Stephenie Meyer - New Moon (Book Review)

"New Moon" (Amazon: US, UK)
by Stephenie Meyer
Format: Paperback, 608 pages
Publisher: Little, Brown & Company

-
-

Yeah, I know what I said about reading 'New Moon' in my review of 'Twilight' – I marked it as 'for hardcore fans only', not knowing that my sister is one of them and that I'll just happen to be the one to pick 'New Moon' up for her. She was away for that week, I had no other things to read and well ... I was curious.
But then, we all know that curiosity killed the proverbial cat. And even though 'New Moon' didn't exactly kill me (after all, I'm no cat), it surely tried very hard to do so. At least, I ended up feeling like something has eaten my brain, as if 'New Moon' wasn't a regular novel but rather a Tome of Un-knowledge. Yes, it's that bad, and from now on, I won't touch the Twilight series again. Unless I'm dying to read something and there are no other books available (which is not very likely!).

The thing is – I knew what happens in the book. Most of my girlfriends were talking about it for weeks, so it was really hard to dismiss everything being said. It really is fairly simple: Edward leaves, Bella is devastated and turns depressive, Jacob Black falls in love with her, Edward thinks that Bella is (after a series of unfortunate events) dead, so he wants to commit suicide; Bella rushes to Italy to save him at the last moment and he promises to never leave her side again. Awww. That is all I heard, and it was enough – you don't really need to know all the details (not that there is so many), and you most certainly don't need to read the whole book. Don't take me wrong, I have nothing against emo culture, but Bella really does create an impression of a most pathetic, wannabe-tragic and caricaturised emo, only the razors missing from the picture. I wallow in self-loathing; my heart is broken, torn and numb! - that sort of things.

I concede one thing to Stephenie Meyer – she kind of manages to pull it off despite everything. You read, read and read New Moon, until it suddenly hits you how pathetic everybody and everything is. Of course, you decide to bang your head against the wall for some time ... but then, you go back and read some more. I don't really understand it, but I know that it's not just because I try to finish books I read ... it's something else.

Well, whatever it is, it's not character development, because that does not exist in 'New Moon'. Characters who are given the most 'screen time' are Jacob Black (who is, despite all the physical changes he's undergoing, essentially still the same), Edward (since he's a vampire, the lack of change in him is at least explainable) and Bella (who, after months of being excessively emo, even takes a step or two backwards instead of forwards). Here's some of her typical problems:

*she is not able to hurt her loved ones. Okay, that's very nice, but begging Jacob to be her friend, even when she knows that's most likely to cause major trouble, because his feelings might be a bit hurt otherwise, still makes no sense whatsoever. Wasn't it said a million times that Bella is a very rational person?

*she is extremely perceptive (she figures out immediately that it was Sam who scarred his girlfriend's face), yet she cannot figure out what Jacob is changing into. I can't see how a sensible reader is supposed to believe that, I really can't.

*she is fatally in love with the most gorgeous guy anybody's ever seen and their love is the deepest, purest, most perfect love ever. She's also (almost literally) dying to become a vampire, and yet she'd rather wait for all those things than marry the above mentioned Mr.Perfect, which would result in instantly getting everything she wants. That's more than illogical - it already borders on plain stupid.

If plot was almost inexistent in 'Twilight', nothing's changed much in 'New Moon'. There are some uncertain attempts at creating an actual plot, but they all quickly end as the author returns to the thing she does best – dealing with Bella's feelings. The saddest thing is that in 'Twilight,' there was enough style to make it up for the ragged plot, but in 'New Moon', that’s not the case. It’s more like a recycled ‘Twilight’ – the problem is that describing a girl’s feelings just doesn’t give enough material to make up for another book. There are some (successful) attempts at humour and the style of writing isn’t really that bad, just worse than before – but even taking that into account, 'New Moon' doesn’t come even close to 'Twilight'.

I guess I have to repeat myself – Reading 'New Moon' is recommended only for hardcore fans of Meyer and for the utterly bored voracious readers. It’s an easy book to read, despite all the drawbacks, that much is true. But it also seems to simultaneously destroy your brain cells, so read it on your own responsibility. And to the guys (excluding those who enjoy the series, I guess, I heard that they do exist) out there, I’d recommend steering well clear of it, if my fellow blogger Thrinidir is anything to judge by – I tried to entertain him with excerpts from the book, but had to stop as he threatened to drain the whole bottle of whiskey otherwise.

-
-
-
-
-
- Trin -

Eye Candy Covers VIII

-

-
Joe Abercrombie, author of the much acclaimed epic fantasy trilogy "The First Law" (you can read our review of the second book: "Before They Are Hanged"; and the double review of the last book: (1) "The Last Argument of Kings" & (2) "The Last Argument of Kings"), announced the final artwork for the UK version of his forthcoming novel "Best Served Cold" (it's scheduled for an April 2009 release) and if you don't mind me saying: it looks bloody fantastic! Joe is enthused about the artwork as well...

"Best Served Cold" is set in the same world as "The First Law" trilogy, but stands on its own. Judging from the prior trilogy we are up for some great fun! You should be adding this book to your shopping list for the next year...

Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons - Watchmen (Graphic Novel Review)

"Watchmen" (Amazon: US, UK)
by Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons
Format: Paperback, 416 pages
Publisher: DC Comics

-
-

I was technically never a big comic books/graphic novels fan, but there are always works that trespass the boundaries of their assigned genre and become ‘immortal’ in some way. Well, “Watchmen” are supposed to be one of those – movie adaptation that is coming to theatres in March 2009 was just an extra incentive for me to read them – since they are dubbed as (one of) the most influential comics or rather graphic novels of our age. “Watchmen” were written by Alan Moore, an acclaimed writer in this medium who was also the mind behind such classics as ‘V for Vendetta’, ‘Swamp Thing’ and ‘Promethea’, and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, also a well-known name in comic book industry; the illustrated novel in question won several prominent awards and worldwide praise from critics and fans alike. The question I’m trying to answer here is ‘do “Watchmen” deserve all the credit and praise they garnered’? My answer would be both yes and no, but I’ll return to this question and the reasoning behind my somewhat ambiguous answer a bit later.

The story begins with the murder of the Comedian, one of the masked heroes of America. It’s the era of President Nixon, the Cold War is burning hot and the temperature is still escalating. The Comedian was formerly of the league of Watchmen, a gathering of masked men of America to fight against crime of all kinds, but they were outlawed by the government, because they were perceived more as a nuisance than a benefit. Most of the masked men quit their vigilante activities and got back to their ‘puny lives’ and personal traumas, but some of them decided to soldier on. One of those who persist in the game is Rorschach, a cautious and methodical man, who has no prejudice against physical violence and sees threat in everything that happens. He is certain that the Comedian’s death and some of the latter occurrences form a pattern that leads to believe that there is some kind of evil plan to get rid of all the masked heroes. I won’t ruin your fun, but let me tell you that this isn’t your typical detective story as the author shrewdly entwines the ‘whodunnit?’ plot progression device with the portrayal of the human condition, some quality drama as well as sensible and thoughtful characterization (this is where “Watchmen” actually shine the most).

The Watchmen are really an ‘omnium gatherum’, but the author goes a long way – Moore uses flashback narration – to portray the personalities of masked men and what makes them tick. In most cases they are scarred, troubled, traumatized and/or confused individuals, but some of them turn out to be obsessed megalomaniacs or worse. The outside world reflects its troubled heroes and is in as much flux and turmoil as they are; the impeding nuclear war, crime, poverty and similar phenomena leave a bleak and pessimistic impression on the reader. NY is a pit of depravity and the masked heroes who are all too human under the hood have to deal with their own personal problems as well as with the barely tangible exterior threat. But this is only what comprises the main plot, there is actually a lot more going on in the background (political commentary, delving into the human soul, morally ambiguous themes etc.); the interludes that tell of events that happen around a small newsstand are heavy to bear at times, but the mini pirate story that is included and dispersed throughout the chapters (there is a guy that sits in front of the stand and reads comics) is ingenious; it’s really dark and foreboding, but beautifully written and it perfectly resonates with the main story.

The ending is sufficiently unconventional and off the grid to justify reading Watchmen on itself, not that the rest isn’t good; the book also ends on a morally shady ground, which might be off-putting for some, but for those jaded by “the hero gets the damsel that was previously in dire straits” endings I heartily recommend "Watchmen".

I’ve already stated that the story and dialogue are smart, but Moore couples this with the ability to create believable characters. They are hard to empathize with though, since all have skeletons in the closet and make some unchivalrous choices along the way. The most agreeable (likable?) character is arguably the Nite Owl.

Alas, all the major strengths of “Watchmen” also grate on it the most and make for a heavy read (intelligent, but heavy-laden dialogue, somber tone, pessimistic atmosphere and the semi-philosophical interludes). There is not much of ‘comic’ in this ‘comic book’; it demands time, concentration and involvement from the reader – it’s not hard to comprehend, but you have to be focused not to miss all the gratifying nuances. All this is not a bad thing per se, but I won’t lie to you that I was completely immersed in the book – I’ve read it slowly and in small dosages, and I believe it’s best consummated that way. That being said, I still believe that “Watchmen” deserve to be called a seminal work of fiction and that all its strengths surpass the shortcomings, they just weren’t that enjoyable for me to read and that is a key factor as far as I’m concerned.
-
-
--
-
-
p.s. as an afterthought: you can see the trailer for the upcoming movie adaptation of "Watchmen" here.

- Thrinidir -

Richelle Mead - Storm Born (Book Review)

"Storm Born" (Amazon: US, UK)
by Richelle Mead (Homepage)
Format: Paperback, 384 pages
Publisher: Bantam Books

-
- Warning: the first paragraph of this review includes (more or less) only my musings on the topic of urban fantasy and no information on the book, so feel free to skip it if you wish.
- -
You might have noticed that I'm the only member of RoSF review staff who reviews urban fantasy. There are several reasons for this:

• the other three prefer reading epic fantasy and space-opera tinged SF, and while I’m not the biggest fan of urban fantasy, I have no prejudice that would keep me from reading it

• I’m the youngest of the four (which is a rather silly reason, but on the other hand, it’s true that urban fantasy books usually aim at younger and less demanding audience)

• my girl-friends are avid fans of urban fantasy, so I’m, in a way, 'obliged' to keep track of this sub-genre
  

• and the most important reason, which is in a way related to the previous one: I’m the only female reviewer at RoSF and it’s a fact that urban fantasy is being written predominately for young women, since it’s mostly about young women with extraordinary powers who, in most cases, fall in love with equally extraordinary (and often non-human) young ‘men’. These elements of paranormal romance genre are often present up to the point where almost no actual ‘fantasy’ is left (e.g. Twilight), but however cheap that may sound, it usually works.

The problem is mostly that while I can enjoy well-written romantic elements in books I read, I still prefer them to remain only additions to a good plot and not, as it too often happens in urban fantasy, the other way around. That’s why I usually find urban fantasy easy to read and even easier to forget – but Storm Born came as a nice surprise and made me reconsider my opinion on the genre.

Meet Eugenie, a young woman whose life has never really been an average one. Introduced to a world of demons and fay at an early age, she’s been trained by her stepfather to become one of the world’s best shamans, known as Odile. Everyday routine has made her profession almost as ordinary as any other one, but all of a sudden, things start to go wrong. Every demon she is asked to banish seems to know her real name, the mysterious, sexy Kiyo is messing with her head and there seems to be a prophecy predicting she will bear the descendant of the Storm King, a powerful and feared ruler whose ability is to control weather. So, in a way, a client asking her to find his sister in the dangerous, gentry-inhabited Otherworld, is a good thing …

The plot struck me at first as eerily similar to the “Abhorsen” trilogy by Garth Nix – the most obvious of the elements they share being the banishing of evil creatures into a hidden, underlying world. It soon became obvious, though, that Storm Born’s Otherworld is nothing like Abhorsen’s Death, being much more like a colorful fairyland from folk tales, not to mention that finding a person in Otherworld takes much more time and labor. In other ways, Storm Born resembles Bloodring, with all the powerful gems, Eugenie's way of living and (sometimes rather demonical) visitors from Otherworld. As far as elements of paranormal romance are concerned, it's far from both previously mentioned books - it plunges boldly into sexuality, which (at least for me) is a welcome change form an adolescent naivete, especially after Bloodring, where the main protagonist does a lot of thinking on the subject but little else. In Storm Born, Mead introduces the super-sexy Kiyo very early in the book and there are whole chapters dedicated to whatever action he and Eugenie get involved into, be it lovemaking or solving their personal problems. Not to mention the decadent Otherworld palace of Dorian, a wise but rather bored gentry king, who tutors Eugenie and provides many comical moments.

As already mentioned, the first impression of the Otherworld being a rather dark and grim place falls away swiftly when we are introduced to a jolly and colorful land of the gentry. We follow what at first looks like a classical tale of The Chosen One's training, power-gaining and such, but it is brimming with very innovative ideas and twists. The characters we encounter are funny, witty, cynical, sexy and in a few cases rather obscure - in a way, they represent the book itself. The final twist is, for once, not exceedingly obvious, and it succesfully turns things upside down, leaving a reader wishing for more.

All in all, Storm Born is funny, full of sex-appeal, but it sometimes deals with the serious side of life, too. It balances the contrast between Eugenie's everyday problems and her Otherworldly adventures perfectly, not shying away from sexuality but never overstepping the treshold of vulgarity. It might not be an astonishing book, but is nevertheless a very good one - the best urban fantasy book I've came upon lately and one whose sequel I'll not only gladly read, but also actively seek out.





-
-
~ Trin ~

Glen E. Page - The Last Plague (book review)

"The Last Plague" (Amazon: US, UK)
by Glen E. Page

Format: Paperback, 448 pages
Publisher: Synergy Books

-

-
A young girl is brought into Dr. Douglas Hunter's ER one night with her abdomen ripped open. One of her ovaries has been stolen; the other is as hard and black as coal. When the bodies of more young girls are discovered, their ovaries also missing, Dr. Hunter and his family of adopted misfits find themselves unwittingly drawn into a dark plot of government intrigue and biblical prophecy. As Dr. Hunter investigates the cause behind this mysterious plague, he and his family uncover unsettling connections, not only between their own painful pasts, but to war crimes in Nazi germany and even events from the days of Christ. The investigation attracts the attention of a group of ruthless people with mysterious powers who are determined to keep the plague a secret. But as more secrets come to light, Dr. Hunter realizes his family may be facing the last plague, the beginnings of the Apocalypse.
-
-
I've already mentioned a few times that I like post-apocalyptic fiction. That was one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why I accepted to review “The Last Plague”. To be honest, I thought it could be a great book when I first saw it – a nice enough cover (not as ‘suspicious’ as, let's say, "Unholy Domain”) and although the killer-plague idea itself has been done to death, it does not necessarily mean that the book is completely unoriginal. I like to read about plagues. Too bad it turned out that “The Last Plague” has (almost) nothing to do with a plague whatsoever.

When I turned the first page, I already found myself fully engaged in a certain happening. Wait, what? I checked the cover again to make sure that it was really the first book in the series. It was. For the next couple of chapters nothing changes, everything’s a total mess. It’s true that sometimes, it’s good to plunge into the middle of action right away, but I rather see that the book starts ‘slow and easy’, keeping things more or less clear and straightforward. I doubt that any reader likes to be (and stay) confused from the beginning on, having absolutely no idea what’s going on and who is who. For me, at least, it was damn annoying. I kept mixing the names of the demons and the doctors, and when I somehow managed to sort out the names of the former, the latter remained a bunch of unconnected names right up until enough of them died that I could distinguish between the ones that remain. I believe that the editor of “The Last Plague” could do much to improve this (especially in the beginning); it seems to me as though some parts were just skipped where editing is concerned. Sometimes, names are being needlessly repeated over and over again, even the sentences seem identical and piled one over the other (see the below example).

"Hey Indian, ever hear of pheromones?"
"Nah," Indian answered, but Indian's gaze just caught sight of something else in the distance.

(...)

Cautiously she walked down the hall to the staircase. Hurriedly she climbed the steps to the empty surgical suites one floor above. Gently she opened the double doors leading to one of the suites.

But the main problem of the book is that there are great many characters trying to do great many things. The good guys being two doctors, their friends and families (including a number of people who used to work with the army intelligence, a Native American named Indian (but of course) who is literally a killing machine, one Mexican – once upon a time a monk – everybody laughs at, a supposedly dead wife, and two kids: a boy – the 'chosen one' - and an African girl that carries the plague), Mountain People who are rarely, if ever, seen, a guy that can heal with the touch of his hands, a guy who claims to be one of the 11 Apostles, and a group of Jewish people (I’m not really certain what their role is, but they are involved nonetheless).
I’m pretty sure there is an Asian or two I’ve somehow managed to miss. Where’s the point of skipping them, if you’ve included all of the other races?

The bad guys are a bit simpler to discern: they seem to represent every single person with authority (except for one sheriff) that the good guys manage to encounter. The most notable among them are the military and a certain cult, whose members believe to be Lucifer’s adopted children. The latter group contains those that infected humanity with a virus that causes ovaries to blacken. The leaders of this cult is someone named Niac (later in the book a ‘shocking’ detail is revealed: his true name, in fact, is Cain). There is not much of actual fighting between the good and the bad; the good are mostly fleeing, trying to survive and to figure out what the virus that causes black ovaries really is. And, of course, the good and the bad are so tightly intertwined that you can’t be really certain who is working with whom (and the fact that some of the people change their mind somewhere in the middle of the book doesn’t help much). Once again, it is a complete mess.

Wait! Did I mention that the good guys are in fact chosen by God? Somewhere in the last part of the book, everything shifts from a simple ‘run away, they’re trying to kill us’ gig to a sanctimonious mission. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not overly fond of books that are trying to convince me that God exists, and that He has a Plan. If the author convenes religious beliefs in inoffensive and unobtrusive manner (King did this in “The Stand” and it was perfectly digestible) or turn it in a underlying message, that's perfectly fine with me - but don’t drop it fervently right on top of my head. Just for example, I loved “The Book of Joby” (even if by that time I didn’t know that Book of Job really is about a bet between the God and the Devil – but that only made me love "The Book of Joby" more after I found out); those of you who read it know that there is a lot of religious content included. I usually don’t mind this, as long as it doesn’t take on a persuasive note, and that, unfortunately, is exactly what “The Last Plague” did.

As said, there is hardly any mention of an actual plague. There is some speculation about the origins of 'the black ovaries' virus, but the good guys are too preoccupied with surviving – miraculously, might I add – to give much thought to why-s, where-s and how-s. I couldn’t really discern much signs of apocalypse, but there is a lot of talk about military secrets and army intelligence and so on, and that brings to a fact that “The Last Plague” is more of a thriller than anything else. But even so, it’s a badly written one. There is practically nothing to draw the reader to read on or to make him care for the characters, but the flaws regarding style or plot are present aplenty, luring you to put the book down.

The only thing that saves “The Last Plague” from being an utterly unreadable drivel are the parts of the book where nothing “extraordinary” is happening (e.g. when a whole family gets down to take a dinner) and much of it is based on dialogue and humor. These parts are actually quite good. The humor can be pretty wicked sometimes – maybe I’m sick, but I laughed my guts out at the dead guy joke. But sadly, that’s just about it. When the talking is over, it is usually followed by a tiresome, annoying and in most cases a confusing situation. If it wasn’t for the laughs, the time spent reading “The Last Plague” would be surmised as completely and utterly wasted.
-

-

-

-

-

~ Trin ~

Reviewing books we like

It started when I wanted to do a review of Stephen King's 'The Stand'. 'The Stand' is a book I 'traditionally' re-read every year when I’m at the seaside with my friends, and since it is such a huge book (around 1400 pages), I discover something forgotten every time I read it, be it little details or the more forgettable chapters. You could say that I like this book very, very much.
But there was a sudden problem: I caught myself wondering if I was really able to write a good review. Firstly, can I explain all the reasons for why I like this book so much? And secondly, can I remain objective the whole time?
I figured out that reviewing books you like very much is a kind of a problem, and I gave it some thought.

There are, if you ask me, two basic types of books one likes very, very much:

*books you read and really liked, so you re-read them many times and marveled at how great they are every time anew
*books you just read and really liked, so you’ll probably re-read them but you can’t know that for sure (of course, there are books you read and simply know you will re-read them one day, but these are fairly rare) – neither you know it you will find them as great (or even greater) as you did the first time.

It’s easier, I think, to review the latter type, though none of the two is really easy to review. Why?

You can like a book for a number of reasons: because the style of writing is good, because the characters seem as if they were real, living persons, because the world-building is so superb that you feel as if you were there yourself. These reasons are just slightly subjective, but fairly easy to agree on and very easily explainable. They are, of course, based on our personal preferences, but I’m fairly sure there are some objective guidelines that apply to what we’d call a ‘good’ style of writing. I’m saying that because there are also various ‘wild’, completely subjective (and often even a bit silly) reasons you like a book for, which often appear with your ‘all-time favorite’ books: because The Hero is such a badass, because you always wanted to be an astronaut when you were a kid or because you too have a cat named Pestilence and it’s really great to pretend that it could shoot laser beams from its eyes, just like the one in the book. These reasons are in no way inferior to those former ones (after all, they made you love the book just as well), but their subjective nature makes them much harder to explain. ‘All in all, the book was awesome mostly because The Hero is such a badass’ is, after all, a bit silly thing to write in a review.

Not that this is the only problem. Sometimes, you don’t even know why exactly you like a certain book or genre so much. Myself, I adore most of post-apocalyptic novels, but I’m not really certain why that is so. I know that it’s not because I’d wish to see humanity destroyed or because I’d hate the world. I mean, I saw this old movie where, at the end, there is no more life on our planet (I googled it out later; it's "On The Beach" (1959)) and I had nightmares about it for a week afterwards – but still I’m drawn to this genre. Maybe I just like to read about how people react in case of a global destruction and what kind of societies they form afterwards, or facing the unknown and unpredictable (that would explain why I liked Terror so much). I admit, I don’t really know – but if I can’t even figure it out myself, how can I explain my liking for a certain book in a review, to other people?

To make things worse (or at least more complicated), the above mentioned problems appear when you try to figure out the reasons for really liking a book which otherwise has many good qualities – in other words, when the style is great, the plot even more so, the world-building is ok, but the best thing is that you like it for a reason that is totally subjective and that makes it one of your all-time favorite books. But it sometimes happens that the book has one really awesome element, while the others are pretty mediocre (it’s rare, I think, to adore a book which has one good element while all the others are dreadful). Or you love the book, but you can’t really put your finger on the reason why, so you ascribe it to the style, the plot, the characters … and when you do so, it’s easy to miss some facts and/or exaggerate a bit. If it was one of those subjective reasons that made a book so great to read, you can easily overlook how flawed the plot was or that there wasn’t much world-building included. You don’t do that willingly – it’s just that you are too overwhelmed with what you like. And, in fact, a book can’t be really bad if it managed to impress you so.

But the question here is: can you write a good review in such case? Can you even remain objective while reviewing one of your favorite books, or do you just say that you’re being much more subjective than usual, even though you can’t explain everything?
And if you decide to look at the book objectively, regarding its possible flaws as well as its qualities – what if that ruins the book for you?

Option A: it can’t, if you are a type of person that loves the book despite its flaws* and if the qualities are still bigger than flaws
Option B: it can, because you were so ‘blinded’ before that you didn’t even notice that nasty flaw there and you’ll be never really able to enjoy that book again.

*I found an interesting solution to the ‘review full of praise, but bad rating at the end’ (or vice versa) problem in Option A – what if that’s not a sign of reviewer’s dishonesty, as some suggested, but the other way around? You can try and expose the flaws in your review, but since you like the book, you’ll give it a good rating, or the other way around – you’ll write a review and tell everyone how much you like the book, but since you know it has flaws you barely mentioned, you’ll rate it lower. Happened to me, too.

So, at the end we’re down to our duty as a reviewer (search for possible flaws so you can judge and present the book fairly) vs. our right as a reader (enjoy the book). What shall one choose?

I guess I’m more inclined to my right as a reader. I like to read better than I like to review (but that’s mostly because I like to read better than anything) and if enjoying books without analyzing them thoroughly means that I’m being blinded, so be it. There are books that are technically good, but otherwise annoying, and books that are really loveable but technically mediocre. I guess I prefer the latter ones. Maybe not everyone judges a book based on a feeling it left – but your average reader surely does. So if a book left a bad feeling with me, I look for flaws that were the reason, but if a book is good, I don’t really care. Do you?



___________________
I have to say that my reviews don’t always reflect the opinion I expressed above – it’s because I’m still relatively new to the world of reviewing and am yet to set my final criteria.

Also, there is a lot left to say on topic of reviewing books you like; it’s just that it’s hard for me to write it all down, especially in a foreign language, so I ask you that if you have any thoughts, comments or experience on the topic, do share it with us in the comments.

No-one here

It's not really a hiatus, more like a pause, but at the end, it comes to the same: no new reviews on the site. We don't even have time for a (not so) lazy linkage, and that alone should tell you something.

Some of it is summertime; the days are nice and warm and I'd like to say that this fact forced us to enjoy the summer outside in the sun, but I guess it just made us a bit lazy. I even went to the seaside, where I spent a week in a nice, air-conditioned room, reading one book after another. I even managed to start a few reviews - the problem is that finishing them is a whole other thing.

Some of it is that we're all busy with something: some with jobs, some (meaning ThRiNiDiR) with writing a diploma. Both can be pretty tiresome at times, even a job such as mine (I'm working in a small gift shop which rarely gets any customers).

Some of it is WoW. I'm not an addict (yet??), but it sure is easier to do a bit of raiding than to sit down and try hard to find the right words for your review (I envy the native-speakers!). And since two is a company, ThRiNiDiR also plays (not that he minds it ...).

And the last reason, who is entirely my own: my to-read list is full of books that deserve a lot of time and thought, but I'm currently in a mood for easier reads. I'm a bit stuck, but I'm fairly sure it'll pass, as this pause will.

I'd like to say that these are not just excuses, but in truth, I'm not entirely sure. I, however, can assure you that we'll be back. Give us some time, but don't forget about us. :)

P.s.: I apologise for awful grammar; it's just that there's no one around to do the corrections.

Wrath of the Lich King (Cinematic Trailer)

-
For those interested, Blizzard -- the creators of the world's most epic Massive Online Role-Playing Game (the number of players has capped 10million this year) -- has released a cinematic trailer for the tremendously anticipated 2^nd expansion to World of Warcrat entitled "The Wrath of the Lich King". Now, even if you are not a fan of computer games you must admit that the trailer, telling the tale of Arthas' awakening -- the main bad-guy you'll get to fight in the expansion -- entaling great narration and even better visuals, looks completely stunning. The thing managed to raise my hackles, will it do the same for you?

Link to the trailer.

If you haven't seen the cinematic trailers for the original game and the 1^st expansion "The Burning Crusade" I'm linking you You Tube versions:
-

- -

- -
~ Thrinidir ~

Ian Cameron Esslemont - Return of the Crimson Guard (Book Review)

"Return of the Crimson Guard" (Amazon: UK, US)

by Ian Cameron Esslemont
Format: Hardcover, 304 pages
Publisher: PS publishing, Bantam Books

-
---Avowed are coming for their vengeance. It's been a better part of a century since the Crimson Guard took their vow. They scattered across the world, looking for allies, conscripts and power, knowing that they can't stand against the entire might of the empire. But the empire is overstretched and purely defended. Whirlwind took Coltain's host and after Tavore's Bounhunters (with a little help) destroyed Sha'ik they became outlawed. Of Onearms/Parans host little remain after the plague and the homeland suffers in wake of the constant warfare.

---Now the four winds are bringing the Avowed back, for that dish best served cold. But there is still some might in the troubled land, so a quick and precise strike is called for. Straight in the heart of the empire, it's capital - Unta. But the centre is unwell also. Empress Lassen is by all impressions losing her grip on the rains. New players are raising their heads and by all accounts they're playing for keeps. Some with cloaks and daggers, other openly with armies. The weakening of centre has brought about an insurrection on the other side of the continent. Among the rebels there are some dream of past might, some of gods better left caged and some of vengeance against the empress. More and more it seems that this will be another bloody conflict between Surly and followers of her predecessor. With an army the empress sails for Cawn, following the insurgents inland, toward Li Heng.
---Crimson guard must perforce follow, for raising Unta to the ground, but not killing empress would serve no purpose. But their heart is also unwell. Their leader K'azz D'avore has gone missing decades ago and returning or not, nobody knows what is his true will. Nonetheless, the decision has been made and under poorly maintained walls of Li Heng a mighty conflict is starting.

~~~

I'll tell you two things directly, to avoid misunderstanding:
-

1. As you well know, the impression that one forms during reading is always influenced by his mood. This brings us to point number 2
   
2. I dislike reading from my computer (and yes, I've had to read this one from my faithful monitior)

-
This out of the way, let's get to the essence of things: "Return of the Crimson Guard" is basically – tepid.

Ian Cameron Esslemont has decided to write an epic book. Taking us over several continents (or at least island chains) he brings us to the continent of Quon Tali. We visit numerous locations, previously only hinted at – Unta, the dreaded Stormwall, more of otataral mines, Wickan planes and of course Li Heng and lands of Seti. And all of these will leave you unsatisfied.
Unta and Li Heng have no soul, Stomwall it's function and his assailants still remain a mystery, otataral mines seem more like an prison camp for elderly and senile, and lands of Seti and Wickans nothing but a green blots in the distance. True, the main worldbuilding has been done by Esslemont and Erikson years ago, but still one expects something more tangible when it comes to local geography. So don't expect Seven Cities or Darujhistan from MBoF, or even Malaz city from "Night of Knives". Here the places are no more than badly painted scenography in front of which the story unravels.

And the story itself again is epic. It's the clash of mighty: Lassen and her army, the insurgents that outnumber them greatly, besieged city forced to desperate solutions and of course almost ascended-level Crimson Guard… and all this for nought.
The descriptions of the clashes are usually too disorganised, sometimes, especially in the last part of the book that describes the conflict around Li Heng Esslemont jumps so much from one part of the battlefield to another that you completely loose the main thread for every single piece of mosaic, and for turning of wheels and consequences it brings. The unveiling of the Kurald Galain for instance, that is suppose to present a monumental milestone in the conflict is watered down completely when the story simply runs its course unabated making it look as an afterthought. And less we say about Tayschrenns dues ex machine appearance toward the end the better.
I realise that one of the main objections readers had over the "Gardens of the Moon" was that everybody was too much of a bada*s, but here even those that are supposed to be leave at the best a shallow impression. In general characters for all their might and fame bring little or nothing of it in the story. Laseen (IMHO intentionally) remains a mystery. Kellanved's warleaders: Urko and Toc the Elder, that had subtly became almost legends themselves, play insignificant roles – not in appearance but on epic level. Toc is shown almost as a sidefigure, on occasion (especially in the end) almost pathetic (:sniff: you promised, come back :sniff:). Urko, that had supposedly avoided assassins some two dozen times and leads a big part of the insurgents seems brooding at best and inclined to rely – like the author – on the myth that his name became, leaving most of the leading and work to others, punching away on the frontlines like some kind of blue skinned Chuck Norris. What had happened to the personality, talent and charisma that enabled them to become prominent generals Esslemont only knows.

As usual for the E&E books the entire 'cast' of characters takes on an almost epic quantity, but their interaction I can again only describe as tepid. Interaction between new conscripts and supposedly estranged avowed leaves no such impression, Erekos group is meant to be closely knit but it seems almost vaporous and Malazan solders have lost their usual spunk and cynicism (with one exception – I love the entire 'incest' dialogue).

I have thought for two weeks what to write for the conclusion after all this critique. "Return of the Crimson Guard" is not a bad read, but it's not a good one either. It is a meeting of old friends, comfortable and cozy. You fall in the routine of decoding the world without much effort, but also with a feeling of a listening to an old joke. Again.
-
-
So from me it gets:

-
-
Related posts:

• Review of The Midnight Tides
• Review of The Bonehunters
• In The Limelight - Toll the Hounds
• Review of Blood Follows

PS: You can also read an interview that Fantasybookspots Jay Tomio had with Ian Cameron Esslemont here
-
-
~ Blindman ~

Hugo Awards 2008

-
-
The Hugo Award Winners for 2008 just came in:

-

• BEST NOVEL: "The Yiddish Policeman's Union" by Michael Chabon (HarperCollins, Fourth Estate)

• BEST NOVELLA: "All Seated on the Ground" by Connie Willis (Asimov's Dec. 2007, Subterranean Press)

• BEST NOVELETTE: "The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate" by Ted Chiang (F&SF Sept. 2007) [our review]
  

• BEST SHORT STORY: "Tideline" by Elizabeth Bear (Asimov's June 2007)

• BEST RELATED BOOK: "Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction" by Jeff Prucher (Oxford University Press)

• BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM: "Stardust" Written by Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman Directed by Matthew Vaughn (Paramount Pictures)

• BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM: Doctor Who "Blink" Written by Stephen Moffat Directed by Hettie Macdonald (BBC)

• BEST PROFESSIONAL EDITOR, SHORT FORM: Gordon Van Gelder

• BEST PROFESSIONAL EDITOR, LONG FORM: David G. Hartwell

• BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST: Stephan Martiniere

• BEST SEMIPROZINE: Locus

• BEST FANZINE: File 770 edited by Mike Glyer

• BEST FAN WRITER: John Scalzi [our review of "Old Man's War"]
  

• BEST FAN ARTIST: Brad Foster

• JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER: Mary Robinette Kowal

-
Congrats' to all the winners!

Meditation on a subject of...

-
-
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

(William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet ; ACT II; SCENE II.)
-
-

Not being prolific reader – at least not of blogs – I've been pointed toward a debate on several of them. It all started when aidan at The Dribble of Ink posted a rather unflattering view of the "The Ten Thousand" by Paul Kearney (you can read ours here) and admitted not to have read the entire book. Author objected quite strongly since adian had skipped in his opinion the best part of the book, and claimed that such partial (my words) reading cannot serve as a foundation upon which a work can be reviewed. In ensuing (IMHO quite cordial) debate numerous participants stated some quite strong opinions one way or another, but basically the debate raised an important question:

Can bloggers – this creature with million voices and opinions – come to an agreement as to form and content of a mode of expression (in this case a review) and, in my opinion, more importantly ...SHOULD THEY?

From the beginning blogs have been praised and condemned at the same time. Critics claimed that they serve as nothing but soap boxes (or in some cases pulpits) from which kooks indulge their need for verbal exhibitionism and self-gratification, and so often cause important, even volatile problems to "fizz" away because "real" people didn't take them seriously any more. On the other hand the partisans viewed them as the most democratic form of expression. Everybody could now voice an opinion, on whatever subject they wanted, however they wished. And if problems "fizz" away, there is no blame on the bloggers but on those that cannot use this (over)abundance of information and opinions.

Now, I think that all of us agree that both sides have a point. God only knows that there are a lot of kooks out there :), that's why we stick to our neck of the wood. To our community connected with common interest, in this case SF & F & H (not necessarily in that order). Some of us are active, if not with our blogs than with comments, other just lurkers or occasional visitors. But if we/you wouldn't think that we have something to give, that little piece of that is unique only to us, and that we have the right (or even responsibility) to do it, then you wouldn't be reading this post.

And thinking about the situation described above, I find myself again in similarly ambivalent situation. Some comments to the abovementioned debate, especially those by Robert Walker, claim that this uniqueness should be (my words) harnessed. That an agreement, a convention, a standard should be agreed upon among the bloggers, which would set the basic guidelines for a specific mode of expression:

"What I am suggesting, though, is that following a “convention” like: We call a “review” a piece about a book we read in its entirety, and we call it something else when we didn’t finish the book, can be a good thing for everyone involved. That is the only “standard” I was suggesting. Why? Because I think that there is absolutely no freedom lost (no censoring going on, self- or otherwise), and it also allows for authors to feel that they have been treated fairly. I ask, what’s wrong with that? Again, not down some imaginary slippery slope, but simply on this one concrete issue."[here]

and

"Thus, maybe it *would* be a good time for the blog-reviewers themselves to set some standards. And no, there really isn’t anything wrong with that, because what that allows is progress based on common vocabulary. That’s a hallmark of any important issue/discussion. And I think that one of those standards should be that if you don’t finish a book, by all means, talk about it, say why, describe your shopping list…just don’t call it a “review.” Call it a “not-review” like you were going to. Fine! Great! Something new! That’s one of the great things about the freedom of the internet.
By setting this kind of standard, I think that you can free yourself from feeling any guilt, or worry, about writing whatever you want. Just call it what it is. It’s actually kind of a simple solution. A lot simpler than trying to re-define what a review is, which is a pretty slippery slope. One I don’t think needs to be taken. Gotta pick your battles in life."[here]

Such a sensible, simple request isn't it? Who in their right mind would dare think otherwise. Not me. Mr. Walker definitely has a point (even if I find his tone in the second paragraph of the last quote a bit scary) far be it from me to deny. Go and read some of the work we published on this blog of ours. I read the parts written by ThRiNiDiR and Trin, even the one written by MadWand. Four of us know each other. We may not be the best friends in the world, but we belong to a single cultural circle, we constantly share information and we managed to reach some kind of agreement how a certain "form" (news, review…) should look like. And still it is obvious that four completely different people are at work. And going a step further, one could also go as far as to say that such a convention, standard would help writers create better, more readable books…

But… (not very original I know)

After you finish with this, go and read some of my past reviews.

Carping SOB, aren’t I?

You see, when I describe the book I do it as if the visitor of the blog had already read it. Usually only hinting at the good points, but trying to thoroughly substantiate those in my opinion faulty. Do I, with such writing also misuse the word review? Must I call it musing or somesuch? It is obvious that my writing can be misinterpreted (look at comments here), so must every publication of mine from now on include an apology? Will I from now on be considered "unprofessional"? Should I be ignored? Spammed in comment section?

Well, I refuse to brood on such things!

It is true, symphony can only be created with harmony. And this is where the path that Mr. Walker wants us to follow leads – to a harmonious, respectable, safe and predicable place. There is no doubt in my mind that some among you yearn for such a place, where your words, your work will become respected, quoted and this labour of love finally accepted and rewarded. And yes, I wish for same. But I refuse to leave the beautiful cacophony (never anarchy) and freedom that blogginng provides. I intend to create my one tune, even if a bit fussy, and entwine it with those others create, and if the ultimate judges – the readers/visitors – decide that I am at fault they're free to say so as well, in each and every instance, and so become the note in this tune of mine. And if they decide that my work is to be rewarded and respected, so much the better.

So, reasonable as it may sound I refuse the idea of even miniscule kind of convention or standard to be set beyond the domain of every individual blog. Are we again to be exposed to the tyranny of majority!? No! Each blog and each blogger should (miss)use whatever terminology he/she decides upon and follow the standards and morality of his/hers own choice. If doing so make us look foolish or illiterate so be it. Leave a comment and tell us so, perhaps you'll fare better.

Catherynne M. Valente - The Orphan's Tales Duology (Book Review)

The Orphan's Tales: In The Night Garden (Amazon: US, UK)
& In the Cities of Coin and Spice (Amazon: US, UK)
by Catherynne M. Valente
Format: Paperback, 496 pages & 528 pages
Publisher: Spectra Books

-
-
Once, there was a palace of a sultan, and around the palace, a garden was spread wide and blooming. In this garden, full of beautiful flowers, exotic trees and singing birds, there was also one young, wild girl. No one knew her name and origins - even more, they all turned away from her and never let her set foot onto the palace floor. That was because this girl had dark circles around her eyes like a raccoon, and so people whispered she was a demon, a devil, a cursed one.

But despite all that, one day there came a young boy from the palace who didn't fear the girl. She revealed her secret to this young prince and then told him stories she read in the ink around her eyes ...

~~~

As a kid, how fond were you of fairytales? Personally, I loved them. I had a book where there was a tale for each day, a set of 'seasonal' books which included a book of tales for each season, Grimms' Fairy Tales and The Great Big Treasury of Beatrix Potter. Later on, these were replaced by a depressing book, written by Oscar Wilde (The Happy Prince and Other Tales) and a huge, nameless collection of folk tales, edited and collected by Italo Calvino. Maybe you've red other stories, ones I have no clue about, but I'm sure about one thing - my younger self would kill for "Orphan's Tales" and made it reasonable with only one sentence: it's the ultimate storybook. And by this I most certainly don't mean to say that this duology is meant for children only - it's more like a book for children of all ages.

At first glance, "Orphan's Tales" doesn't differ from an ordinary storybook, despite being published in two volumes. The story begins like all classicall tales, there are pretty illustrations accompanying the text, a nicely done deckled edge and the books as a whole are overall quite adorable. But as you immerse deeper and deeper into Valente's wonderful world, you realise there is something more to the tales. There are small details and trinkets we usually don't find in fairytales - e.g. when a girl dances with a Firebird, she inevitably gets severe burns. It's a realistich touch that makes the tales much more believable, despite the fantastic elements and the often grotesque settings and creatures. A touch of light irony is also sensed at times, as Valente plays with the romantic, idealistic view which is found in classical fairytales. In "Orphan's Tales", the brave princes are often stupid, pretty princesses turn out to be half-monsters and your friend in need is the ugliest, most savage beest in the whole forest. But despite all this, the "Orphan's Tales" is essentially a 'serious' storybook, unlike Sapkowski's "Last Wish", where classical tales are turned upside-down and modernised, sometimes even made fun of.

One thing I really adored in "Orphan's Tales" is how incredibly intertwined the stories are. There is a frame narrative that supports a horde of substories, which sometimes lead to a bit of confusion, especially when you fail to remember what exactly all those were about. Both books can also be a bit long-winded if read in one big gulp and one after another, but on the other hand, it's good to read them in that way, lest you forget what exactly happened in the previous volume and miss a lot of little details that connect the stories. For example, the characters from different stories often meet later on or tell tales of one another, which I found thrilling - it's a great cohesive touch and the read is packed with realisations in the vein of "Hey, I know that one!".

While a lot of authors, even some of the masters of the trade, have trouble with writing good endings and therefore often fail to do so; Valente avoids writing a 'bad ending' with grace and certainly succeeds in writing an almost perfect ending. Since I liked the frame narrative a lot and could hardly wait to see how it ends, the fact that ending is well-written is even more important to me. It all clicks together perfectly, creating a rather surprising and (at least for me) very exciting mosaic. The only thing I would wish different is a bit happier ending for Dinrzard, but I guess one can't have everything. Anyways, "Orphan's Tales" is a superb duology and I heartily reccomend it to everyone who wishes to please his/hers inner child.
-
-
-
-
- Trin -