The Broken Sword (Fantasy Masterworks) (Paperback)

While many other authors in this line imports (more or less digested) elements of myths into their plot, Anderson seems to import his plot into the mythology. He uses the saga style very dextrously to present his complex and fascinating story of a human kidnapped by the elf-lord and his changeling replacement.

This book has many strong points to make it stand out: the very style-conscious and succesfully saga-terse language; its original depiction of the amoral elfs contrasted with heathen and Christian humans; its almost supernaturally powerful love story. But which are appreciated most will depend on the eye of the reader.

A word on the revision. This is the original and it's the first time I've read this version and, comparing it to the version I read 10 years ago, I have to say there's not too much difference. In the revision, Anderson changed one plot element (he has a witch calling up Odin instead of Satan) but otherwise left the plot intact, changing only the style to be less frantic. Whilst it's true that the original reads better, Anderson had the best of motives in the revision - he, like a lot of authors, was dissatisfied with his earlier work and admitted in the introduction that his current style (as of 1970) was more 'Three Hearts and Three Lions' (an excellent book by the same author, due for re-release in the Masterworks series and worth getting, I'd give it 4 stars.) The point I'm trying to make here is that the revision a) wasn't too bad or very extensive and b) was done for the best of reasons, because the author (wrongly) felt his early work was bad and could be improved - i.e. aesthethic reasons.

So it's an exaggeration to say that the revision 'ruined' the book, it didn't. I've only just read the original and whilst I can say it's better, there's not an enormous difference. A lot of people quote Moorcock here, who hated the revision - but I'm amazed he dares talk, considering the revision he did of 'Gloriana' for POLITICAL reasons. At least Anderson was motivated by a (mistaken) feeling that he could improve the book, not a desire to make it more PC like Moorcock. And the original is being released here, whereas the original of 'Gloriana' is still being suppressed by Moorcock as it's not PC enough (Of course Anderson's dead now and can't protest, but I think he'd have agreed anyway.)

But as to the book. It is fast paced, frantic and does its best to imitate the style of Icelandic Sagas in places, especially the poetry (a word of complaint - the Masterwork editions always seem to have bad print quality and typesetting. Here, they could have left a line space between the poems and the text, it would have made it look better. The revision did.) It deals with plots familiar to readers of those sagas also - blood feuds, a war and incest thrown in also. It is the closest you'll get to reading them and maybe you'll realise why they were so popular (and start reading the originals - Penguin do a good line in translations of Icelandic sagas. Start with 'Njal's Saga' or 'The Volsunga Saga' and you'll see where Anderson got a lot of his stuff from. And they're well worth reading, though the style takes a little getting used to.) This book is one of the best of the Masterworks so far.

THE BROKEN SWORD made an indelible impression. It was the first work I had read which really conveyed what it would be like to live in a culture with a completely different worldview. Anderson's Danish background gave him a real feel for the saga style. Here was a marvelous world of stern Vikings and unearthly elves, gods and trolls, heroic combats and tragic courage.

The revised version, which was written after Poul joined the Society for Creative Anachronism, also included some changes in the battle scenes based on his new expertise.

Either way, the book was wonderful then, and is just as good a read almost fifty years later.