Title: The Eyre Affair
Author: Jasper Fforde
Date Begun: December 21, 2006
Date Completed: December 22, 2006
I've been reading an awful lot of books about other books recently. Don Quixote, The Age of Innocence (you think I'm on crack, but a lot of it is about books), The Friendly Young Ladies...I'm stopping, before you feel the need to point out that The Friendly Young Ladies is about lesbians, not books. Well, it is. But not just lesbians.
The Eyre Affair, however, is primarily about books. In fact, though the blurbs on the cover are eager to compare Thursday Next to Harry Potter, it's really more like James Bond. You know, provided James Bond ever read a book. Fforde has created a really fascinating world to back up his literary jokes, the divergent chronologies reminded me a little of Diane Wynn Jones' Chrestomanci books. (The "this book is like ___" formula is a cliché, but I feel that in this case it is appropriate. Fforde relies on books, and so will I.) That's a good thing - I like the Chrestomanci books. However, I do feel like it weakens the world a little. We learn that Richard III won the Battle of Bosworth Field, for example, so presumably the Tudors didn't take over but a Renaissance England under a Plantagenet king would have been very different...of course, perhaps that's why the identity of Shakespeare's plays is so hotly contested in the books. I don't know, but it did raise some questions for me that I would have preferred not been raised. Fforde already opened up an enormous can of worms by making time travel a common part of his world, I wish he'd stopped there.
See, the problem with time travel is that it sort of fixes all the problems if you use it. It's a deus ex machina, yeah. But when you don't use it and don't explain the not using it, then it gets very frustrating for the reader. I know there were passages where I felt like they could have just had the whole thing solved if Thursday dragged someone from the ChronoGuard into the mix. We're told time travel is dangerous but it still happens an awful lot, so why not use it? As it is the time travel was an amusing side plot to the story and I enjoyed it, but while we saw plenty of examples of it being dangerous that was never enough of a deterrent for its use. Not in the story, not out of it. Frustrating.
But, really, The Eyre Affair is very entertaining. I'm not sure Thursday is, exactly, a real character. She's sort of a vehicle for the plot, I feel. (Sort of like Candide.) But she's fun to read about and she gets to fix Jane Eyre so...I like her, I think. Certainly I can side with her. That's more than I can do with Candide.
The Eyre Affair on Amazon. Jasper Fforde's website.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Review: The Dark Queen: A Novel, Susan Carroll
Title: The Dark Queen: A Novel
Author: Susan Carroll
Date Begun: December 9, 2006
Date Completed: December 14, 2006
Yes, I am reviewing this after Mélusine. Yes, I finished The Dark Queen first.
Oh, man, you should have seen how irritated the cover of this book made my sister. She was like, "it's so historically inaccurate!" Well, it is, but it's still more accurate than the sequel. (Seriously? Not even whores were wearing that in 16th century France.) The cover is, of course, the least important aspect of the novel, but I thought that was an interesting note. Onward!
The Dark Queen is one of those romance novels masquerading as historial fiction. They're trying to fool you into thinking it's a typical inoffensive bit of historical fiction by sticking "A Novel" onto the title and using a painting for the cover. You know, like they do with Phillipa Gregory's books. (Except without the incest and gay siblings. Sadly, this book would have benefited from possible incest and gay siblings. Indeed, possible incest with gay siblings would have been ideal.) Oh, well, at least Carroll hasn't written in first person. Though, I do think that the characters suffer from the fact that she hasn't chosen to use a limited third person voice. Had Carroll written exclusively from Ariane's viewpoint, the constant misunderstandings over romance would have been much more understandable. But she switches viepoints between Ariane, Renard, Catherine and both of Ariane's siters (although they have only very brief passages). I understand how that might serve the plot but it definitely does not serve the characters. Especially not Renard.
I understand that a good deal of the tension of a romance novel often comes from the fact that the hero and heroine are actually in love with each other but don't realize this. Unfortunately, you have to be really good to make this work without having your characters come off as boring and/or stupid. A really good author can make you root for the two characters to get together even if you think they're both being really stupid - I mean, that's the whole basis of Pride & Prejudice and Jane Eyre, isn't it? Carroll, unfortunately, is not a "really good author". She's a decent writer, or at least she has very good ideas...but their execution suffers.
Seriously, the dialogue needs work. As does Carroll's general writing style. I could forgive her one or the other but not both. It's not that there are any truly jarring historical inaccuracies, because once you accept that there are (neo-)pagans in France in the 16th century and that Catherine de Medici is the villain it all sort of goes along pretty well. (I would like to know why there aren't any/many historical novels with sympathetic portrayals of Catherine. The only one I can think of is In the Courts of Power and she's only in that one for about 10 pages. Plus, it's in Danish and the translation is sometimes hard to find.) I feel like Carroll doesn't put in enough detail for the historical inaccuracies to crop up enough to bother people. Which is fine with me, because plot and characterization are infinitely more important.
Speaking of.
Ariane is fairly unusual for a romance heroine because she's pretty calm. I also feel that she's pretty realistic - her dialogue may have made me wince once or twice, but I never felt that she was acting like a moveable doll rather than a real person. She's authentic and I like her, even when she isn't very bright. I can forgive that up to a point. Carroll passes that point, but I mostly like Ariane anyway.
The only character whose characterization really bothers me is Renard. He starts out sort of a cool bad boy, you know? And then as the novel progresses he becomes more like, to quote Joss Whedon, a big fluffy puppy with bad teeth. Not sexy, Susan Carroll, not sexy at all. Who wants a big, strapping guy with a mysterious past who turns out to be sort of a wimp about girls? Not me. And I had such high hopes! The prologue makes him sound dangerous, plus his name is Justice Deauville, the Comte de Renard. He has a magic ring and a big sword! He tries to rope Ariane into marrying him! I was like, yes, bring on the cold calculating hero with his big sword and sexual tension! There are rumors flying around France about his mysterious past! Hooray! Oh...wait.
Catherine de Medici's bits are probably the most interesting, but maybe I'm just not in tune enough with nature. (Um, not that I'm bitter about the abuse of pagan mythologies.) But Catherine has to deal with her own desire for power, her insane son and the religious tensions in France and it's fascinating to watch her do so. She's a very appealing villain, I think Carroll does a great job there.
The frustrating thing about The Dark Queen is how much potential there is. One of the important aspects is a version of the legend of Melusine. Weirdly, Carroll doesn't mention (and, for some reason, neither does Wikipedia) the story that Melusine is an ancestor of the Plantagenets. That's certainly the story I hear most about her and it was puzzling not to have it mentioned at all. Carroll did greatly rework the legend for the purposes of the novel but I feel that the book would have benefited had she stuck more closely to the original telling. She does address the Wars of Religion that were beginning to ravage France - and thank god, because the St. Bartholomew's Massacre is sort of the climax of the book. But I wish she'd cut the witch hunters, because they were boring, and focused more on Catherine's court.
The Dark Queen is probably a good book for reading over winter break during a car ride to visit your relatives or in a plane or something. But unless I hear rave reviews about the sequels, I won't be checking either of them out.
The Dark Queen on Amazon.
Author: Susan Carroll
Date Begun: December 9, 2006
Date Completed: December 14, 2006
Yes, I am reviewing this after Mélusine. Yes, I finished The Dark Queen first.
Oh, man, you should have seen how irritated the cover of this book made my sister. She was like, "it's so historically inaccurate!" Well, it is, but it's still more accurate than the sequel. (Seriously? Not even whores were wearing that in 16th century France.) The cover is, of course, the least important aspect of the novel, but I thought that was an interesting note. Onward!
The Dark Queen is one of those romance novels masquerading as historial fiction. They're trying to fool you into thinking it's a typical inoffensive bit of historical fiction by sticking "A Novel" onto the title and using a painting for the cover. You know, like they do with Phillipa Gregory's books. (Except without the incest and gay siblings. Sadly, this book would have benefited from possible incest and gay siblings. Indeed, possible incest with gay siblings would have been ideal.) Oh, well, at least Carroll hasn't written in first person. Though, I do think that the characters suffer from the fact that she hasn't chosen to use a limited third person voice. Had Carroll written exclusively from Ariane's viewpoint, the constant misunderstandings over romance would have been much more understandable. But she switches viepoints between Ariane, Renard, Catherine and both of Ariane's siters (although they have only very brief passages). I understand how that might serve the plot but it definitely does not serve the characters. Especially not Renard.
I understand that a good deal of the tension of a romance novel often comes from the fact that the hero and heroine are actually in love with each other but don't realize this. Unfortunately, you have to be really good to make this work without having your characters come off as boring and/or stupid. A really good author can make you root for the two characters to get together even if you think they're both being really stupid - I mean, that's the whole basis of Pride & Prejudice and Jane Eyre, isn't it? Carroll, unfortunately, is not a "really good author". She's a decent writer, or at least she has very good ideas...but their execution suffers.
Seriously, the dialogue needs work. As does Carroll's general writing style. I could forgive her one or the other but not both. It's not that there are any truly jarring historical inaccuracies, because once you accept that there are (neo-)pagans in France in the 16th century and that Catherine de Medici is the villain it all sort of goes along pretty well. (I would like to know why there aren't any/many historical novels with sympathetic portrayals of Catherine. The only one I can think of is In the Courts of Power and she's only in that one for about 10 pages. Plus, it's in Danish and the translation is sometimes hard to find.) I feel like Carroll doesn't put in enough detail for the historical inaccuracies to crop up enough to bother people. Which is fine with me, because plot and characterization are infinitely more important.
Speaking of.
Ariane is fairly unusual for a romance heroine because she's pretty calm. I also feel that she's pretty realistic - her dialogue may have made me wince once or twice, but I never felt that she was acting like a moveable doll rather than a real person. She's authentic and I like her, even when she isn't very bright. I can forgive that up to a point. Carroll passes that point, but I mostly like Ariane anyway.
The only character whose characterization really bothers me is Renard. He starts out sort of a cool bad boy, you know? And then as the novel progresses he becomes more like, to quote Joss Whedon, a big fluffy puppy with bad teeth. Not sexy, Susan Carroll, not sexy at all. Who wants a big, strapping guy with a mysterious past who turns out to be sort of a wimp about girls? Not me. And I had such high hopes! The prologue makes him sound dangerous, plus his name is Justice Deauville, the Comte de Renard. He has a magic ring and a big sword! He tries to rope Ariane into marrying him! I was like, yes, bring on the cold calculating hero with his big sword and sexual tension! There are rumors flying around France about his mysterious past! Hooray! Oh...wait.
Catherine de Medici's bits are probably the most interesting, but maybe I'm just not in tune enough with nature. (Um, not that I'm bitter about the abuse of pagan mythologies.) But Catherine has to deal with her own desire for power, her insane son and the religious tensions in France and it's fascinating to watch her do so. She's a very appealing villain, I think Carroll does a great job there.
The frustrating thing about The Dark Queen is how much potential there is. One of the important aspects is a version of the legend of Melusine. Weirdly, Carroll doesn't mention (and, for some reason, neither does Wikipedia) the story that Melusine is an ancestor of the Plantagenets. That's certainly the story I hear most about her and it was puzzling not to have it mentioned at all. Carroll did greatly rework the legend for the purposes of the novel but I feel that the book would have benefited had she stuck more closely to the original telling. She does address the Wars of Religion that were beginning to ravage France - and thank god, because the St. Bartholomew's Massacre is sort of the climax of the book. But I wish she'd cut the witch hunters, because they were boring, and focused more on Catherine's court.
The Dark Queen is probably a good book for reading over winter break during a car ride to visit your relatives or in a plane or something. But unless I hear rave reviews about the sequels, I won't be checking either of them out.
The Dark Queen on Amazon.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Review: Mélusine, Sarah Monette
Title: Mélusine
Author: Sarah Monette
Date Begun: December 15, 2006
Date Completed: December 17, 2006
To be quite honest, I picked the book up because one of the characters is a cat burglar. I have a shameful, shameful weakness for cat burglars - it's all Cary Grant's fault. And also fantasy novels about thieves. Even if the characters are only moonlighting as thieves. (See: The Death of the Necromancer.) Gets me every time. (Damn you, Cary Grant!)
I enjoyed Mélusine quite a lot. Monette has an interesting and enjoyable style. She writes well enough for me to overcome my dislike of first person, and that's not something any author can do, you know? When I realized the book would be told in alternating first person POV I was even more leery but I stuck with it and I'm glad I did. The parts of the book where the narrative is strongest are from Mildmay's perspective, though to be fair Felix is insane more than half the time so his passages are going a little...odd. Although, even when Felix is lucid Mildmay's passages are much more engaging. But I guess Mildmay isn't a flash son of a bitch on a good day and Felix...is.
The summary on the back cover makes it fairly obvious [SPOILER!] that they're long-lost brothers. (I will avoid spoilers from now on, or do my best, but come on, guys, like you couldn't tell from the synopsis?) Sadly, the minor characters all disappear when Felix and Mildmay team up, and while I love Mildmay a lot it's sort of like watching Firefly with only Simon and River. You know, they're great but - I love Wash and Zoe too, at least.
Another thing that Mélusine suffers from is the new vocabulary. I am all for authors inventing new vocabularies for their characters. I mean, that's what Tolkien's work is based on. But I feel like Monette should have reconsidered who she gave what vocabulary to. The lower classes (Mildmay) use a different way of reckoning time, or at least of naming it, than the upper classs (Felix) who use the typical "week", "month" etc. This wouldn't be a problem, except the lower classes use words like "septad" which makes more sense to me in the mouth of a nobleman or something. Mildmay is the character we get most of our time updates from, and I have no concept of time with a standard vocabulary so I wasn't clear on how long some things had been going on. The other thing that bothers me is that by creating a new vocabulary for time I assumed time would be an important theme throughout the book and it...wasn't. Which is a pity, because time is always an interesting concept to explore.
The other vocabulary problem is from the mixture of real English words (like with reckoning time), real French words and just fake words. (I have some similar problems with Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel books and their mixture of French and English and fake words.) I don't have a problem understanding the French, because I speak it (badly) and anyway most of the words Monette uses are cognates or common knowledge. But she goes out of her way to change other words so I don't understand why she kept these. I would have preferred she stick to English, at least for Mildmay who, after all, swears in English. And he swears a lot.
The other problem, for me, was that two characters seem to undergo personality changes. They're both secondary characters at best, but they are important secondary characters. The first character changes almost completely soon after we're introduced to him, he turns into a snippy, whiny little bitch when before he'd seemed quite sensible and had been (more or less) a sort of refuge. There's another character who changes similarly, but the explanations are brief and unsatisfactory. If Monette had meant them to be unsympathetic from the beginning, I would have appreciated more notice. I only mention it because it was distracting for me to read scenes with both characters. Change isn't something I mind, but I like changes to be explained.
It's still a good story, and Monette has created a wonderfully rich universe. Although the book would benefit from at least one map. Especially since maps are mentioned several times in the course of the story and there are some very important geographical discussions...
I'm nitpicking now. Which is too bad, because I feel like Mélusine deserves a lot of praise. The writing is rich, the plot is interesting - though largely unresolved, but this is only the first book - and the characters are great. Besides Mildmay, I really loved both Gideon and Stephen.
In fact, let me talk about how much I love Gideon: I love Gideon. Seriously. I am confident that this means his death is rapidly approaching, but I don't care. He is great. And so is Stephen, because he is probably the sanest person in the book. Stephen! Call me!
I enjoyed Mélusine and will be checking out the sequel, though not until it is in paperback and/or the third book is easily accessible. I bought books as they came out with Robin Hobb's Tawny Man trilogy and that made me a nervous wreck. Monette probably has the power to do the same thing and I'll enjoy seeing what she does with her writing in the future.
Provided she sticks to one language.
Mélusine on Amazon. :: Sarah Monette's site.
Author: Sarah Monette
Date Begun: December 15, 2006
Date Completed: December 17, 2006
To be quite honest, I picked the book up because one of the characters is a cat burglar. I have a shameful, shameful weakness for cat burglars - it's all Cary Grant's fault. And also fantasy novels about thieves. Even if the characters are only moonlighting as thieves. (See: The Death of the Necromancer.) Gets me every time. (Damn you, Cary Grant!)
I enjoyed Mélusine quite a lot. Monette has an interesting and enjoyable style. She writes well enough for me to overcome my dislike of first person, and that's not something any author can do, you know? When I realized the book would be told in alternating first person POV I was even more leery but I stuck with it and I'm glad I did. The parts of the book where the narrative is strongest are from Mildmay's perspective, though to be fair Felix is insane more than half the time so his passages are going a little...odd. Although, even when Felix is lucid Mildmay's passages are much more engaging. But I guess Mildmay isn't a flash son of a bitch on a good day and Felix...is.
The summary on the back cover makes it fairly obvious [SPOILER!] that they're long-lost brothers. (I will avoid spoilers from now on, or do my best, but come on, guys, like you couldn't tell from the synopsis?) Sadly, the minor characters all disappear when Felix and Mildmay team up, and while I love Mildmay a lot it's sort of like watching Firefly with only Simon and River. You know, they're great but - I love Wash and Zoe too, at least.
Another thing that Mélusine suffers from is the new vocabulary. I am all for authors inventing new vocabularies for their characters. I mean, that's what Tolkien's work is based on. But I feel like Monette should have reconsidered who she gave what vocabulary to. The lower classes (Mildmay) use a different way of reckoning time, or at least of naming it, than the upper classs (Felix) who use the typical "week", "month" etc. This wouldn't be a problem, except the lower classes use words like "septad" which makes more sense to me in the mouth of a nobleman or something. Mildmay is the character we get most of our time updates from, and I have no concept of time with a standard vocabulary so I wasn't clear on how long some things had been going on. The other thing that bothers me is that by creating a new vocabulary for time I assumed time would be an important theme throughout the book and it...wasn't. Which is a pity, because time is always an interesting concept to explore.
The other vocabulary problem is from the mixture of real English words (like with reckoning time), real French words and just fake words. (I have some similar problems with Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel books and their mixture of French and English and fake words.) I don't have a problem understanding the French, because I speak it (badly) and anyway most of the words Monette uses are cognates or common knowledge. But she goes out of her way to change other words so I don't understand why she kept these. I would have preferred she stick to English, at least for Mildmay who, after all, swears in English. And he swears a lot.
The other problem, for me, was that two characters seem to undergo personality changes. They're both secondary characters at best, but they are important secondary characters. The first character changes almost completely soon after we're introduced to him, he turns into a snippy, whiny little bitch when before he'd seemed quite sensible and had been (more or less) a sort of refuge. There's another character who changes similarly, but the explanations are brief and unsatisfactory. If Monette had meant them to be unsympathetic from the beginning, I would have appreciated more notice. I only mention it because it was distracting for me to read scenes with both characters. Change isn't something I mind, but I like changes to be explained.
It's still a good story, and Monette has created a wonderfully rich universe. Although the book would benefit from at least one map. Especially since maps are mentioned several times in the course of the story and there are some very important geographical discussions...
I'm nitpicking now. Which is too bad, because I feel like Mélusine deserves a lot of praise. The writing is rich, the plot is interesting - though largely unresolved, but this is only the first book - and the characters are great. Besides Mildmay, I really loved both Gideon and Stephen.
In fact, let me talk about how much I love Gideon: I love Gideon. Seriously. I am confident that this means his death is rapidly approaching, but I don't care. He is great. And so is Stephen, because he is probably the sanest person in the book. Stephen! Call me!
I enjoyed Mélusine and will be checking out the sequel, though not until it is in paperback and/or the third book is easily accessible. I bought books as they came out with Robin Hobb's Tawny Man trilogy and that made me a nervous wreck. Monette probably has the power to do the same thing and I'll enjoy seeing what she does with her writing in the future.
Provided she sticks to one language.
Mélusine on Amazon. :: Sarah Monette's site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
