Whisperzzzzzzz, on 23 October 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:
Mentalist, on 23 October 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:
Macros, on 23 October 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:
I disliked Tom Louise first book so much that even though I had the second book on my shelf I gave it away to a charity shop unread.
Should I try again?
Hard question. I can't answer it without a pretty major series spoiler.
I also did not like Bk 2 the first time I read it. It introduces a set of new characters, and a very interesting "villain". But the plot feels VERY derivative from SE (the main plot device is "convergence"
-then I read the Bk 3 prologue, which features the kind of plot stupidity I hate, so I gave up on the series for good.
Then, sometime later, when browsing in a store, Iread the blurb of Bk 3 and spoiled myself to the fact that
This made me want to give the series another chance. I re-read Bk 2, and liked it a lot more (I guess the first time I read it was soon after a new Malaz novel, which is why it didn't compare well). And Bk 3 sold me, by completely taking the focus off Isak, expanding the world-building, and making a whole bunch of better characters (both "good" and "evil") take center stage.
So, it's a hard series to recommend, because the first 2 books are mostly about Isak, and I hated Isak. Imho, the series improves drastically (and takes the focus off Isak, thank God), by book 3, but I can't say without reservation that it's worth slogging through for everyone. I have a tendency to forgive a lot of stuff, if world-building is iinteresting- and in this case, it certainly was. Even so, I can't describe characterization in BK1 anything other than "atrocious drivel". Bk 2 improves to be a solid 3/5, because it introduces more side-plots. Bk 3 takes the series to Ericson-like places.
But whether it's worth trying to get there- I can't speak for everyone.
Can one just start at book 3?
Bk 2 might be a better start point, b/c it actually introduces the "threat" of the series, so to speak. There's still a bunch of background info in 1 that I'm not sure is explained again- it's referred to, but not in as much detail.
Might be worth a try, though.