Posted 28 April 2004 - 04:05 AM
Far be it from me to disagree with all sorts of people who believe this to be Officially the Best Thing Ever; but I'm a disagreeable old sod, so I will. I realise that I'm probably going to be burned at the stake as a heretic for this (or at least receive the flaming of my life), but here goes.
Lets go by the criteria elucidated in one of the other threads, namely Plot,Character & Style.
Plot: Not a great deal to excite here, I'm afraid. The same old fantasy tropes wheeled out with different set dressings. No twists that weren't obvious, no real surprises.
Character: Others have lauded the character of Kellhus, and while he's unusual he's not exactly literary dynamite as a character. He's one of those cool ideas that appeal to the insecure adolescent in us all: the infinitely competent person who is always in control of himself and the events around him. Which makes him a little pointless if you're trying to build any kind of jeopardy into the plot - he's never really in any kind of danger, is he? Also the female characters are a bit one note: Serwe and Esmi seem to have "victim" tattooed on their foreheads.
Style: This is where it definitely falls down for me. Given the setting I was expecting a certain amount of exoticism in Bakker's phrasing and other use of language - for atmospheric purposes - but the whole thing came off a bit flat, to my mind. It didn't enfold me in the culture. Also, trying to make it a very character centred piece needs internal monologues that are almost fetishistically self-absorbed within the character and use a kind of enhanced language to get this across (a la Donaldson or Martin); Bakkers monologues just seemed IMO to say "the character feels this" and didn't make you feel along with them.
I really wanted to like this book, and whilst my review does seem a little hostile, I don't actually dislike it. I was just a bit disappointed. It's not a bad book, just one whose reach definitely exceeds it's grasp.
If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell