The ULTIMATE (and somewhat bloated) Best Of 2008 List [part 2]

-
-
Link to the disclaimer and part 1.

Tia (Fantasy Debut) composed a list of best fantasy debuts that she read in 2008 (the books weren't necessarily published that year). Among others she mentions "The Outback Stars" (Sandra McDonald, best romance), "The Sellsword" (Cam Banks, best surprise romance), "The Name of the Wind" (Patrick Rothfuss, best character development story), "Elom" (William H. Drinkard, best sf epic), "Black Ships" (Jo Graham, best historical fantasy) and "The Sword-Edged Blonde" by Alex Bledsoe as her overall favorite debut. You are now well versed, I hope, in what to do if you are interested in the rest of her 'best of' list (=follow the link).

Joe Sherry from Adventures in Reading - he is the only person I feel almost obliged to reffer to with name and last name (don't ask me why, because I don't know either) - was a busy-little-bee and compiled three different lists; the first one is about his top nine books that were published in 2008, the second one lists his nine best reads of 2008 and the final one elaborates on top nine authors he discovered in 2008. The best nine books he read are as follows: (1) "Shadow Unit: Season One" (Emma Bull, Elizabeth Bear, Will Shetterly, Sarah Monette, and Amanda Downum; an ongoing story that is available online), (2) "The Stratford Man" (Elizabeth Bear), (3) "Blade of Tyshalle" & "Caine Black Knife" (Matthew Stover, the second and the third book of "Acts of Caine" saga), (4) "War of the Oaks" (Emma Bull), (5) "Not Flesh Nor Feathers" (Cherie Priest), (6) "The Armageddon Rag" (GRRM), (7) "The Uglies Series" (Scott Westerfeld, YA), (8) "Little Brother" (Cory Doctorow, YA sf) and (9) "Wastelands" (ed.John Joseph Adams, SF anthology). Top nine books published in 2008 as seen by Joe Sherry are: (1) "The Stratford Man" (Elizabeth Bear), (2) "Caine Black Knife" (Matthew Stover), (3) "Little Brother" (Cory Doctorow), (4) "Wastelands" (ed.John Joseph Adams), (5) "Zoe's Tale" (Joe Scalzi), (6) "Fast Ships, Black Sails" (ed.Ann and Jeff Vandermeer), (7) "The Best of Lucius Shepard" (Lucius Shepard, Shepard's retrospective of short stories), (8) "Before They Are Hanged" (Joe Abercrombie) and (9) "Order 66" (Karen Traviss, Star Wars tie-in). Top nine authors Joe Sherry discovered in 2008 are Emma Bull, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Westerfeld, Ellen Klages, Nancy Kress, L.Timmel Duchamp, Nick Mamantas, Liz Williams and Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu. Check the links for the commentiaries on his choices and all that.

SFSignal (if you are a fan of speculative fiction you should follow this site, period) and it's MIND MELD articles are one of the best things out there, so make sure you don't miss "MIND MELD: The Best Genre-Related Books/Films/Shows Consumed in 2008 (Part I, Part II and Part III)". In these articles there are some recognisable names extrapolating on the topic of the article. Some of the many books mentioned are: "Thunderer" (Felix Gilman), "Spin" (R.C.Wilson), "Zoe's Tale" (John Scalzi), "The Alchemy of Stone" (Ekaterina Sedia), "Staked" (Jeremy Lewis), "Mainspring" (Jay Lake), "Halo" (Tobias S.Buckell), "The Story of Edgar Sawtelle" (David Wrobliewski), "Fast Forward 2" (ed.Lou Anders, short story collection), "Muse of Fire" (Dan Simmons, novella), "The Well-Built City Trilogy" (Jeffrey Ford), "Ink and Steel" and "Hell and Earth" (Elizabeth Bear), "The Steel Remains" (Richard Morgan), "River of Gods" (Ian McDonald), "Little Brother" (Cory Doctorow), "Debatable Space" (Philip Palmer), "The Domino Men" (Jonathan Barnes), "The Blue War" (Jeffrey Thomas), "The House of Suns" (Alastair Reynolds), "Binding Energy" (Daniel Marcus, short story collection), "Pump Six and Other Stories" (Paolo Bacigalupi, short story collection), "The Graveyard Book" (Neil Gaiman), "Singularity Ring" (Paul Melko), "Spin" (Robert Charles Wilson), "Song of Kali" (Dan Simmons), "Very Hard Choices" (Spider Robinson), "The Android's Dream" (John Scalzi), "Sly Mongoose" (Tobias S.Buckell), "The Golden Chord" (Paul Genesee), "The Thirteenth Reality" (James Dashner), "Ten Stigmas" (Paul Melko, short story collection), "The Innocent Mage" and "The Awakened Mage" (Karen Miller), "Implied Spaces" (Walter Jon Williams), "Tooth and Claw" (Jo Walton), "In the Courts of the Crimson Kings" (S.M. Stirling), "Old Man's War" (John Scalzi), "The Lies of Locke Lamora" (Scott Lynch), "Elantris" (Brandon Sanderson), "The New Weird" and "Steampunk" (ed.Ann and Jeff Vandermeer, short story collections), "The Del Rey Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy" (ed.Ellen Datlow, short story collection), "The Drowned Life" (Jeffrey Ford, short story collection), "Shadowbridge" and "Lord Tophet" (Gregory Frost) etc. (Note that not all books were actually released, only read, in 2008). Last but not least, John's (the guy who runs the site) 'best of': "Rollback" (Robert J. Sawyer), "Laika" (Nick Abadzis), "Spectrum 14" (ed.Cathy and Arnie Fenner), "The Lathe of Heaven" (Ursula K. LeGuin), "Little Brother" (Cory Doctorow), "The Affinity Bridge" (George Mann), "Necroscope" (Brian Lumley), "Planet of the Apes" (Pierre Boulle) and "The Watchmen" (Alan Moore)...more.

If Pat has his 'Hotties' than Blood of the Muse has its 'Bloodies' (no wonder then, that Pat's Fantasy Hotlist recieved the Bloodie for 'best speculative fiction blog'; 'best reviews', accordingly to the Blood of the Muse, are written by the guys at Fantasy Book Critic - congrats). Bloodies cover many categories so I'll just stick to the major ones: Charlie Huston ("Every Last Drop") is 'the most underappreciated author', Tobias Buckell ("Sly Mongoose") is 'the most improved author', Brent Weeks ("The Way of Shadows") is 'the best new author', Scott Bakker ("Neuropath" and "The Prince of Nothing" series) is 'the best writer in overall', "The Steel Remains" (Richard Morgan) was 'the most disappointing novel' for Paul, "The Ten Thousand" (Paul Kearny) was 'the most surprising novel' in 2008, 'best debut' was "The Way of Shadows" (Brent Weeks), award for 'the best urban fantasy' novel goes to "Every Last Drop" by Charlie Huston, 'best sf novel' of 2008 is "Sly Mongoose" (Tobias Buckell), 'Bloodie' for ' the best fantasy novel' goes to "Last Argument of Kings" (Joe Abercrombie) and 'the best novel of them all' is "Neuropath" by Scott Bakker (Bloodies stay true to Hotties here). Blood of the Muse's top reads of 2008 are as follows: (1) "Neuropath" (Scott Bakker), (2) "Last Argument of Kings" (Joe Abercrombie), (3) "The Given Day" (Dennis Lehane), (4) "Every Last Drop" (Charlie Huston), (5) "The Ten Thousand" (Paul Kearney), (6) "Sly Mongoose" (Tobias Buckell), (7) "The Way of Shadows", "Shadow’s Edge" and "Beyond the Shadows" (Brent Weeks), (8) "Busted Flush" (ed.George R.R.Martin), (9) "The January Dancer" (Michael Flynn) and finally (10) "The Company" (K.J. Parker). For more, visit Blood of the Muse.

Dark Wolf's 'Top 10' 2008 reads are: (1) "The Shadow of the Wind" (Carlos Ruiz Zafon), (2) "Through a Glass, Darkly" (Bill Hussey), (3) "The Darkness That Comes Before" (Scott Bakker), (4) "The Name of the Wind" (Patrick Rothfuss), (5) "Winterbirth" and "Bloodheir" (Brian Ruckley), (6) "The Inferior" (Peadar Ó Guillin), (7) "The Warded Man" (Petter V.Brett, alt.title "The Painted Man"), (8) "The Secret History of Moscow" (Ekatarina Sedia), (9) "The Last Wish" (Andrzej Sapkowski) and at number (10) there is "Night of Knives" by Ian C.Esslemont.
-
-
-
To be contiuned...
-

The ULTIMATE (and somewhat bloated) Best Of 2008 List [part 1]

-
-

There are already a few cumulative "Best of 2008" lists out there; there is one at Fantasy Book News & Reviews (and a follow-up to the first one), another one at Tia's Fantasy Debut, Larry of OF Blog of the Fallen has one as does someone else I shouldn't have missed, but I did, I'm sure - BUT the list I'm compiling here on after (and which I'll be updating regularly as I stumble upon new noteworthy content) strives to be the most wholesome of all, a little encyclopedia of 2008 "best of" lists if you wish. At the end of the list I'll try to summarize (in as vague fashion as possible) which books you should consider worthy of reading and maybe which ones you should stay away from. This might be a bit much to process in one reading (who said that you should anyway), but I really think a list like this might come in handy to many of you (I'm not doing this for myself - Best of 2007 for those interested - :)). Here we go...-

edit: because of the lenght of text I've decided to cut it up and serve it in more palatable portions (around 3 or 4, haven't decided yet). If your blog isn't mentioned it probably will be in one of the follow-up posts, if not, notify me.

~~~

Benjamin from The Deckled Edge has a fine selection of memorable reads of 2008. Above all, he praises "Shadow of the Wind" (Carlos Ruiz Zafon) as the best overall novel, "Last Argument of Kings" (Joe Abercrombie) as the best fantasy novel, "Wild Cards" (ed.George R.R.Martin) as best sf novel, "Lavinia" (Ursula K.LeGuin,) as best unexpected novel and "The Fade" by Chris Wooding as the most underrated novel of the year. Runner-ups include some terrific novels, such as "The Separation" (Christoper Priest), "An Autumn War" (Daniel Abraham), "The Ten Thousand" (Paul Kearney), "Sharp Teeth" (Toby Barlow) and others.

The reticent Darren Turpin recapped his reading experience of 2008 on his blog The Genre Files. He thinks much especially of Guy Gavriel Kay's "Ysabell" and Peter Crowther's mini-collection "The Land at the End of the Working Day".

Andrew's (The Antick Musings of G.B.H. Hornswoggler, Gent.) twelve favorite - read his post for month-to-month walktrough and if you are in any way curious why he uses the word 'favorite' instead of 'best' - books of the year were: "The Speed Queen" (Stewart O'Nan), "The Dragons of Babel" (Michael Swanwick), "Three Shadows" (Cyril Pedrosa), "Good-Bye" (Yoshihiro Tatsumi), "Sharp Teeth" (Toby Barlow), "Buying In" (Rob Walker), "Skyscrapers of the Midwest" (Joshua W. Cotter), "Zot! 1987-1991" (Scott McCloud), "Nothing to Be Frightened Of" (Julian Barnes), "Caine Black Knife" (Matthew Stover), "Best American Comics: 2008" (ed.Lynda Barry) and "Bottomless Belly Button" (Dash Shaw).

SFX awarded the following ten 2008 sf or fantasy novels for being exceptional (the awarded novels were voted by the readers of the magazine): (1) "Making Money" (Terry Pratchett), (2) "Flood" (Stephen Baxter), (3) "Matter" (Iain M Banks), (4) "The Last Theorem" (Arthur C Clarke/Frederik Pohl), (5) "Empire of Ivory" (Naomi Novik), (6) "House of Suns" (Alastair Reynolds), (7) "The Red Wolf Conspiracy" (Robert VS Redick), (8) "Last Argument of Kings" (Joe Abercrombie), (9) "The Name of the Wind" (Patrick Rothfuss) and finally (10) "Anathem" (Neal Stephenson).

Plinnydog (Speculative Fiction Junkie) praises "The Resurrectionist" (Jack O'Connell), "Through A Glass, Darkly" (Bill Hussey), "The Name of the Wind" (Patrick Rothfuss), "The Shadow of the Wind" (Carlos Ruiz Zafon) and "Pump Six and Other Stories" (Paolo Bacigalupi, short-story collection) as his favorite 5 reads of 2008. Follow the link to find some of the reviews.

Patrick from Pat's Fantasy HOTlist awarded HOTties (2008 Year-End Awards) for top ten sf&f books among other categories. His top ten list is as follows: (1) "Toll the Hounds" (Steven Erikson) - *(1) "Neuropath" (Scott Bakker) would make the list as number one, but it isn't a specfic title as he claims -, (2) "The Secret History of Moscow" (Ekaterina Sedia), (3) "Return of the Crimson Guard" (Ian Cameron Esslemont), (4) "MultiReal" (David Louis Edelman), (5) "Last Argument of Kings" (Joe Abercrombie), (6) "Bloodheir" (Brian Ruckley), (7) "Inside Straight" (ed.George R. R. Martin), (8) "The Ten Thousand" by Paul Kearney, (9) "The Shadow Year" (Jeffrey Ford), (10) "The Edge of Reason" (Melinda Snodgrass). There are ten more follow-ups posted, but you'll have to follow the link to find out who they are (Pat's other Hottie categories are well worth the read as well). I totally agree on Pyr Books getting the publisher of the year award as they are absolutely entitled to it from my limited experience with the publishing world. "A World Too Near" by Kay Kenyon was awarded with the most underrated novel award - review of the first book ("Bright of the Sky") in the same trilogy is coming on this blog shortly.

Amras (A Slight Apocalypse) mentions the following sf&f titles as "Best of '08": (1) "The Gone-Away World" (Nick Harkaway), (2) "Little Brother" (Cory Doctorow) and (3) "Last Argument of Kings" (Joe Abercrombie). Follow the link for the short commentary on each of the book.
-
-
-
To be continued...
-

HAPPY NEW YEAR

As the title says - happy new year to all of you out there.
We wish you all enough success to be able to afford the money to buy and time to read all those great titles coming up this next year, also a bit of luck, a tad of patience (especially with this blog of ours :D), and above all - a lot of health.

HAVE A GREAT 2009 FOLKS!

Book Reviewer Link Meme

John at Grasping for the Wind is compiling a master list of science fiction and fantasy book review blogs. Here’s how he explains it:

"My list of fantasy and sf book reviewers is woefully out of date. I need your help to fix that. But rather than go through the hassle of having you send me recommendations or sticking them in comments, what you can do is take the following list and stick it on your website, then add yourself to the list, preferably in alphabetical order. That way, I will be able to track it across the web from back links, and can add each new blog to my roll as it comes along. So take this list, add it to your blog, and add a link to your blog on it. If you are already on the list, repost this meme at your blog so others can see it, and find new blogs from the links others put up on their blogs. Everybody wins! Be sure to send the list around to others as well. There is an easy to copy window of all the links and text at the bottom of this post to make it even simpler to do.

I would be ever so grateful if you would help me out."

You can get the HTML for the most recently updated version of the list here.

~~~

And now the list (as of this moment):

• 7 Foot Shelves
• The Accidental Bard
• A Boy Goes on a Journey
• A Dribble Of Ink
• A Hoyden's Look at Literature
• Adventures in Reading
• The Agony Column
• Andromeda Spaceways
• The Antick Musings of G.B.H. Hornswoggler, Gent.
• Ask Daphne
• aurealisXpress
• Australia Specfic in Focus
• Author 2 Author
• Barbara Martin
• Bees (and Books) on the Knob
• Bibliophile Stalker
• Bibliosnark
• BillWardWriter.com
• The Billion Light-Year Bookshelf
• Bitten by Books
• The Black Library Blog
• Blog, Jvstin Style
• Blood of the Muse
• The Book Bind
• Bookgeeks
• Bookslut
• The Book Smugglers
• Bookspotcentral
• The Book Swede
• Bookrastination
• Breeni Books
• Cheaper Ironies [pro columnist]
• Cheryl's Musings
• Critical Mass
• The Crotchety Old Fan
• Damien G. Walter
• Danger Gal
• Dark Wolf Fantasy Reviews
• Darque Reviews
• Dave Brendon's Fantasy and Sci-Fi Weblog
• Dear Author
• The Deckled Edge
• Dragons, Heroes and Wizards
• The Discriminating Fangirl
• Dusk Before the Dawn
• Enter the Octopus
• Eve's Alexandria
• Fantastic Reviews
• Fantastic Reviews Blog
• Fantasy Book Critic
• Fantasy Cafe
• Fantasy Debut
• Fantasy Book Reviews and News
• Fantasy and Sci-fi Lovin' Blog
• Feminist SF - The Blog!
• The Fix
• The Foghorn Review
• Frances Writes
• From a Sci-Fi Standpoint
• Fruitless Recursion
• The Galaxy Express
• Galleycat
• The Gamer Rat
• Genre Reviews
• Graeme's Fantasy Book Review
• Grasping for the Wind
• The Green Man Review
• Hasenpfeffer
• Highlander's Book Reviews
• Horrorscope
• The Hub Magazine
• Hyperpat's Hyper Day
• Ink and Keys
• io9
• Jumpdrives and Cantrips
• Lair of the Undead Rat
• League of Reluctant Adults
• Literary Escapism
• Michele Lee's Book Love
• The Mistress of Ancient Revelry
• MIT Science Fiction Society
• Monster Librarian
• More Words, Deeper Hole
• Mostly Harmless Books
• My Favourite Books
• Neth Space
• The New Book Review
• NextRead
• OF Blog of the Fallen
• The Old Bat's Belfry
• Outside of a Dog
• Paranormality
• Pat's Fantasy Hotlist
• Piaw's Blog
• Post-Weird Thoughts
• Publisher's Weekly
• Reading the Leaves
• Realms of Speculative Fiction
• Reviewer X
• The Road Not Taken
• Rob's Blog o' Stuff
• Robots and Vamps
• Sandstorm Reviews
• ScifiChick
• Sci Fi Wire
• SciFiGuy
• Sci-Fi Fan Letter
• Sci-Fi Songs [Musical Reviews]
• The Sequential Rat
• Severian's Fantastic Worlds
• SF Diplomat
• SF Gospel
• SF Reviews.net
• SF Revu
• SF Signal
• SF Site
• SFF World's Book Reviews
• Silver Reviews
• The Specusphere
• Spinebreakers
• Smart Bitches, Trashy Books
• Speculative Fiction
• Speculative Fiction Junkie
• Speculative Horizons
• Spiral Galaxy Reviews
• Spontaneous Derivation
• Sporadic Book Reviews
• Stella Matutina
• The Sudden Curve
• The Sword Review
• Tangent Online
• Tehani Wessely
• Temple Library Reviews
• Tor.com [also a publisher]
• True Science Fiction
• Un:Bound
• Urban Fantasy Land
• Vast and Cool and Unsympathetic
• Variety SF
• Walker of Worlds
• Wands and Worlds
• The Wertzone
• With Intent to Commit Horror
• WJ Fantasy Reviews
• The World in a Satin Bag
• WriteBlack
• Young Adult Science Fiction

-
Foreign Language (other than English)

• Cititor SF [Romanian, but with English Translation]
• Elbakin.net [French]
• Foundation of Krantas [Chinese (traditional)]
• The SF Commonwealth Office in Taiwan [Chinese (traditional) with some English essays]
• Yenchin's Lair [Chinese (traditional)]
• Aguarras [Brazilian, Portuguese]
• Fernando Trevisan [Brazilian, Portuguese]
• Human 2.0 [Brazilian, Portuguese]
• Life and Times of a Talkative Bookworm [Brazilian, Porteguese]
• Ponto De Convergencia [Brazilian, Portuguese]
• pós-estranho [Brazilian, Portuguese]
• Skavis [Brazilian, Portuguese]
• Fantasy Seiten [German, Deustche]
• Fantasy Buch [German, Deustche]
• Literaturschock [German, Deustche]
• Welt der fantasy [German, Deustche]
• Bibliotheka Phantastika [German, Deustche]
• SF Basar [German, Deustche]
• Phantastick News [German, Deustche]
• X-zine [German, Deustche]
• Buchwum [German, Deustche]
• Phantastick Couch [German, Deustche]
• Wetterspitze [German, Deustche]
• Fantasy News [German, Deustche]
• Fantasy Faszination [German, Deustche]Fantasy Guide [German, Deustche]
• Zwergen Reich [German, Deustche]
• Fiction Fantasy [German, Deustche]
  

Giles Kristian - Raven: Blood Eye (Book Review)

"Raven: Blood Eye" (Amazon: US, UK - preorder- )

by Giles Kristian (homepage)
Format: Hardcover, 352 pages
Publisher: Bantam Books (26.Feb 2009)

-
-

“Raven: Blood Eye” arrived in my mail at the best possible time, as a courtesy of Transworld publishing. It was a freezing and pretty miserable day, so it’s no wonder that my only desire was to sit at home and read a good book - but which one? I wasn’t ready for a sprawling epic such as Gardens of the Moon, but I did long for things epic fantasy genre usually provides – adventures, clash of arms, stuff like that – I was wishing for one might call ‘fantasy lite’. "Raven: Blood Eye" , despite being essentially a historical novel, came to be a very satisfying choice and I finished it the same evening (too bad, since that brought back the ‘which one now?’ dilemma).


First three things that I’d noticed were:

-the very impressive cover art

-the fact that it is about Vikings, Norse culture and Norse mythology (which is great, since I haven’t seen a book about Vikings (at least not a fiction one) in a long time now)

-the summary of the book, which was a lot longer than it should be. I still made the mistake of reading it, and even though it gives out no names, it still can be considered a huge spoiler – it conveys the majority of the plot. Yes, that is usually the point of a summary, but I still believe that there should be some surprises left for the reader to discover by himself. Next time, I’ll make sure to skip the summary and rather give in to the joy of not knowing what’s going on.


“Blood Eye”’s plot is fairy conventional: Raven is a young man who’s lost his memory and wholly accepted his new life, just to discover that he’s obviously not what he thought he was. When his village is visited by fair-headed, long-bearded Norsemen who wish to trade with Englishmen, Raven is much surprised to find out that he can speak their language, but more surprises are to follow – and not all of them will be pleasant.


Since the historical setting of ninth-century England saves a lot of trouble with world-building, Kristian had the opportunity to focus entirely on the plot, which basically means a story that compels you to read on and never gets boring. This is partly achieved with big time-leaps from one remarkable event to another, which can also be pretty confusing at times. Raven is developing mentally and physically during the voyage, and because of the time-leaps, it looks like he undergoes the changes unnaturally fast. Some of it are not just time-leaps: Raven grows fond of his new life rather too quickly, despite internal dilemma of which god to choose he was coping with at the beginning of his adventure, when him trying to be a devout Christian got interrupted by him being ordered to respect the Norse gods. Even more, he comes to believe that he is kind of trapped between the two religions, which is, seeing how real the gods feel to the people in the book, a surprisingly rational view for someone whose life turned upside down in the blink of an eye and started to fill with pagan deities.


The characters are otherwise mostly well-developed and likeable (except for the ‘bad guys’, of course, who are properly (and predictably) unlikeable), despite their unbelievably high survival rate. There is some minor confusion (e.g. how Asgot keeps changing his mind about Raven, seemingly on a whim, and how Sigurd can make himself understood to his Norsemen and to the British at the same time, despite the fact that most of the Norsemen don’t understand British language and vice versa); the final turn of events is pretty predictable as well, but all in all, “Raven: Blood Eye” is a nice enough read. It’s great to see a novel whose author is not afraid to make his characters a bloodthirsty bunch, yet at the same time manages to convince the reader to accept them, respect them and even side with them. And since Raven’s real journey is just beginning, I look forward to an even better sequel. “Raven: Blood Eye” is a promising debut and if Kristian keeps its qualities and corrects some of the mistakes, the sequel can become even more than just an enjoyable Viking novel.
-
-
-
-

- Trin -

Robin Hobb - The Farseer Trilogy (Book Review)

-
-
----

"Farseer Trilogy" by Robin Hobb
Book One: "Assassin's Apprentice" (Amazon: US, UK); paperback, 464 pages; Spectra/Voyager (1996)
Book Two: "Royal Assassin" (Amazon: US, UK); paperback, 675 pages; Spectra/Voyager (1997)
Book Three: "Assassin's Quest" (Amazon: US, UK); paperback, 757 pages; Spectra/Voyager (1998)

-
-
-
''The Farseer Trilogy'' is not the newest thing on the fantasy fiction scene anymore. I was aware of Robin Hobb's reputation long before I've actually picked something of hers up to read, and when I finally did, it was the 2nd trilogy (''The Liveship Traders Trilogy'') I decided to start with. I was advised that it is the best of her three thematically connected trilogies, and also that it has less in common with the preceding and the following trilogy. I've now finally read ''The Farseer Trilogy'' and while the latter statement is true, I found out that I cannot really agree with the former.

First thing I've noticed (and liked) is that Hobb focused on a single POV. That is the main reason why I could say I prefer ''The Farseer Trilogy'' to ''The Liveship Traders Trilogy'' – Fitz is a delightful character who, despite his often whining, never really annoyed me as much as, for example, Malta Vestrit in Liveship Traders did. A lone POV also means a smoothly flowing storyline – there are no annoying cliff-hangers that tempt you to skip the next few pages (I know some people enjoy cliff-hangers, but I don’t like them at all!), neither you prefer one POV to another (which can easily happen when there's plenty of them). On the other hand, a lone POV can easily get you bored and offers much less variety of opinions and, well, points of view.

Fitz's problems are that he's rather prone to wild underestimations of himself, whining and acting recklessly (killing your enemy's aides in the middle of the hall, which is, at the same time, packed with people, is a no-go, even if you are not an assassin, bred for discretion and so on). He also conjures up some profoundly illogical ideas, and I've never seen an assassin so trustful and so disdainful of taking at least a basic degree of security measures. However, he's only human after all, and a very troubled one on top of that, so these mistakes of his can be forgiven.

'Wit' and 'Skill' are two concepts that both play an essential role in this trilogy, being two crucial elements of Hobb's world-building and the closest thing to magic that can be found in the books. 'Skill' is a way of mind-reading or better, information-sharing, which runs in the royal family of Farseers and is used mostly to aid the ruling monarch, as a way of communication between him and his spies, generals, messengers and other Skilled individuals. 'Wit', on the other hand, is rumoured to be a remnant of the people who originally inhabited Six Duchies territory – it’s an ability to bond with animals, sharing thoughts, feelings and senses with the beast you bond to, and is in Six Duchies widely regarded as barbaric and abominable. Both Wit and Skill are well explained in the books, making a fairly fresh and innovative take on the matter of magic in comparison to other books where exceptional and unusual abilities are rarely explained and often seem to originate from nowhere.

"The Farseer Trilogy" books otherwise follow the usual pattern of trilogies. "Assassin’s Apprentice", the first book, introduces Fitz, his childhood and his first experiences with Wit and Skill, not to mention that it opens more than a few questions which are, of course, mostly left unanswered right up to the end of the trilogy. It also sets the scene for things to come and introduces some important elements such as Fitz’s first love and his relations with other people inside Buckkeep. The second book, "Royal Assassin", answers no questions but complicates things some more; it is also more action-packed than the first one. We witness battles against Red Ship Raiders (and, later on, the threat from Fitz’s other enemies) as well as Fitz’s internal struggles; the style flows smoothly between inner emotions and exterior action. The plot is intriguing, but at the same time woven through with some very predictable elements, for example, Rosemary’s role in the course of events. Hobb makes up for that with some quite unexpected twists and turns, but there are also some pieces of information that seem to be left forgotten – for example, Fitz’s weapon of choice is supposed to be an axe, but he only uses it once or twice (Hobb remembers that axe in "The Tawny Man Trilogy", though).

The majority of questions (including an explanation for the Forging) that are introduced in the opening volume are answered in the third book, "Assassin’s Quest". There are two exceptions, though: how come that Starling never wrote a song about Fitz? And why we had to wait so long for the chipmunk to complete his task? (The first of these is actually answered in "The Tawny Man Trilogy", as I later found out, but there is still no answer to the latter one.) Fitz also has a very uncanny (and unlikely) ability to survive in just about every situation, not to mention his sudden mastery of Skill, but this is not really as bothersome as the boring walk through the woods and snow we encounter in the second half of "Assassin’s Quest". I think that was the only part of the three lengthy books that felt a lot long-winded, but luckily, that little misstep lead to a very fulfilling ending that met my expectations and concluded the trilogy nicely.

All in all, "The Farseer Trilogy" is a beautifully written and intriguing read. I’d recommend it as one of the must-reads for epic fantasy fans and fantasy readers in general. Don’t expect an all-time classic, though - it’s a great book and mostly a joy to read, but because of the flaws mentioned above, falls a bit short of masterpiece.
-
-
- -
-
-
- Trin -

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.