Kinda weird reading experience, since I found this book pretty substantially less engaging than book 1, but am really struggling to figure out why.
I think most of what people say in reviews is ad hoc, where we are engaged a certain amount for countless reasons, and then describe like 3 or 4 reasons we like or dislike a book, and by doing that we believe those explain our level of engagement. I think a lot of the time people pretend the author got way worse at a bunch of stuff to try and justify a gap in engagement between 2 books when they like one way less than the other. Or the author got vastly better.
Then situations like this book happen, where I have a couple reasons I like it less, which completely fail to explain the difference in how engaging I found the book to be as a reading experience. Because the reasons I consciously noticed were reasonably minor
It just seems not plausible to say that Bakker got worse at a bunch of stuff, so I shall leave it to future me to figure out.
One thing I should add really quick, is I still like the book more than I didn't. In fact I should say that there still is clearly some great character writing here, and the worldbuilding is insane. Also some lines which were really good. Although I have to be honest, if I hadn't been told a thousand times how Bakker has the best prose, or among the best prose, I definitely would not have identified it as so. Had I read this in a vacuum knowing nothing of what other people thought, and then after read how much people love the line to line writing, I would have been surprised for sure. Like, it's good, no problems with it, just at no point so far has it felt like it is an outlier to me, and I have been consistently more impressed with the worldbuilding and character writing.
Anyway, there is a big battle in Darkness That Comes Before, there are a bunch of battles in this book. I found all of them, universally to be way less interesting, visceral, intense, and generally good than the biggest battle in book 1. I could picture that battle, it told a narrative that felt connected to what was being described. I know why it turned out the way it did. I felt the dread of the characters feeling dread, and understood why they felt dread.
In this one there is a moment the character felt dread in a battle he saw was going wrong. I know that, because I was told. In the book 1 battle I could tell you in pretty great detail why what was being described to me on the battlefield lead to the dread he was feeling, why things were about to go horribly.
In book 2, similar scene, and like...it involved cavalry being held in reserve. Maybe i'm just dumb and can't follow tactics, but IDK I feel like usually I follow the tactics better than most people. Once I read a battle where the author copied Hannibal Barca's plan at the battle of Cannae, and my reaction was, oh that's cool, the character is doing Hannibals plan.
One reason is the way the battles are described is so annoying. And this might partially be a skill issue on my part. So there are multiple factions in each larger army in every battle, and I swear if you go to any page of a battle scene happening a third of the words are just listing the individual factions who I just don't care about doing specific stuff. half the time Bakker is writing about the the cavalry from this faction are doing this crazy shit, and I was like, wait the who? So like...what side are they on again, whatever i'm not checking the back 37 times per battle. There are 2 levels of the battle I am interested. The boots on the ground perspective, that is truly connected to the characters and their struggle, and the birds eye, general perspective that gives me an idea on who is winning, and why, and how on a large scale.
I feel these battles basically gave me neither of those somehow, and as a result, I found them boring.
And they just generally were way less interesting. There was especially a later battle which I think just didn't hit narratively the way it was supposed to for me. The victory felt cheap. It felt like they won because now it was fitting for the story for them to win, when if they had just done that earlier the story doesn't work.
The other thing was that I felt the pacing was off. Every novel has a number of status quos, where something kinda similar is happening for a while, and is being explored. And I felt like these status quos consistently lasted longer than they needed to, and became repetitive before the status quo changed.
I wonder if book 1 being less linear avoided this for me, as there were consistent bigger shifts in perspective, and location. While this book is much more linear.
Kellhus is still very very interesting.
6.8/10