tl;dr SUMMARY VERSION: In The Vintner’s Luck, Book, I recommend an awesome concept, some interesting if distant characters, ~tragic gay angel love~, some thought-provoking religious mythology, some effective poetic language (infinite descriptions of wing movements, dead leaves, the Napoleonic Wars), a fast read, refreshing anti-agism (old people having sex! THE SCANDAL).
I caution against somewhat distant, unlikeable characters (and a massive cast), somewhat anticlimactic gay angel sex, some Twilight-style purple prose, and a nagging sense that this could have been so much more.
For fans of: gay angel fanfiction, metaphors, interspecies romance, character studies, gossip, gay angels whose names rhyme with “lass”, winemaking
OKAY SO HERE’S THE DEAL: I kind of liked this book. I kind of liked the movie. I disliked them, and liked them, for entirely different reasons, which makes sense because they are not remotely the same story. This turns out to be deeply unfortunate, because expecting one to be anything like the other only leads to disappointment (and disgruntlement, what with all the IF ONLYs).
The Vintner’s Luck, the book, is an extended metaphor on copies and symmetry as a French peasant and an angel fall in love and tangle with both the grand mythologies of Heaven and Hell and the domestic dramas of a small village (amid approximately a bajillion characters and subplots including marriages, re-marriages, murders, scholarship, wine-making, cancer, erotic asphyxiation, childbirth, and botany). The entire thing revolves around the ups, downs, and slooooow development of this relationship and its resulting consequences.
(The Vintner’s Luck, the movie, is a lovingly-documented homage to wine-making in the French countryside as a peasant dude named Sobran has lots of wine and children and sex with his hot wife and a wine-tasting widowed baroness. Oh, and every so often the dude talks to an angel with the face of Gaspard Ulliel for like three minutes...I have a whoooole separate essay on that thing but anyway).
NITTY-GRITTY BOOK REVIEW MOMENTS: What the Sam Hill is this style. What.
It is literally Metaphorception; SIMILE WITHIN METAPHOR WITHIN SIMILE! IN A METAPHOR! GREAT GOOGLY WOMAN JUST SAY SOMETHING OUTRIGHT FOR ONE SENTENCE JFC
So you stumble through the frankly atrocious bogs of metaphor in the first third of the novel, going Someday this will be rewarded by gay angel sex. Someday. If that be what you seek, reader, you best go get yo’self some Anne Rice instead. Knox reads like a sort of neo-Rice, with all the heaving, extended clauses and hyperbole, but more awkward and less sensually dreamy.
Sample quote: “Rich men would pay fortunes for even one ounce of the angel’s spit. His every secretion a potent love potion, sweet-scented, innocent as snow, fresh after days in the warmth, the proved yeast of greasy sheets.”
Uh, what? Not sexy. Also, ‘potent love potion’? ‘Innocent as snow’? I have read fanfiction less cringeworthy.
Xas is far and away the most interesting thing happening here – you can never quite get a read on Sobran the winemaker (Is he likable? Not sure. Relatable? Not sure…), the idea of his Baroness ladyfriend turns out to be more awesome than how she’s written (she could have been fleshed out into a serious badass), and his wife is just off on the sidelines being crazy. Xas’ injury, mutilation, and difficult transformative recovery are definitely the book’s high point (What can I say, I like my gay angels bloody). Not to be spoiler queen, but Lucifer shows up and gets shit done, Aurora the baroness cancer survivor figures shit out, and Knox creates a wonderfully creepy atmosphere when literally all sorts of shit starts dying supernaturally. If only Xas could have been pretty and dying and Sobran in a heartbreak coma ALL the time!
Some parts were creative (his things about walls! Of course! his thing about distances! Of course!).
Some part were engaging (I THINK MY DAD IS SLEEPING WITH MY INSANELY HOT ‘TUTOR FROM IRELAND’ DUN DUN DUNNN’),
Some parts were lyrically, poetically lovely ("Despair is gravity. What an appetite it has, hotter than hellfire. "Here, let me have you," it says." Combined with the epigraph and the final paragraph - whoa amazing.)
...but just some. Which is unbelievably annoying, because if you showed me those three moments about gravity and told me they came from a French peasant and an angel in love UGH MY HEART OH MY GOD FEELINGS. and yet somehow in context of what she does it's just like...oh, hm, that was pretty.
Also, Knox has like 45 balls in the air at once. Sobran has like 25 children; I could not keep them straight to save my life. Then they all got married and had more children, and I was just like WHAT THE FUCK ARE ALL THESE FRENCH NAMES WHO ARE YOU
The standout characters (in both book and movie) are those with the least screentime – in the movie, fatally, Xas is pretty and interesting and a flitting afterthought; in the book he’s so distant as to be unrelatable and the book’s most engaging moments almost all revolve around Lucifer’s badass appearance. Frustratingly, I felt much more interested in him than the angel we’d spent the last 200 pages on, and felt I knew him better, and I liked him more. LUCI COME BACK
Anyway, if I spent two hours watching this movie and three hours reading this book and an hour writing this, SOMETHING engaging was going on – but I’m afraid it might be that the concept of both is imaginative and cool and romantic (French peasant spends one night a year falling in love with an angel in his 1815 vineyard, I mean THAT IS A GOOD ONE) and then both mediums almost completely fail to capitalize. SIIIIIIIGH.