan can't cut the mustard. The Spanish Inquisition, paedophilia, even the Holocaust for goodness' sake, he skates over these issues like a man on very thin ice, dodging the questions they raise with his oh-clever-me! writing style. And this, for me, is the book's ultimate failing. Thus two stars, max.

Predictable, boring, childish and crude., 15 Apr 2007
It's offensive, but it's called I, Lucifer, so I expect that.

What I don't expect is how crude and childish and far worse, predictable it is. It reads like the writing of a teenager. What a boring interpretation of the Devil. I'm achingly unimpressed.

Now, I have to admit, ashamedly, that I didn't finish reading the book. So it may get much better. Presumably it does, because it is very popular, and what I read can't possibly attract that attention. But what I did read was poor, and I couldn't put myself through any more. I had no desire to read on after half a page but I kept at it, admitting after a while there was no foreseeable chance of improvement.

Reading this book with its attempt at an unreliable narrator/anti-hero, which involves a patronising and deliberately offensive narrator, is like having a conversation with someone you can't stand, on purpose. My main problem is the lack of originality and flair in this interpretation of the Devil.

I think some teenagers may enjoy this, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

The more things change . . .., 15 Mar 2008
Many of Duncan's favourite themes - there's always that lost love, always the edge of kinkiness. Some of the most memorable and beautiful phrases in his career - Pasha 'sails his archipelago of kips', and his libidinal flag will still flutter in the right oestral breeze (or something like that). Vividly visual, and so observant, so clever ('a Radio 4-style self-congratulatory side-stepping of the obvious'). Excellent as always in conveying that peculiar ease of a good friendship. Also on the way our own egos and libidos distort our perceptions of cities, deities, activities, objects, motivating us in strange and exhilarating ways which are then lost, in a moment's Gestalt switch, forever. Anything pursued to escape the self leads back to the self. A gimlet, but forgiving, eye cast upon his parents: the way siblings all drift from mother because they have all irrevocably realised she cultivates an ugly self-pity, an apathy. The 'flotsam' of family memories. And, perhaps most importantly, being Anglo-Indian: you can really begin to flesh out that niche, sense all the boundaries of that difference. As usual - but differently - it's bleddy good.

Simply amazing.., 01 Dec 2007
Really poignant book flipping between the lives of father and son, how though the times have changed, God, destiny and fate plays it's funny game. Emotively written, honest and powerful - pretty much a perfect read.

Lively!, 26 Jan 2008
I've read all Glen Duncan's novels and always marvel that he isn't better known. Weathercock is a rollicking read; a whooshing ride through Dominic Hood's life and innermost thoughts. It gets slightly surreal but is always entertaining, dark, and unflinchingly human. Mr Duncan is just fab at friendship, sex, religion, guilt and the sweet absurdity that keeps us at one remove from understanding it all. He's more honest than many other writers, and you can tell he really enjoys working at phrases until they record exactly what he means. This might sound a bit facile, but it's what sets apart a certain tradition of authors who are often dismissed as overwrought or contrived. The thing I find about the very best of these writers is that when you surrender to their style, submerge yourself in their metaphors and make the extra effort to understand their words (dictionary at hand for looking up their hard-sought words) and allow the narrative pace to change and interrupt itself because there's simply something urgent and tangential to express, then you can often feel the full impact of beautiful, simple things. But I love authors who do this well. It can seem as though you have a direct line to their thoughts. Intimate and exhilarating, I'll always want to read anything this frustratingly elusive man writes. (In case fans of powerful but unshowy writing feel put off, know that Mr Duncan can do the plain man, and write him plainly too - just check out Death of An Ordinary Man, the antithesis of his deliberately OTT I, Lucifer.)

Better and better, 22 Aug 2006
My first exposure to Glen Duncan was "I Lucifer", which I thoroughly enjoyed, shortly followed by "Death Of An Ordinary Man", which is extraordinary and brilliant. I was rather dreading "Weathercock", but I needn't have worried. Duncan is one of the greatest prose stylists of the present day - for my money he's on a par with Martin Amis. But he's better than Amis, because he has great stories to tell, and a really profound understanding of human nature, especially the darker side.

Deeply disturbing...in the best possible way, 20 Apr 2004
After having read I, Lucifer by Duncan, (which was great, by the way) Idecided I ought to take the plunge into some more of Duncan'sliterature.
Like I, Lucifer, Weathercock offers a dark and disturbing view of humanlife, addressing issues many authors steer well clear of.
Following the life of Dominic Hood, a young Catholic sado-masochist, thisbook offers everything from love to lust, light to dark, goodness andevil, and an exorcism thrown in for good measure.
Though slightly worried about Glen Duncan's state of mind, I thoroughlyenjoyed this book. It's a novel that almost makes you ashamed to like it,because of it's graphic and frankly quite disgusting content. Butunderlying this not-so-cheery exterior is an accurate, and insightfulcommentary on the human exisitence. It gives a view of life that is bothintriguing and disturbing for the character as well as the reader.
Speaking of the characters, they are all very well developed, andinteresting to read about. Father Ignatius Malone, for example, is anextremely mysterious character whose exploits make brilliant reading. AndDominic himself is both lovable and disgusting at the same time, aconflict which he also sees and must overcome within himself.
This is definately not a book for those without strong stomachs. However,if you can get past the scenes which aren't so politically correct, thisis a very enjoyable (despite it's darkness) read. A must read for allliterature fans, and those with a taste for a darker, different view.

The Good Beyond Evil, 07 Apr 2004
Brilliantly dark. Honest and human. Screaming fun. I laughed and cried, farted and followed through.

The real thing. Best read of my year.

Outstanding, 03 Mar 2004
I've been a fan of Glen Duncan's writing since his first novel, "Hope" but this is quite simply his best yet. "Weathercock" is a brutal, uncompromising read, driven along by a fabulous story and with a cast of characters you truly feel for. Just read it - this is truly outstanding stuff.

The best Glen Duncan work so far, 22 Oct 2007
I suppose I have to preface this review by saying that I am already a Glen Duncan fan, and have read all of his published novels save The Bloodstone Papers (on the reading list). At the point of my first reading of 'I, Lucifer', I had only read one other - 'Weathercock', which rocked my world and left me wanting more.

If 'Weathercock' ended up hovering around the top of my 'favourite reads' list, 'I, Lucifer' shot straight to first place. Where some of Duncan's books fall down is in the personality of the protagonist, frequently a young man musing on life after a catastrophic emotional event - they sometimes end up infuriating me with their whininess. Not so here. Lucifer has suffered, yes, has possibly been done wrong to, and yes, he complains about it; but his ultimate motive is to win over the reader, and so he narrates charmingly, persuasively and wittily.

Even while sympathising with the Devil, though, you are being shown his flaws. The more obvious ones he doesn't attempt to deny (namely, his urge to do evil), but there is more to him. This becomes more pronounced a subject towards the end of the book.

Glen Duncan's style is perhaps, as has been said, self-indulgent, but also wonderfully descriptive. He says exactly what he wants to say, sometimes in less, sometimes in more words. And what's more, what he's saying is often what a lot of us would rather ignore. He pinions human nature perfectly, using his fallen angel.

Good to Bad, 09 Aug 2007
The start of 'I, Lucifer' is, to be frank, very good. In fact, the brilliance of the beginning few dozen pages is the main reason I'm giving it three and not two stars. The opening of the novel suggests and promises that an original book looms within the ensuing pages. But then you read those pages...and you find yourself bitterly disappointed.

One of the biggest problems I have with it is that it rambles. The "plot" doesn't really go very far, and it just tells the same story that we all know in a very familiar way, which doesn't deliver on the unique stance promised by so many positive reviews. In fact, Lucifer himself continually apologises for digressing. In many ways, the whole novel could be summarised one big digression, but without a main concept present from which to digress.

This having been said, there are some very good aspects of the book. For one thing, the way Glen Duncan has written it makes it extremely readable, and also very funny at times. His characters are also extremely well-developed within a fairly short space of time, a hard feat given the novel's length.

In short, 'I, Lucifer' had the potential to be a brilliant novel, especially when you consider Glen Duncan's abilities as a writer. But the whole book simply leaves you with the overmastering feeling that something is missing from it, maybe because Duncan set himself a very narrow subject on which to base a novel, given the amount of literature already out there on the subject. The idea is brilliant, and the overall gloss of the novel is impressive. But it's only a good novel, not the great one it could have been.

Wrong end of the Devil's tail, 31 Jul 2007
I personally found I, Lucifer one of the most unsufferable reads I've ever had to subject myself too. And to think that it's being adapted for the big screen makes me shudder with anticipated dread. In total agreement with some of the comments here, Glen Duncan's prose, storyline and linguistic gimmicks all reveal an immature, self-conscious and most of all self-indulgent author, who would like to pass himself off as a British Bret Easton Ellis but only ever convinces as a wannabe. Christopher Fowler's mid 90's Spanky, which Mr Duncan very obviously drew his inspiration from for I, Lucifer, is altogether a smarter kind of read. Ignore the latter and embrace the former, that's my advice.

Lucifer fails to catch fire, 04 Jul 2007
It seems a shame that when reviewers give a book few stars, their take often gets deemed `unhelpful' to other readers; there seems a pattern of four and five star reviews being the ones granted `helpful' status. Surely it's good to have a balance, especially when, as in the case with I, Lucifer, the book is really not going to light everyone's fire. I've thought as to why: my hunch is that it's a boy's book. I agree with the previous reviwer on this, and say `boy' advisedly. My guess it will appeal far more to young men still hell bent on hedonism than 40-something women like my good self who have come somewhat out the other side. Contrary to the TLS, I didn't find it a `wonderful act of ventriloquism', but then I've never been a huge fan of Orville anyway. I found the writing self conscious to the point of irritating - if I'd not been reading the novel for a book club I'd never have finished it. (All those asides. Jeez! Get ON with it.) Duncan writes like an author desperate to prove how clever he is. Granted, his vocab is broad, but good writing is about so much more than that. Then there was the fact that I couldn't' rid myself of the niggling feeling `I've seen this, heard this, got the t-shirt' long ago. 17th century Milton - even films such as Angel Heart - seem to `do' the devil so better. And as for all that endless snorting of coke and prostitution, it seemed so 1980s to me. But for me the real failing of the novel was its glibness. Is indulging in the sins of the flesh really the ultimate evil? I think not. Yet when it came to tackling more than mere rebelliousness but the terrible reality of man's cruelty to man, Duncan can't cut the mustard. The Spanish Inquisition, paedophilia, even the Holocaust for goodness' sake, he skates over these issues like a man on very thin ice, dodging the questions they raise with his oh-clever-me! writing style. And this, for me, is the book's ultimate failing. Thus two stars, max.

Predictable, boring, childish and crude., 15 Apr 2007
It's offensive, but it's called I, Lucifer, so I expect that.

What I don't expect is how crude and childish and far worse, predictable it is. It reads like the writing of a teenager. What a boring interpretation of the Devil. I'm achingly unimpressed.

Now, I have to admit, ashamedly, that I didn't finish reading the book. So it may get much better. Presumably it does, because it is very popular, and what I read can't possibly attract that attention. But what I did read was poor, and I couldn't put myself through any more. I had no desire to read on after half a page but I kept at it, admitting after a while there was no foreseeable chance of improvement.

Reading this book with its attempt at an unreliable narrator/anti-hero, which involves a patronising and deliberately offensive narrator, is like having a conversation with someone you can't stand, on purpose. My main problem is the lack of originality and flair in this interpretation of the Devil.

I think some teenagers may enjoy this, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

The more things change . . .., 15 Mar 2008
Many of Duncan's favourite themes - there's always that lost love, always the edge of kinkiness. Some of the most memorable and beautiful phrases in his career - Pasha 'sails his archipelago of kips', and his libidinal flag will still flutter in the right oestral breeze (or something like that). Vividly visual, and so observant, so clever ('a Radio 4-style self-congratulatory side-stepping of the obvious'). Excellent as always in conveying that peculiar ease of a good friendship. Also on the way our own egos and libidos distort our perceptions of cities, deities, activities, objects, motivating us in strange and exhilarating ways which are then lost, in a moment's Gestalt switch, forever. Anything pursued to escape the self leads back to the self. A gimlet, but forgiving, eye cast upon his parents: the way siblings all drift from mother because they have all irrevocably realised she cultivates an ugly self-pity, an apathy. The 'flotsam' of family memories. And, perhaps most importantly, being Anglo-Indian: you can really begin to flesh out that niche, sense all the boundaries of that difference. As usual - but differently - it's bleddy good.

Simply amazing.., 01 Dec 2007
Really poignant book flipping between the lives of father and son, how though the times have changed, God, destiny and fate plays it's funny game. Emotively written, honest and powerful - pretty much a perfect read.

Lively!, 26 Jan 2008
I've read all Glen Duncan's novels and always marvel that he isn't better known. Weathercock is a rollicking read; a whooshing ride through Dominic Hood's life and innermost thoughts. It gets slightly surreal but is always entertaining, dark, and unflinchingly human. Mr Duncan is just fab at friendship, sex, religion, guilt and the sweet absurdity that keeps us at one remove from understanding it all. He's more honest than many other writers, and you can tell he really enjoys working at phrases until they record exactly what he means. This might sound a bit facile, but it's what sets apart a certain tradition of authors who are often dismissed as overwrought or contrived. The thing I find about the very best of these writers is that when you surrender to their style, submerge yourself in their metaphors and make the extra effort to understand their words (dictionary at hand for looking up their hard-sought words) and allow the narrative pace to change and interrupt itself because there's simply something urgent and tangential to express, then you can often feel the full impact of beautiful, simple things. But I love authors who do this well. It can seem as though you have a direct line to their thoughts. Intimate and exhilarating, I'll always want to read anything this frustratingly elusive man writes. (In case fans of powerful but unshowy writing feel put off, know that Mr Duncan can do the plain man, and write him plainly too - just check out Death of An Ordinary Man, the antithesis of his deliberately OTT I, Lucifer.)

Better and better, 22 Aug 2006
My first exposure to Glen Duncan was "I Lucifer", which I thoroughly enjoyed, shortly followed by "Death Of An Ordinary Man", which is extraordinary and brilliant. I was rather dreading "Weathercock", but I needn't have worried. Duncan is one of the greatest prose stylists of the present day - for my money he's on a par with Martin Amis. But he's better than Amis, because he has great stories to tell, and a really profound understanding of human nature, especially the darker side.

Deeply disturbing...in the best possible way, 20 Apr 2004
After having read I, Lucifer by Duncan, (which was great, by the way) Idecided I ought to take the plunge into some more of Duncan'sliterature.
Like I, Lucifer, Weathercock offers a dark and disturbing view of humanlife, addressing issues many authors steer well clear of.
Following the life of Dominic Hood, a young Catholic sado-masochist, thisbook offers everything from love to lust, light to dark, goodness andevil, and an exorcism thrown in for good measure.
Though slightly worried about Glen Duncan's state of mind, I thoroughlyenjoyed this book. It's a novel that almost makes you ashamed to like it,because of it's graphic and frankly quite disgusting content. Butunderlying this not-so-cheery exterior is an accurate, and insightfulcommentary on the human exisitence. It gives a view of life that is bothintriguing and disturbing for the character as well as the reader.
Speaking of the characters, they are all very well developed, andinteresting to read about. Father Ignatius Malone, for example, is anextremely mysterious character whose exploits make brilliant reading. AndDominic himself is both lovable and disgusting at the same time, aconflict which he also sees and must overcome within himself.
This is definately not a book for those without strong stomachs. However,if you can get past the scenes which aren't so politically correct, thisis a very enjoyable (despite it's darkness) read. A must read for allliterature fans, and those with a taste for a darker, different view.

The Good Beyond Evil, 07 Apr 2004
Brilliantly dark. Honest and human. Screaming fun. I laughed and cried, farted and followed through.

The real thing. Best read of my year.

Outstanding, 03 Mar 2004
I've been a fan of Glen Duncan's writing since his first novel, "Hope" but this is quite simply his best yet. "Weathercock" is a brutal, uncompromising read, driven along by a fabulous story and with a cast of characters you truly feel for. Just read it - this is truly outstanding stuff.

A departure in style , 27 Jan 2008
Not in Glen Duncan's accustomed OTT style, but so successful. This is a serious, moving work, with his trademark intimacy yet it explores a simple man and a simple life affected by an inescapably life-changing event. Fidelity, family life and domesticity beautifully expressed.

Spellbinding tale, 01 May 2007
We hear about Nathan, who is dead but definitely not at peace. He needs to find out how and why he died and hovers over his own funeral listening in to everyone's conversations. At his wake there are two people he doesn't recognise - who are they and why are they in his house? Also, Nathan needs to find out why his youngest daughter is dead and it's a heartbreaking revelation when he remembers the circumstances that ended her young life. As he begins to get close to remembering his own death the tension is unbearable and absolutely heart wrenching.
Duncan has a great mastery of words and had me spellbound all the way through this book. He did an incredible job in showing the reader the complexities of our relationships and forces us into facing up to unthinkable scenarios and wondering how we would cope with them. The way that he gets under the skin of a bereaved family is astounding and painfully accurate. This book is shocking and at times harrowing, but exquisitely written and I was captivated by it. If you enjoyed Alice Sebold's Lovely Bones then this is one I would highly recommend to you.


Harrowing, poignant, unsentimental & brilliant., 15 Oct 2006
I had never read anything by this author before and I found this book absolutely fascinating. There are moments of stream-of-consciousness and disjointedness to contend with, but I did not have a problem with it because the overall narrative is the experience of a dead man, so I didn't expect it to follow a linear plot structure anyway. What we do have are dreams, memories, sensations and profound emotion all mixed up with some elements of real-time narrative. To say it is a roller-coaster ride would be to demean it with a cliche, but that is what it's like. I defy anyone, particularly if they are a parent, to come away from this book unmoved. Glen Duncan seems able to express the unexpressable in terms of grief, loss and love without becoming maudlin or sentimental. A fabulous book.

I thought this was very disappointing, 19 Sep 2006
After reading the blurb I thought the story sounded fascinating but I only got to page thirty-one before I gave up. It was the style of writing that killed it for me. I don't know the technical word for it but it is a raw train-of-thought affair that is often quite baffling, muddled (intentionally?) and difficult to understand. After the first few chapters I hadn't managed to build up any sort of empathy for Nathan and couldn't care less about the minutiae of his family life, who killed him, why or what happened next. It's the literary equivalent of that trendy shaky camera work you see these days - very arty and all, but confusing for mere mortals.

I think I enjoyed it!, 03 Jun 2005
I think that any book that provokes a reaction is a worthy read. The stronger the reaction, the better the writing. What Glen Duncan has done is to produce an amazing piece of literature. It captivated, appalled, shocked and effected me. The author shows directness with uneasy subjects in equal measure with compassion for his characters. There are some genuinely amazing moments where I was physically cringeing and some truly electrifying moments which made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up (just wait for the moment when Nathan and Claire are alone). The pace is good and the mysteries unravel at a satisfying pace.

Did I enjoy it? I think so but more from an appreciation of the art of the literature rather than the story itself.

"When the future ended, Nicholas discovered, you left London and went to New York. Even at Christmas..." The opening lines of Glen Duncan's second novel, Love Remains, announce the enigma which lures the reader into this book. What is it in Nicholas's world that has come to an end, and what does it have to do with the worldly perversity of Mickey--the woman who moves him into a Manhattan apartment--and the student love story, told in flashback, which begins a few pages into the novel: "Six years earlier Nicholas had married Chloe". The five sections of the novel--"Love", "Blood", "Continue", "Water" and "Necessities"--present a numbingly truthful, sometimes ruthless, anatomisation of love, hate and sex between the two protagonists. At times, Duncan's probing reads like reportage, an account drawn up from a distance for a reader called upon to witness whatever it is that is about to happen; at others, the writing is full of effort and exhibition: "Breasts like appalled witnesses, blonde hair a smashed aureole on the pillow".

As the two plots begin to converge, however, that effort, its careful attention to the apparently mundane conversation between Nicholas and Chloe--Sunday morning conversation over the newspaper report of the new London Ripper, for example--begins to pay off. Described as a writer who can make the "ordinary remarkable", Duncan has managed to bring the commonplace strangeness of sexuality into contact with the different extremes of sexual violence in an uneasy, but finally compelling, novel. --Vicky Lebeau"When the future ended, Nicholas discovered, you left London and went to New York. Even at Christmas"... The opening lines of Glen Duncan's second novel, Love Remains, announce the enigma which lures the reader into this book. What is it in Nicholas's world that has come to an end, and what does it have to do with the worldly perversity of Mickey--the woman who moves him into a Manhattan apartment--and the student love story, told in flashback, which begins a few pages into the novel: "Six years earlier Nicholas had married Chloe". The five sections of the novel--"Love", "Blood", "Continue", "Water" and "Necessities"--present a numbingly truthful, sometimes ruthless, anatomisation of love, hate and sex between the two protagonists. At times, Duncan's probing reads like reportage, an account drawn up from a distance for a reader called upon to witness whatever it is that is about to happen; at others, the writing is full of effort and exhibition: "Breasts like appalled witnesses, blonde hair a smashed aureole on the pillow".

As the two plots begin to converge, however, that effort, its careful attention to the apparently mundane conversation between Nicholas and Chloe--Sunday morning conversation over the newspaper report of the new London Ripper, for example--begins to pay off. Described as a writer who can make the "ordinary remarkable", Duncan has managed to bring the commonplace strangeness of sexuality into contact with the different extremes of sexual violence in an uneasy, but finally compelling, novel. --Vicky Lebeau

The best Glen Duncan work so far, 22 Oct 2007
I suppose I have to preface this review by saying that I am already a Glen Duncan fan, and have read all of his published novels save The Bloodstone Papers (on the reading list). At the point of my first reading of 'I, Lucifer', I had only read one other - 'Weathercock', which rocked my world and left me wanting more.

If 'Weathercock' ended up hovering around the top of my 'favourite reads' list, 'I, Lucifer' shot straight to first place. Where some of Duncan's books fall down is in the personality of the protagonist, frequently a young man musing on life after a catastrophic emotional event - they sometimes end up infuriating me with their whininess. Not so here. Lucifer has suffered, yes, has possibly been done wrong to, and yes, he complains about it; but his ultimate motive is to win over the reader, and so he narrates charmingly, persuasively and wittily.

Even while sympathising with the Devil, though, you are being shown his flaws. The more obvious ones he doesn't attempt to deny (namely, his urge to do evil), but there is more to him. This becomes more pronounced a subject towards the end of the book.

Glen Duncan's style is perhaps, as has been said, self-indulgent, but also wonderfully descriptive. He says exactly what he wants to say, sometimes in less, sometimes in more words. And what's more, what he's saying is often what a lot of us would rather ignore. He pinions human nature perfectly, using his fallen angel.

Good to Bad, 09 Aug 2007
The start of 'I, Lucifer' is, to be frank, very good. In fact, the brilliance of the beginning few dozen pages is the main reason I'm giving it three and not two stars. The opening of the novel suggests and promises that an original book looms within the ensuing pages. But then you read those pages...and you find yourself bitterly disappointed.

One of the biggest problems I have with it is that it rambles. The "plot" doesn't really go very far, and it just tells the same story that we all know in a very familiar way, which doesn't deliver on the unique stance promised by so many positive reviews. In fact, Lucifer himself continually apologises for digressing. In many ways, the whole novel could be summarised one big digression, but without a main concept present from which to digress.

This having been said, there are some very good aspects of the book. For one thing, the way Glen Duncan has written it makes it extremely readable, and also very funny at times. His characters are also extremely well-developed within a fairly short space of time, a hard feat given the novel's length.

In short, 'I, Lucifer' had the potential to be a brilliant novel, especially when you consider Glen Duncan's abilities as a writer. But the whole book simply leaves you with the overmastering feeling that something is missing from it, maybe because Duncan set himself a very narrow subject on which to base a novel, given the amount of literature already out there on the subject. The idea is brilliant, and the overall gloss of the novel is impressive. But it's only a good novel, not the great one it could have been.

Wrong end of the Devil's tail, 31 Jul 2007
I personally found I, Lucifer one of the most unsufferable reads I've ever had to subject myself too. And to think that it's being adapted for the big screen makes me shudder with anticipated dread. In total agreement with some of the comments here, Glen Duncan's prose, storyline and linguistic gimmicks all reveal an immature, self-conscious and most of all self-indulgent author, who would like to pass himself off as a British Bret Easton Ellis but only ever convinces as a wannabe. Christopher Fowler's mid 90's Spanky, which Mr Duncan very obviously drew his inspiration from for I, Lucifer, is altogether a smarter kind of read. Ignore the latter and embrace the former, that's my advice.

Lucifer fails to catch fire, 04 Jul 2007
It seems a shame that when reviewers give a book few stars, their take often gets deemed `unhelpful' to other readers; there seems a pattern of four and five star reviews being the ones granted `helpful' status. Surely it's good to have a balance, especially when, as in the case with I, Lucifer, the book is really not going to light everyone's fire. I've thought as to why: my hunch is that it's a boy's book. I agree with the previous reviwer on this, and say `boy' advisedly. My guess it will appeal far more to young men still hell bent on hedonism than 40-something women like my good self who have come somewhat out the other side. Contrary to the TLS, I didn't find it a `wonderful act of ventriloquism', but then I've never been a huge fan of Orville anyway. I found the writing self conscious to the point of irritating - if I'd not been reading the novel for a book club I'd never have finished it. (All those asides. Jeez! Get ON with it.) Duncan writes like an author desperate to prove how clever he is. Granted, his vocab is broad, but good writing is about so much more than that. Then there was the fact that I couldn't' rid myself of the niggling feeling `I've seen this, heard this, got the t-shirt' long ago. 17th century Milton - even films such as Angel Heart - seem to `do' the devil so better. And as for all that endless snorting of coke and prostitution, it seemed so 1980s to me. But for me the real failing of the novel was its glibness. Is indulging in the sins of the flesh really the ultimate evil? I think not. Yet when it came to tackling more than mere rebelliousness but the terrible reality of man's cruelty to man, Duncan can't cut the mustard. The Spanish Inquisition, paedophilia, even the Holocaust for goodness' sake, he skates over these issues like a man on very thin ice, dodging the questions they raise with his oh-clever-me! writing style. And this, for me, is the book's ultimate failing. Thus two stars, max.

Predictable, boring, childish and crude., 15 Apr 2007
It's offensive, but it's called I, Lucifer, so I expect that.

What I don't expect is how crude and childish and far worse, predictable it is. It reads like the writing of a teenager. What a boring interpretation of the Devil. I'm achingly unimpressed.

Now, I have to admit, ashamedly, that I didn't finish reading the book. So it may get much better. Presumably it does, because it is very popular, and what I read can't possibly attract that attention. But what I did read was poor, and I couldn't put myself through any more. I had no desire to read on after half a page but I kept at it, admitting after a while there was no foreseeable chance of improvement.

Reading this book with its attempt at an unreliable narrator/anti-hero, which involves a patronising and deliberately offensive narrator, is like having a conversation with someone you can't stand, on purpose. My main problem is the lack of originality and flair in this interpretation of the Devil.

I think some teenagers may enjoy this, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

The more things change . . .., 15 Mar 2008
Many of Duncan's favourite themes - there's always that lost love, always the edge of kinkiness. Some of the most memorable and beautiful phrases in his career - Pasha 'sails his archipelago of kips', and his libidinal flag will still flutter in the right oestral breeze (or something like that). Vividly visual, and so observant, so clever ('a Radio 4-style self-congratulatory side-stepping of the obvious'). Excellent as always in conveying that peculiar ease of a good friendship. Also on the way our own egos and libidos distort our perceptions of cities, deities, activities, objects, motivating us in strange and exhilarating ways which are then lost, in a moment's Gestalt switch, forever. Anything pursued to escape the self leads back to the self. A gimlet, but forgiving, eye cast upon his parents: the way siblings all drift from mother because they have all irrevocably realised she cultivates an ugly self-pity, an apathy. The 'flotsam' of family memories. And, perhaps most importantly, being Anglo-Indian: you can really begin to flesh out that niche, sense all the boundaries of that difference. As usual - but differently - it's bleddy good.

Simply amazing.., 01 Dec 2007
Really poignant book flipping between the lives of father and son, how though the times have changed, God, destiny and fate plays it's funny game. Emotively written, honest and powerful - pretty much a perfect read.

Lively!, 26 Jan 2008
I've read all Glen Duncan's novels and always marvel that he isn't better known. Weathercock is a rollicking read; a whooshing ride through Dominic Hood's life and innermost thoughts. It gets slightly surreal but is always entertaining, dark, and unflinchingly human. Mr Duncan is just fab at friendship, sex, religion, guilt and the sweet absurdity that keeps us at one remove from understanding it all. He's more honest than many other writers, and you can tell he really enjoys working at phrases until they record exactly what he means. This might sound a bit facile, but it's what sets apart a certain tradition of authors who are often dismissed as overwrought or contrived. The thing I find about the very best of these writers is that when you surrender to their style, submerge yourself in their metaphors and make the extra effort to understand their words (dictionary at hand for looking up their hard-sought words) and allow the narrative pace to change and interrupt itself because there's simply something urgent and tangential to express, then you can often feel the full impact of beautiful, simple things. But I love authors who do this well. It can seem as though you have a direct line to their thoughts. Intimate and exhilarating, I'll always want to read anything this frustratingly elusive man writes. (In case fans of powerful but unshowy writing feel put off, know that Mr Duncan can do the plain man, and write him plainly too - just check out Death of An Ordinary Man, the antithesis of his deliberately OTT I, Lucifer.)

Better and better, 22 Aug 2006
My first exposure to Glen Duncan was "I Lucifer", which I thoroughly enjoyed, shortly followed by "Death Of An Ordinary Man", which is extraordinary and brilliant. I was rather dreading "Weathercock", but I needn't have worried. Duncan is one of the greatest prose stylists of the present day - for my money he's on a par with Martin Amis. But he's better than Amis, because he has great stories to tell, and a really profound understanding of human nature, especially the darker side.

Deeply disturbing...in the best possible way, 20 Apr 2004
After having read I, Lucifer by Duncan, (which was great, by the way) Idecided I ought to take the plunge into some more of Duncan'sliterature.
Like I, Lucifer, Weathercock offers a dark and disturbing view of humanlife, addressing issues many authors steer well clear of.
Following the life of Dominic Hood, a young Catholic sado-masochist, thisbook offers everything from love to lust, light to dark, goodness andevil, and an exorcism thrown in for good measure.
Though slightly worried about Glen Duncan's state of mind, I thoroughlyenjoyed this book. It's a novel that almost makes you ashamed to like it,because of it's graphic and frankly quite disgusting content. Butunderlying this not-so-cheery exterior is an accurate, and insightfulcommentary on the human exisitence. It gives a view of life that is bothintriguing and disturbing for the character as well as the reader.
Speaking of the characters, they are all very well developed, andinteresting to read about. Father Ignatius Malone, for example, is anextremely mysterious character whose exploits make brilliant reading. AndDominic himself is both lovable and disgusting at the same time, aconflict which he also sees and must overcome within himself.
This is definately not a book for those without strong stomachs. However,if you can get past the scenes which aren't so politically correct, thisis a very enjoyable (despite it's darkness) read. A must read for allliterature fans, and those with a taste for a darker, different view.

The Good Beyond Evil, 07 Apr 2004
Brilliantly dark. Honest and human. Screaming fun. I laughed and cried, farted and followed through.

The real thing. Best read of my year.

Outstanding, 03 Mar 2004
I've been a fan of Glen Duncan's writing since his first novel, "Hope" but this is quite simply his best yet. "Weathercock" is a brutal, uncompromising read, driven along by a fabulous story and with a cast of characters you truly feel for. Just read it - this is truly outstanding stuff.

A departure in style , 27 Jan 2008
Not in Glen Duncan's accustomed OTT style, but so successful. This is a serious, moving work, with his trademark intimacy yet it explores a simple man and a simple life affected by an inescapably life-changing event. Fidelity, family life and domesticity beautifully expressed.

Spellbinding tale, 01 May 2007
We hear about Nathan, who is dead but definitely not at peace. He needs to find out how and why he died and hovers over his own funeral listening in to everyone's conversations. At his wake there are two people he doesn't recognise - who are they and why are they in his house? Also, Nathan needs to find out why his youngest daughter is dead and it's a heartbreaking revelation when he remembers the circumstances that ended her young life. As he begins to get close to remembering his own death the tension is unbearable and absolutely heart wrenching.
Duncan has a great mastery of words and had me spellbound all the way through this book. He did an incredible job in showing the reader the complexities of our relationships and forces us into facing up to unthinkable scenarios and wondering how we would cope with them. The way that he gets under the skin of a bereaved family is astounding and painfully accurate. This book is shocking and at times harrowing, but exquisitely written and I was captivated by it. If you enjoyed Alice Sebold's Lovely Bones then this is one I would highly recommend to you.


Harrowing, poignant, unsentimental & brilliant., 15 Oct 2006
I had never read anything by this author before and I found this book absolutely fascinating. There are moments of stream-of-consciousness and disjointedness to contend with, but I did not have a problem with it because the overall narrative is the experience of a dead man, so I didn't expect it to follow a linear plot structure anyway. What we do have are dreams, memories, sensations and profound emotion all mixed up with some elements of real-time narrative. To say it is a roller-coaster ride would be to demean it with a cliche, but that is what it's like. I defy anyone, particularly if they are a parent, to come away from this book unmoved. Glen Duncan seems able to express the unexpressable in terms of grief, loss and love without becoming maudlin or sentimental. A fabulous book.

I thought this was very disappointing, 19 Sep 2006
After reading the blurb I thought the story sounded fascinating but I only got to page thirty-one before I gave up. It was the style of writing that killed it for me. I don't know the technical word for it but it is a raw train-of-thought affair that is often quite baffling, muddled (intentionally?) and difficult to understand. After the first few chapters I hadn't managed to build up any sort of empathy for Nathan and couldn't care less about the minutiae of his family life, who killed him, why or what happened next. It's the literary equivalent of that trendy shaky camera work you see these days - very arty and all, but confusing for mere mortals.

I think I enjoyed it!, 03 Jun 2005
I think that any book that provokes a reaction is a worthy read. The stronger the reaction, the better the writing. What Glen Duncan has done is to produce an amazing piece of literature. It captivated, appalled, shocked and effected me. The author shows directness with uneasy subjects in equal measure with compassion for his characters. There are some genuinely amazing moments where I was physically cringeing and some truly electrifying moments which made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up (just wait for the moment when Nathan and Claire are alone). The pace is good and the mysteries unravel at a satisfying pace.

Did I enjoy it? I think so but more from an appreciation of the art of the literature rather than the story itself.

A bleak but flawed masterpiece, 03 Nov 2006
Glen Duncan, along with David Mitchell, is one of the few current writers who create prose that must be savoured slowly. If you try to rush through one of his books, you will miss much of the pleasure of the words. In this book, as in the other books of his that I have read ("I, Lucifer", "Weathercock" and "The Death of an Ordinary Man") he reveals, or revels in, his fascination with polarities - good and evil, love and hate, birth and death. However, there is a flaw in this book, which is the middle section where Chloe begins her diary. For me it doesn't work. What's more, he makes the mistake of writing people's dialect phonetically.

Utter Rubbish, 03 Nov 2006
This has to be one of the worst books I have every read. It's a complete waste of time. THe characters come across as complete drippy, boring, weak people who you couldn't give a stuff about and the irony of it is that the main character Nicholas works for a literary agent who rejects bad books. Shame he didn't get to read the one he 'starred' in.

Gut wrenching, 13 Aug 2006
This is the fourth Glen Duncan novel I've read. He never disappoints. This book is a psychoanalytic masterpiece, looking at the nature of love and hate, sex and love, pain and joy, disappointment and regret. Unusually, for a male writer, Duncan gets inside the heads of women and writes convincingly from their perspective. His description of Chloe's outlook, both before and after the event the book centres around, is something most women readers will identify with. The female characters in the book are undoubtedly the strongest and best drawn. The main male character is interesting, although maybe an as-yet-fully-formed version of the mesmerising male characters in I, Lucifer and Weathercock, but he didn't compel me in the same way as the women. If you're a romantic about love, this book will give you a different slant on things. If you're a realist about love, this book will be like coming home. He's the best contemporary writer I've had the pleasure of finding recently.

dirty beautiful, 07 May 2006
This book is one of the dirty beautiful things that simply needs to exist. It rebuilds faith in love at the same time as it rips at your soul. If you are in love be careful when you read it, it can make you look too deep and those without it, this book will sit in the small space in your throat that your heart always jumps to, after leaving your stomach, after the first time you see them...

(this is a re publication the original is i believe out of print)

A dark and bitterly enthralling novel, 20 May 2003
This is the third novel I have read by Glen Duncan, and quite possibly the darkest. Nicholas is in New York, debasing himself through alcohol and the offering of himself for perverse acts, numb to all feeling as he recounts his lost life of love with Chloe. Chloe is in London, recovering from a most vilifying and traumatic episode. Duncan brings forth their pain and makes us wear it like heavy, rain drenched cloaks. I squirmed when I read this book, many times and most of them on the people-filled rush hour tubes of the London Underground. Observers probably wondered what was bringing me so much discomfort, it was this enthralling, beautifully written, rich novel that simply takes no prisoners and whilst it delights in its celebration of true love, it also revels in its deep look at true pain and horror. Not for the easily disturbed, but for the rest of us...magnificent!