When I read the Eddings' flagship series--the Belgariad and the Mallorean--I knew I'd found a winner. Eddings (both of them) very quickly went on my "favourite authors" list simply because of those two series. David and Leighs' other work, Regina's song, also impressed me, even though they did seem to recycle many of the archetypes used in the aforementioned series.
I approached "The Elder Gods" with high expectations. Sadly, I was rather disappointed. The Eddings still had that same, witty writing style, but once again, the recycled archetypes emerged just a bit too clearly to make "The Elder Gods" seem all that original, as far as his works went. Granted, the characters are enjoyable, and the character interplay (one of Eddings' great strengths, in my opinion) was just as good as ever, but the plot seemed rather lacking, even for a book that I know is just the first in a series. Things just... seemed to resolve a tiny bit too easily for my sense of plausibility. Sure, there are some deities lending a hand, and the good guys do take some combat losses, but to me, it was as if victories were just handed to the good guys on a slightly tarnished silver platter.
Perhaps things get increasingly difficult in the later books in the series; I don't know. I haven't read them yet.
]]>
I have to say that the amount of interesting trivia in this book is definitely noteworthy. I think one just has to give Dan Brown real credit for doing some serious homework. I know you shouldn't just believe everything you hear or read, but my gut tells me that his research was thorough and very accurate. I really was given food for thought, having read (well, listened to) this book, and for that, I was grateful.
As for the book as a novel, well, that's a slightly different story. Brown is definitely a skilled author, in my opinion, but I couldn't help but notice the redundancy and waffling that pervaded the entire novel. I recall thinking to myself on several occasions, "This book wouldn't be a third of its length if he just went straight ahead with the plot and didn't keep repeating himself."
I'll grant that the flashbacks worked to set up the background, but when you're cutting to flashbacks as often as Brown did, that really can be quite disruptive to story flow. Granted, he does make a nod at those interruptions by having the two, main characters (Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu)ask each other if they're alright, whenever one of them goes off into his/her own little world. All the same, you think that so many "space-out" moments in such a short space of time (the bulk of the story takes place over not quite 24 hours) would really make the characters wonder about the mental health of his/her companion.
I have to admit that the characters were very intelligent, of course, but there wasn't a great deal of character depth, in my opinion. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Robert Langdon is really a self-insertion character for Dan Brown. The whole novel seemed like an intelligent way to sell the sum total of that corpus of knowledge to an audience that would be considerably larger than the one that might read Robert Landgon's book, "The Sacred Feminine." To be honest, even the information about the sacred feminine, the Sangreal, etc. began to be repeated, and it frequently seemed that Brown was struggling to stretch the book to some greater length, rather than just cutting to the chase.
In fact, that was one of the things I was least fond of--that Brown built suspense in such a cheap, sensationalistic way. It reminded me very much of the show "Entertainment Tonight," where most of the 50 minutes is spent "tantalizing" the viewers with little snatches of "what's to come," and finally culminating in the grand unveiling of the main story, which ends up lasting all of about a minute longer than the tidbits you'd spent the last hour watching. For a man as apparently intelligent as Dan Brown seems to be, the fact that he used that tactic throughout the entire novel was a huge disappointment to me.
All in all, it was intriguing and informative, but not what I'd consider phenomenal, by any means. That said, it did get me interested enough to watch the movie. No surprise, the book was *much* more enjoyable. The movie... well, most of the character chemistry was stripped, and the plot was altered a little to make it fit in the 2.5 hour time block (as opposed to almost 15 hours of book-on-cd reading), and I was glad I'd read the book before watching the movie.
In any case, I wouldn't be averse to recommending this book for what one can learn from it, but it's not one I think I'd ever run around preaching about. ]]>
I read this one because my stepbrother loaned it to me with his recommendation (albeit a mild one). I read the whole thing, just because, and remembered what it was like to read books aimed at teenage male gamers. I used to read plenty of those, back in the day. I didn't like all that many of them then, either, but I read them anyway, because I wanted to know the lore.
"Day of the Dragon" was good enough to not just stop reading part way through. That said, if the book is at all a commentary on the target audience, it's not a very flattering one.
For one, the characters were fairly flat. They spoke with some differences, but the way they thought didn't appear to be very deep. In fact, with some exception to the male lead, most of the male characters bent over backwards just to do whatever they could to be with/appease the very attractive elven female. Fortunately, Knaak doesn't quite rub the readers' faces in just how beautiful she is, the way I've seen some authors, so I appreciated that.
The prose was good enough, but I had to blush to realise that I'd used so many of the little "tension-building gimmicks" that Knaak uses, namely trying to insert dramatic pauses into the narration. Stuff like, "The sword came rushing at him--
--only to be deflected at the last moment by a spell."
That's not a direct quote (I'm not trying to insert spoilers), but I think it's a good enough illustration. Either way, I suppose it works well enough for the target audience. My problem was that gimmicks like that appear rather frequently through the entire book.
All in all, it was just standard, male teen gamer fare. Simplistic plot, contrived action thrown in seemingly for the sake of it, a mild romance (thankfully, Knaak kept it very clean), complete with the obligatory "hot chick," and everything works out for the good guys (usually at the last, possible moment) no matter how bad things get.
There's really not much else to say, so I'll stop there.
]]>
Well, I read the book. I got a free copy of it at a convention, so I figured, "Eh, why not." Unfortunately, that's about all I can say about it for liking it.
Christie Golden definitely has writing talent, I will grant. Plausibility, dialogue, richness of details--all were what I would expect from a seasoned author. The thing was, "Firstborn" just didn't engage me, notwithstanding that I've played Starcraft, and that I like the backstory of that universe.
What I think it boiled down to was that despite the good plausibility, the book still felt... fake. Even for a work of fiction. Add to that the fact that I never really did relate to any of the characters, and I don't have any plans on seeking out the rest of the trilogy (book three came out just a few weeks ago, at time of this review). Jake, the main character,is brilliant (supposedly) but naive, and even though he had struggles in the book, I only barely came to like him. "R.M." Dahl--the oh-so-beautiful assassin, well... I cringe to think that I've used such a cliche in one of my own works, having seen it at work in "Firstborn." Though Golden didn't talk about Dahl's beauty *quite* as much as Stephanie Meyer talks about Edward's god-like attractiveness, it seemed she came close. I eventually stopped counting how many times Dahl's "raven eyebrow" was mentioned, for instance. Or her silky hair. Or porcelain skin. Or pouty lips. Need I say more?
Though there were some plot twists, and at least a couple of attempts at using "shock value" scenes, it still felt like something from the same old fiction mill. I don't *need* suspense and plot twist--in fact, it's good when things go a logical course--but there really *wasn't* any sense of rising tension for me. "Oh, look. They were betrayed. Hey, look! They were betrayed again, only this time by criminals. Moving on."
So... Golden is good, but Firstborn wasn't what I'd call "golden." ]]>
Stan added 1 book to this list. Add your votes »
add a comment
]]>
]]>
I gave it a two-star rating because, to be honest, I found it very amusing. The book kept me chuckling the entire time, I must admit.The narrator also lent to that with her dramatic reading style that really seem to fit the book itself.
Despite the literary critique side of me whispering certain things in my ear, I'm glad I listened to this, and have told my wife that she'd probably find it enjoyable as well.
I'll just leave it at that. :) ]]>
I think one of the best things about Dean Hughes' authorial style is that it's clean and transparent. The story pulls you in, but you're not constantly being reminded that you're *in* a story--that, to me, is a mark of a skilled author.
I had to laugh, a little, when I realised that after reading (well, listening to) "Far From home," and a few of the sequels, that I had become engrossed in what essentially amounts to and LDS literary soap opera. But Hughes has definitely done his homework, making the background and historicity of his novels very accurate and believable. His characters are also very compelling and 3-dimensional, and I guess there's just something in me that enjoys following the lives of a couple of families across several generations.
This is clean, easy reading that doesn't insult the readers' intelligence, and doesn't compromise any standards (at least not LDS standards). It's a good escape, reading-wise, and though it has the semi-meandering quality of any soap opera, the stories are ones that are good enough that you want to keep following them--even across consecutive series.
It's not great literature, necessarily (hence 4-star vs. 5-star), but Hughes makes for good reading that's engaging and entertaining. I'm going to recommend his books. ]]>
I think one of the best things about Dean Hughes' authorial style is that it's clean and transparent. The story pulls you in, but you're not constantly being reminded that you're *in* a story--that, to me, is a mark of a skilled author.
I had to laugh, a little, when I realised that after reading (well, listening to) "Far From home," and a few of the sequels, that I had become engrossed in what essentially amounts to and LDS literary soap opera. But Hughes has definitely done his homework, making the background and historicity of his novels very accurate and believable. His characters are also very compelling and 3-dimensional, and I guess there's just something in me that enjoys following the lives of a couple of families across several generations.
This is clean, easy reading that doesn't insult the readers' intelligence, and doesn't compromise any standards (at least not LDS standards). It's a good escape, reading-wise, and though it has the semi-meandering quality of any soap opera, the stories are ones that are good enough that you want to keep following them--even across consecutive series.
It's not great literature, necessarily (hence 4-star vs. 5-star), but Hughes makes for good reading that's engaging and entertaining. I'm going to recommend his books. ]]>
I think one of the best things about Dean Hughes' authorial style is that it's clean and transparent. The story pulls you in, but you're not constantly being reminded that you're *in* a story--that, to me, is a mark of a skilled author.
I had to laugh, a little, when I realised that after reading (well, listening to) "Far From home," and a few of the sequels, that I had become engrossed in what essentially amounts to and LDS literary soap opera. But Hughes has definitely done his homework, making the background and historicity of his novels very accurate and believable. His characters are also very compelling and 3-dimensional, and I guess there's just something in me that enjoys following the lives of a couple of families across several generations.
This is clean, easy reading that doesn't insult the readers' intelligence, and doesn't compromise any standards (at least not LDS standards). It's a good escape, reading-wise, and though it has the semi-meandering quality of any soap opera, the stories are ones that are good enough that you want to keep following them--even across consecutive series.
It's not great literature, necessarily (hence 4-star vs. 5-star), but Hughes makes for good reading that's engaging and entertaining. I'm going to recommend his books. ]]>