Which of the characters you don't care about is starting each chapter with this mysterious italicised text iA FANTASY NOVEL by WHO?! through ME
Which of the characters you don't care about is starting each chapter with this mysterious italicised text in forced poetic style? Stay tuned!...? Inanimate things were like things that aren't inanimate. The rules and beings of this place are like myths kinda, but also not. Some stuff that has never ever happened nor will happen in real life happened to people who never existed. Although we also have racism on this planet, with a bunch of cool-sounding made-up slurs and stuff. And an overly complicated political thing in case you don't buy that this stuff really happened, which is a pretty easy thing not to buy, because it didn't. Silks and spices. Some epic battle or some such. Oh no! He died! Who was he again? So noble... so young... right? ENDING! OR NOT? UNTIL THE NEXT 900 PAGES WINK. (Ah, fuck it!!)
Emphasis on the "through ME" part- I get that some people love fantasy, but I've tried enough to know that I don't. DO NOT PITY MY SCORN: I CANNOT ESCAPE.
I think it's cool that a thing with such slim plot can remain compelling, and the same is absolutely not true of similar fantasy stuff like A Game of Thrones or The Final Empire.
I was happily hooked into the world at first, but the illusion of fantasy for me is always a brittle one, easily snapped by a loud train passenger or husband.
I don't know a lot about fantasy. I don't think it's my thing. Although I did agree to write a fantasy novel for my husband Juan who has failed to find his next Harry Potter, so we are making him his own- so if you see me doing that, he's gonna tell me what to write, and that's not why I'm a hypocrite: there are many other reasons you could pick.
I will try again with Embassytown at a later date, but not before forgetting how I blah-ed over this :D...more
What the hell this is so boring and aimless, and just not very well crafted either. I have to return to Murakami's rule from 1Q84: if the reader hasn'What the hell this is so boring and aimless, and just not very well crafted either. I have to return to Murakami's rule from 1Q84: if the reader hasn't seen something before, you should take extra time to describe it.
And I knew it. I knew if I even caught a sniff of criticism of this book they would call it 'Kafka-esque', everyone's favourite shorthand for weird and depressing*. People praise Murakami for his true understanding of Kafka, and I have to praise him too because I don't get Kafka, but I have a strong inkling for what someone is going to call Kafka-esque, which often only tells me that the critic is reminded of Kafka, and not necessarily that the writing has any qualities of Kafka. Incidentally, this also feels like the depths of Banks' understanding of Kafka. Kafka.
Okay, so this is a book about psychology and an in-depth exploration of our relationships, but first and foremost, it may come as a surprise that it's actually about a fucking bridge. And if you go 'I got in the lift, I went to the building' where is the lift? The building, in relation to the bridge? Alongside it? Does it occlude the passage along the bridge? Then your character goes beneath the bridge and starts cutting about**. I didn't even know what the top of the bridge looked like! Now you're underneath it? What's there? I am given next to no tools to visualise this bridge, the buildings etc.
If you're going to build a weird world, well... build it. If you have a message about relationships, don't expect to wow me with psychoanalysis and literary quality before you have a plot, characters and- oh god!- a setting.
Go home literature, you're drunk.
*I forgot Beckett, too. Was it weird and depressing? Yeah. Didyageddit? No. Beckett! **Scottish 'walking about'...more