[kcf]

I finished The Winds of Khalakovo amost 2 months ago, but getting a review written for was tough, I eventually went in a bit of different direction. I like the book - it's a pretty solid debut and I certainly recommend it. But...

Quote

Overall, The Winds of Khalakovo is quite successful – the characters are well-rounded and interesting, the Imperial Russian-inspired culture feels fresh (even though non-western settings has become quite popular in the past year or two), the gypsy-like culture of the indigenous Aramahn is well-done, and the action is as much political as physical.

And it's the politics that I've kept coming back to in my almost 2-months of thinking on this. The politics of The Winds of Khalakovo are widely praised as the biggest strength of this book. However, the reaction that I can't help but come to is this: if the politics in this book are praised as a complex addition to the fantasy genre, what does it say about the genre as a whole? Or to put it another way, if these are good politics, then fantasy must be full of really badly (or perhaps, simply) presented politics. And in my opinion, that is a very sad fact.

When I use the term politics, I'm not really speaking of the politics we are bombarded with by media in our society today (particularly during an election year here in the US). What I am speaking of are the complex relations of people in power, who want to be in power, who were once in power - from the top of society all the way down to the interactions among the least of a society. The shifting alliances, the lies, the truths, betrayal, idealism, heroism, morality, religion, sex, best intentions, selfishness, and flat-out evil, inhumane actions. It's the politics of people and their interactions. It’s what drives our world and it's what all too many fantasy novels completely lack. It's what turns a good story into a compelling novel.

In my opinion, the politics of The Winds of Khalakovo are not complex or particularly deep - I found them rather linear and predictable. But, they do play a central role in the book, much more so than in many other books which tend to focus much more heavily on individual goals and motivations (there's plenty of that here as well) rather than the complex interactions of many individuals, government, societies, etc. This has only made me realize more and more why those that are praised at the top of genre belong there - they do the politics well. George RR Martin and K.J.Parker immediately leap to the top in this respect. Other authors I love at least have their moments - David Anthony Durham, S.L. Farrell, and Robert Jordan (for all his faults it's the politics of that series that I enjoy the most).
Full Review

This post has been edited by kcf: 27 July 2012 - 08:51 PM

[Mark Lawrence]

kcf, on 27 July 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

I finished The Winds of Khalakovo amost 2 months ago, but getting a review written for was tough, I eventually went in a bit of different direction. I like the book - it's a pretty solid debut and I certainly recommend it. But...

Quote

Overall, The Winds of Khalakovo is quite successful – the characters are well-rounded and interesting, the Imperial Russian-inspired culture feels fresh (even though non-western settings has become quite popular in the past year or two), the gypsy-like culture of the indigenous Aramahn is well-done, and the action is as much political as physical.

And it's the politics that I've kept coming back to in my almost 2-months of thinking on this. The politics of The Winds of Khalakovo are widely praised as the biggest strength of this book. However, the reaction that I can't help but come to is this: if the politics in this book are praised as a complex addition to the fantasy genre, what does it say about the genre as a whole? Or to put it another way, if these are good politics, then fantasy must be full of really badly (or perhaps, simply) presented politics. And in my opinion, that is a very sad fact.

When I use the term politics, I'm not really speaking of the politics we are bombarded with by media in our society today (particularly during an election year here in the US). What I am speaking of are the complex relations of people in power, who want to be in power, who were once in power - from the top of society all the way down to the interactions among the least of a society. The shifting alliances, the lies, the truths, betrayal, idealism, heroism, morality, religion, sex, best intentions, selfishness, and flat-out evil, inhumane actions. It's the politics of people and their interactions. It’s what drives our world and it's what all too many fantasy novels completely lack. It's what turns a good story into a compelling novel.

In my opinion, the politics of The Winds of Khalakovo are not complex or particularly deep - I found them rather linear and predictable. But, they do play a central role in the book, much more so than in many other books which tend to focus much more heavily on individual goals and motivations (there's plenty of that here as well) rather than the complex interactions of many individuals, government, societies, etc. This has only made me realize more and more why those that are praised at the top of genre belong there - they do the politics well. George RR Martin and K.J.Parker immediately leap to the top in this respect. Other authors I love at least have their moments - David Anthony Durham, S.L. Farrell, and Robert Jordan (for all his faults it's the politics of that series that I enjoy the most).
Full Review

I plan to give this one a go when I get through my next three reads. Night Shade Books haven't let me down so far.

[amphibian]

I give this one 7 flying windships out of ten.

The setting and the Russian/Gypsy flavoring really are terrific. The politics, as KCM mentions, are relatively straightforwards and delivered well. The magic works somewhat like that of Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn combined with the Codex Alera magic of Jim Butcher.

However, there is a bit of strange hand-holding regarding the introduction of characters and concepts in the beginning third that struck me as Beaulieu (or editors) not trusting the reader enough to put the pieces together over time. Add in this incredibly annoying "Oh, we're going to go here, there and over this way because of Important Thing X That Nobody Has Mentioned Before" method of plot progression at the end and Rehada's inexplicable choices of action and you have me taking three stars off.

Pat said the following over on his review at Fantasy Hotlist:

Quote

À la Steven Erikson, Beaulieu plunges his readers into the heart of the tale without offering any explanation or information. This works well for some, yet many readers might find it off-putting. Especially since there are no info dumps or other such devices to help us along the way. For instance, I've read the entire novel, but I still have absolutely no idea how the magical system works.

Was Pat paying attention at all? It's explained several times with several different characters. There are info dumps right at the beginning that are awkwardly placed enough to draw my eye and I wasn't looking for them. Pat, you've gotta pay more attention to what you're reading.

I would like to read the next book, but I really do hope Beaulieu makes a technical leap in the midst. Mark Lawrence (the guy posting above!) had a better beginning with Prince of Thorns and still made a technical jump with King of Thorns.

Spoiler

I had enormous problems with Grigory picking up Nikandr on the Island of the Three (G something). If Ashan and Nikandr's ships crash, why doesn't Grigory's?

Also, Rehada is the worst. She basically exists as a plot device, rather than a true character and her death left me unaffected due to that lack of connection.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 04 October 2012 - 08:26 PM

[polishgenius]

I read this a while ago and while I liked it, I didn't think it was great. Something about the writing just put me off, just a little bit unpolished in both prose and story.

The ideas and setting were great though.