Title: Archangel
Author: Sharon Shinn
Date Begun: July 1, 2007
Date Completed: July 1, 2007
Archangel owes Anne McCaffrey a very, very large debt.
It has been some time since I reread one of McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern books, but even so the similarities between Shinn's world and characters and McCaffrey's early books were both striking and slightly disturbing. The angels are almost exactly identical to the dragonriders - both are elite groups who dwell in high places and govern and protect their world. Also, they fly. Rachel, the heroine, could understandably be mistaken for Lessa and Gabriel, the hero, has several traits in common with F'lar. Their relationship, too, is uncomfortably similar to the romance that takes up much of Dragonflight.
But beyond characters, there is a sense that Shinn's Samaria is also populated by refugees from Earth, the the "magic" and religion are actually science provided by the original settlers, now long forgotten. And like Pern, music is of paramount importance.
This is not to say that Archangel is badly written. It is well-done enough for me to hope that the sequels deviate enough from McCaffrey's template to be worth reading. Grading it presented me with a problem - perhaps the similarities were accidental, certainly Shinn is a popular author and her style is engaging. But nevertheless, the similarities are there and they are blatant enough to bring down the grade quite a bit. So Archangel gets a C from me, with fingers crossed.
But if talking dolphins and Artificial Intelligence show up, I call foul.
Showing posts with label grade: C. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grade: C. Show all posts
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Review: Twilight, Stephanie Meyer
Title: Twilight
Author: Stephanie Meyer
Date Begun: June 20, 2007
Date Completed: June 20, 2007
Stephanie Meyer seems like a pretty nice person (with tragic music taste), so it made me sad when I didn't like Twilight even a little bit. I would have been sadder if I'd paid money for it though.
You're probably thinking "You're reading Twilight now? Way to lose track of the YA literature bandwagon there." And you have a point. The Stephanie Meyer phenomenon is well-documented already. But the third novel is coming out this summer, and it didn't seem too inappropriate to review the first one.
Stuck somewhere between a romance novel and a television show, Twilight follows (Isa)Bella Swan through her move to a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Bella narrates, a tactic I found easier to handle if I thought of Angela Chase's voice doing the narration instead. Normally, this would be a compliment. Really, there's probably nothing wrong with Bella - I sympathize with anyone who is abnormally pale and has to move half-way through high school (been there). But it would be nice if she'd exhibited a personality that was a little less clingy.
Even clingy would have been all right, maybe, if she'd clung to someone other than Edward Cullen. Because frankly, Edward Cullen is kind of a dick. He's high-handed and autocratic, he constantly talks down to Bella and wraps himself up in his own immortal angst. Traits that maybe Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer could have pulled off in a hero don't work here. Even if he was born in 1901, the novel was written in the twenty-first century. I found myself cheering for Jacob Black - a side character in Twilight who seems to come to more prominence in the sequels. Jacob's a sweetheart and probably has his own sources of angst, a more unusual combination than anything Edward Cullen offers even if he is really Henry Cavill. (Henry Cavill was good at being a sweetheart with unsuspected level angst in I Capture the Castle, for what it's worth.)
Twilight isn't egregiously bad. The writing is fine, and as mentioned Bella has her own redeeming qualities. But if I want to hear about angsty love with gorgeous and autocratic vampires? Well, I've already got Buffy the Vampire Slayer on DVD, thanks.
Author: Stephanie Meyer
Date Begun: June 20, 2007
Date Completed: June 20, 2007
Stephanie Meyer seems like a pretty nice person (with tragic music taste), so it made me sad when I didn't like Twilight even a little bit. I would have been sadder if I'd paid money for it though.
You're probably thinking "You're reading Twilight now? Way to lose track of the YA literature bandwagon there." And you have a point. The Stephanie Meyer phenomenon is well-documented already. But the third novel is coming out this summer, and it didn't seem too inappropriate to review the first one.
Stuck somewhere between a romance novel and a television show, Twilight follows (Isa)Bella Swan through her move to a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Bella narrates, a tactic I found easier to handle if I thought of Angela Chase's voice doing the narration instead. Normally, this would be a compliment. Really, there's probably nothing wrong with Bella - I sympathize with anyone who is abnormally pale and has to move half-way through high school (been there). But it would be nice if she'd exhibited a personality that was a little less clingy.
Even clingy would have been all right, maybe, if she'd clung to someone other than Edward Cullen. Because frankly, Edward Cullen is kind of a dick. He's high-handed and autocratic, he constantly talks down to Bella and wraps himself up in his own immortal angst. Traits that maybe Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer could have pulled off in a hero don't work here. Even if he was born in 1901, the novel was written in the twenty-first century. I found myself cheering for Jacob Black - a side character in Twilight who seems to come to more prominence in the sequels. Jacob's a sweetheart and probably has his own sources of angst, a more unusual combination than anything Edward Cullen offers even if he is really Henry Cavill. (Henry Cavill was good at being a sweetheart with unsuspected level angst in I Capture the Castle, for what it's worth.)
Twilight isn't egregiously bad. The writing is fine, and as mentioned Bella has her own redeeming qualities. But if I want to hear about angsty love with gorgeous and autocratic vampires? Well, I've already got Buffy the Vampire Slayer on DVD, thanks.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
