What do you think?
Rate this book
Baour: Strands of Death
Detective Paige Aldridge was found beaten and without any memories of the previous few months. When her nephew is found dead a year later, she begins to have terrifying flashbacks, plus visions of the murders of her own family! As her loved ones begin falling prey to a serial killer, Paige believes that she must be going mad. With her family dying around her and dark suspicions forming in her mind, Paige has to pull the pieces together before it's too late.
148 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 6, 2026
Deliberately anachronistic and starting from an amazing premisse (a necromancer standing trial and not claiming innocense, but claiming he can't be judged because he isn't subject to the laws with which he is charged), I found this meticulously-crafted murder mystery/thriller deeply rooted in new fantasy lore a refreshing and unique take on a genre. The mystery unfolds gradually, with each second chapter told through the eyes of a different eye witness, and the twist ending is not just there for the sake of having a twist; having read the book twice, the second reading was even more satisfying as I was able to catch the many hints sprinkled throughout the book that foreshadow the eventual finale.
September 23, 2016
This was a very difficult book to rate. The fact is that it was well written and reasonably well edited (although there were more errors as the end approached, most of these were the sort made by over-reliance on spell checkers, that is, homonym errors). The plot was good, well-paced, intricate enough to be interesting but not overly convoluted. The characters were well crafted and presented, and the story flowed well. The culture created was interesting and adequately revealed without being overly detailed, allowing for variant nations and peoples that echoed of historic ones without being cloned. The few action scenes worked, and the dialogue was always credible.
The hero, Baour, is quickly introduced as being a necromancer, and we share at least some of the negative reaction to that field of magic that is included in the prejudices of the people. He is on trial for communing with the dead, but his defense is that the priests who are conducting the trial have no authority over him.
I had a few problems with the legal system. I've written elsewhere (my series on Law and Enforcement in Imaginary Realms in Places to Go, People to Be is recommended) about the quirks of how law works and why. In the present instance, the understanding of proving innocence and the concept of cross-examination are problematic, but those are technical details the former of which has been that way in times and places in the past, and the latter something that would bother a lawyer but not a layman. It is also at least awkward that the local priests appear to have authority recognized by the civil authorities to conduct a capital criminal case, despite the fact that the realm itself appears to be polytheistic resulting in different divine laws applying under different temples. However, these are minor points.
The hero is very charismatic but simultaneously totally detestable. He proves to be bisexual with homosexual preferences, and promiscuous. He seduces a teenage boy who hopes to become a mage himself, while knowing that the boy's talent is not adequate for that. Those who would call themselves his lovers are merely tools he manipulates through their affections either to pleasure himself or to achieve his objectives. The majority of them wind up dead by the end of the book.
His immediate objective appears to be to prove that the local priest has been using magic to poison the people of the town so that after a few of them die he would be able to cure the rest and so make it appear more that the deity he serves at the local temple should be honored and served by the people. That is in fact what the priest is doing, and Baour proves it to the satisfaction of the town with the result that the temple is completely destroyed by the citizens. However, Baour's objective goes beyond this: he believes that all religions are enslaving people into following arbitrary moral codes that should be eliminated, and that the crime of this one priest just made this an easy place to start his campaign to eliminate all priests and all temples, not out of any hatred on his own part but because of his honest belief that religion is a bad thing and that although the gods do exist they in no way deserve to be respected or served.
I can certainly sympathize with the wish to end polytheistic beliefs. However, the more subtle message has nothing to do with the impotency of the gods of polytheism, but with an objection to any belief in moral values taught by any group that professes a belief in any god or gods and a divine communication of such moral values. In that sense, it is attempting to condemn Christianity by condemning a straw man, a weak substitute for Christianity. The author builds his faulty religion with its confusing revealed texts and its failing priest, and then destroys them, and implies that they were easily destroyed because they were religions, which are inherently flawed. His understanding of religion appears to be strictly that of the sociologist or social psychologist. He lacks any understanding of what faith is from the inside, or the possibility that the beliefs might be true, even though to some degree the beliefs he condemns in his fantasy world are, within that fantasy world, true--the locally honored deity is real and does provide miracles for those who worship him. If we take his view, it seems it does not matter whether religion is true, only whether it interferes with human freedom. Many things which are true interfere with human freedom--gravity, for example, and the biochemistry that causes some organic materials to be poisonous. What is true ought to be believed. Condemning religion because you think it untrue is perhaps justifiable; condemning it even if you know it to be true is an entirely different position. The author probably does not believe religion is true, but his hero recognizes that it is true and fights against it, and the outcome is a message that religion is bad even if it is true. That's a message I have to reject.
The hero, Baour, is quickly introduced as being a necromancer, and we share at least some of the negative reaction to that field of magic that is included in the prejudices of the people. He is on trial for communing with the dead, but his defense is that the priests who are conducting the trial have no authority over him.
I had a few problems with the legal system. I've written elsewhere (my series on Law and Enforcement in Imaginary Realms in Places to Go, People to Be is recommended) about the quirks of how law works and why. In the present instance, the understanding of proving innocence and the concept of cross-examination are problematic, but those are technical details the former of which has been that way in times and places in the past, and the latter something that would bother a lawyer but not a layman. It is also at least awkward that the local priests appear to have authority recognized by the civil authorities to conduct a capital criminal case, despite the fact that the realm itself appears to be polytheistic resulting in different divine laws applying under different temples. However, these are minor points.
The hero is very charismatic but simultaneously totally detestable. He proves to be bisexual with homosexual preferences, and promiscuous. He seduces a teenage boy who hopes to become a mage himself, while knowing that the boy's talent is not adequate for that. Those who would call themselves his lovers are merely tools he manipulates through their affections either to pleasure himself or to achieve his objectives. The majority of them wind up dead by the end of the book.
His immediate objective appears to be to prove that the local priest has been using magic to poison the people of the town so that after a few of them die he would be able to cure the rest and so make it appear more that the deity he serves at the local temple should be honored and served by the people. That is in fact what the priest is doing, and Baour proves it to the satisfaction of the town with the result that the temple is completely destroyed by the citizens. However, Baour's objective goes beyond this: he believes that all religions are enslaving people into following arbitrary moral codes that should be eliminated, and that the crime of this one priest just made this an easy place to start his campaign to eliminate all priests and all temples, not out of any hatred on his own part but because of his honest belief that religion is a bad thing and that although the gods do exist they in no way deserve to be respected or served.
I can certainly sympathize with the wish to end polytheistic beliefs. However, the more subtle message has nothing to do with the impotency of the gods of polytheism, but with an objection to any belief in moral values taught by any group that professes a belief in any god or gods and a divine communication of such moral values. In that sense, it is attempting to condemn Christianity by condemning a straw man, a weak substitute for Christianity. The author builds his faulty religion with its confusing revealed texts and its failing priest, and then destroys them, and implies that they were easily destroyed because they were religions, which are inherently flawed. His understanding of religion appears to be strictly that of the sociologist or social psychologist. He lacks any understanding of what faith is from the inside, or the possibility that the beliefs might be true, even though to some degree the beliefs he condemns in his fantasy world are, within that fantasy world, true--the locally honored deity is real and does provide miracles for those who worship him. If we take his view, it seems it does not matter whether religion is true, only whether it interferes with human freedom. Many things which are true interfere with human freedom--gravity, for example, and the biochemistry that causes some organic materials to be poisonous. What is true ought to be believed. Condemning religion because you think it untrue is perhaps justifiable; condemning it even if you know it to be true is an entirely different position. The author probably does not believe religion is true, but his hero recognizes that it is true and fights against it, and the outcome is a message that religion is bad even if it is true. That's a message I have to reject.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 10, 2014
I would have liked this more if it had been better written (you can't use a somewhat archaic form of speech and still call people kid) and if the synopsis actually fit what the hell the book was about. The original synopsis sounded better than what the book was about. It was weird.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews