|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Settles Somewaht Though Problems of First Book Persist, 30 Jun 2000
By A Customer
As with a previous reviewer (See US reviews), I continued this series from "Runes of War" hoping this series would find its focus. To a degree it has: description continues to be the series' strength, and the author has in large part abandoned the repetitive and unevolving self-recrimination I found so wearisome with the characters of Spar and Branwolf in the first book. However, this remains a travel-bound text, the ongoing and apparently neverending quest providing an excuse for a fair number of incidental and--in terms of plot focus--irrelevant adventures that are left to sustain the reader's interest. After a time this plot device becomes very tiring and predictable. The main characters, while evolving somewhat, still seem essentially rooted to the characters established in the first book, with often the secondary actors, such as May or Cybillia, providing the greater character development and interest. The primary villains remain attenuated, serving only provide the occasional threat, and again we find secondary figures such as Gatto providing much of the conflict within the narrative, while more important characters, such as Gwion, remain largely as phantoms. And, after dragging himself around through much of the book to little purpose, the dragon simply swims away into the sunset. There is an uncomfortable and seemingly random blend of various borrowings from myth and religion, creating a hodgepodge cosmology incorporating Nordic, Celtic, Christian, and Greco-Roman traditions that at times merge uneasily, such as with the Satanic rites revolving around the worship of Lokki. All of this seems baldly uninventive and derivitive, lacking the imaginitive strength of authors such as Hobb, Jordan or Tolkien, who, though they have borrowed, recontextualized their mythic sources enough to in large part recreate their own cosmologies, or missing the narrative purity of others such as Kerr, Marillier or Bradley, who have chosen to create their stories around the legends of a particular mythology. This blithe tossing about of mythic references seems contrived and carelessly constructed. Finally, while descriptively rich, this alone is not enough to successfully carry the story. This tale needs greater and tighter plot development, as well as depth of characterization. Also, the author has a bad habit of inaptly using language: The repeated and inappropriate use of individual words--insipid hair and turgid air of apprehension but two of many instances, these words in particular problematic in their repeated usage--create unnecessary questions as to the author's understanding of language, unfortunate when considering the strength of her description narrative elsewhere, though, in fairness, her editor should have caught this. While I would not dismiss this trilogy and, if allowed, would give it a half star more, the first two books contain persisting problems that do much to undermine and ennervate its narrative and emotional power. Tighter plot focus and greater character development will be needed in future for this author's work to rise above the ordinary.
|