Shadowmancer (Paperback)

I picked up this book prepared to like it. The humble-vicar-conquers-snobby-publishers tale appealed to me, as did the title and the lavish Gothic cover illustration. By the end of the first page, however, my face was contorted into a strange open-mouthed incredulous chuckle worthy of the weirdest of Taylor's imaginary creatures.

Taylor has been quoted as saying that "the problem with the villains in children's books is that they aren't scary enough." Well, he does little to change that in Shadowmancer, with his camp baddie, Obadiah Demurral, posturing like an understudy Sheriff of Nottingham in a village-hall pantomime. Demurral's reason for turning to the dark side is explained away in a couple of sentences, which offer the unsatisfying conclusion that he just got a bit greedy and turned bad.

The other characters are underdeveloped and uninteresting too, with Thomas being perhaps the least annoying of the three main "goodies". Kate, the archetypal feisty heroine in boy's clothes (yawn), belies the way her character is set up by turning into a wet mop, and Raphah's preachiness verges on the smug too often for him to be an adequate Christ-figure.

I do not agree with those who say "If you're a Christian, you'll like this book." Why? Are Christians supposed to be suckers for dire writing and rushed, jumbled plot ideas that tumble over one another and are then forgotten? As a Christian myself, I am not against Taylor expressing his religious views - it would be far more unsettling if he were forbidden to do so - but what I do object to is the sheer amateurism of the writing style. In a recent article in the Church Times, Taylor implied that his book was not accepted by mainstream publishers because they were biased against the religious content. If he asked the publishers, however, I think he would find that they were more turned off by the clunky dialogue, irrelevant scenes and the fact that characters and ideas pop up with a mild promise of interest, never to be heard of again.

The notion of the Azimuth, held prisoner on Earth, was interesting and imaginative. Would Jacob Crane save her? Nope, she was just forgotten about. What about the Boggles? Would they support or betray Thomas and his friends? Were they part of a profound allegory of Judeo-Christian history? Nah, we never saw them again. Demurral's sidekick, Beadle, is a drinker - so we get an infodump straight out of an alcoholism textbook and then the issue is discarded.

Shadowmancer is an extended version of the kind of drivel most of us used to turn out as a "composition" at primary school, hurrying off the ending so that we could go home as soon as the bell rang. After setting up the book for a climactic Milton-esque battle, Taylor has his characters just sidle off into the undergrowth, and the good-versus-evil premise comes to no conclusion.

The idea that Taylor is a worthy Christian antagonist to the atheist Pullman (an idea mainly put about by Taylor himself) infuriates me. I might not agree with Pullman's theology, but his vivid language and perfect plotting put him in a league as distant from Taylor's as Heaven is from the cockroaches scouring the floor of the lowest circle of Hell.

Sadly it is the worst book I have read in a long time. Characterisation is almost non-existent and thoroughly unconvincing. The vile Demurral having hammed up his evil nature throughout the book suddenly is stricken with concern for the sidekick whom he has abused mercilessly dashing off to help him with cries of "But he might die!". Later the sidekick releases the heroes for absolutely no reason but asks them not to hurt him and is then surprised when they overpower him. Larer, of course, he "sees the light", but carries on in a schizophrenic fashion as loyal sidekick or reluctant lackey as the mood takes him.

Characters and concepts are introduced without reason or development - in almost the last chapter we find out that Thomas is a "sin-eater" from an incidental character, in the next chapter he acts as a "sin-eater" without any other reference to it, including what it is which chidren might like to know. The Lord of the manor is also introduced in a one line remark and, again, suddenly plays a prominent part in the next chapter as though we have known about him all along. A smuggler produces a cannon and 100 men for the climax without anyone apparently noticing in the town.

Even the historical setting and research is poorly done - the Captain of Dragoons leads infantrymen not cavalry and dreses as a redcoat. The attitudes in the book swing from 18th centuy to 21st to 16th in an unconvincing way.

I am really sorry to ay the book has no redeeming feature in my eyes, the dialogue is dire, the characters badly introduced, and the story weak. It's awful.