Author Archives: Kait McFadyen

About Kait McFadyen

I am a partially employed Canadian science teacher with visions of grand travel and incredible adventures. When not immersed in work I maintain a small backyard garden, where I try to protect my crops of corn, tomatoes and other vegetables from the neighbourhood wildlife. The all-important library, my source of entertainment and discourse, is a comfortably short walk away.

Beautiful Creatures – Novel

Leave a reply

It used to be that I would only read one book at a time. For a while I would read the book of the day obsessively; starting the novel of interest and doing next to nothing else until I had finished the story. Then I grew older and now I find myself (for the most part) better able to put books aside when things need doing (unless it is near the end of the story). I am also reading multiple books at once. Until I finished Beautiful Creatures, I was reading four books. Two of them were re-reads – which I have been discovering are actually terribly written stories for different reasons. The third book is a recommendation that will likely evolve into its own post so I will say nothing more about it yet.

Book Cover – I didn’t like the look of the movie posters so this is the only image you get today.

This brings me to Beautiful Creatures by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl. It seems to be one of the more popular teen fantasy novels and yet another of that genre to be turned into a film (I have not seen the movie). The book’s story is not earth-shattering in its concept, progression or telling. It is however, a perfectly good coming-of-age, teenage fantasy romance novel. The writing is solid. There was nothing in the style or structure to cause offense. In fact I was pleasantly surprised to find the story told by the boy (Ethan) rather than the super-powered girl (Lena).

I also enjoyed the Deep Southern US small town setting with its neatly described ‘characters’. The main characters were part of large and complicated families – which is an excellent and realistic way to write about people. It is much better than the hero being an orphan – which I find cliched. The plot had all the usual drama associated with 15/16 year-olds: there was bullying at school (the super popular cheerleaders looked down their noses at the new girl to town), first and passionate romance (the kind that is destined and involves linked dreams and telepathy), the skepticism that adults actually know what they are doing (I personally love when the adults tell the teens they are being overly melodramatic), and the realization that the world did not work the way you thought it did (magic exists, parents lie to themselves and their children, and some people are just mean).

Beautiful Creatures examines at fate/destiny and good vs evil in the form of Casters (magic users) being claimed by either the Dark or the Light on the individual’s 16th Birthday. It touches on the role family history has in shaping our current world and the consequences of decisions or actions one makes. I feel there was an interesting opportunity to play more with the curse of the Duchannes family, the parallels between the past and the present and how interconnected everyone in a small town really is. And in fairness the authors may spend more time fleshing out some of their ideas. This is only book one in a series. Thought I currently have no plans to read the rest of the series.

The ending is not particularly surprising. It is not the strongest element of the book either – which likely is a reflection of this being the first novel in a series. Again, I feel there was a missed opportunity to tie the fragmented scenes of the past to the present. I was disappointed that the main character had even less to do with the final conflict than was teased throughout the story. It is set up that Ethan will somehow be in a position to save or at least try to save Lena. He doesn’t. And while Lena is supposed to save Ethan (not a bad concept) it was not sharply handled.

Over all the story is a well-crafted, predictable tale about two people falling in love for the first time and facing the uncertainties of life. I enjoyed the blend of realistic small town America and the fantasy of magic users in a fight between the light and the dark. It was good, solid and very nicely suited to its teenaged target audience.

God and The Folk – Book Reviews

Leave a reply

While procrastinating my other work, I managed to read four books over the past four days. What follows is a simple book review of what I read; it may not be well-written, but you notice that I at least contributed!

Book Cover (not mine) – retelling of Beauty and the Beast

The first three books were all written by Melanie Dickerson: The Captive Maiden, The Fairest Beauty and The Merchant’s Daughter. They are all young adult, set in medieval times and retell classic fairy tales. The author is a devotedly faithful to the teachings of the bible, Jesus and God. I don’t know her exact denomination – however, her religious views are evident in her stories. All three of the books I read were modified to work some semblance of actual medieval reality (namely women have not position in society and there only goal is to marry someone who will take care of them) and God (all three maidens are deeply religious and it is their faith in god that allows them to succeed in overcoming hardships and finding the perfect man).

The books were fine. They felt authentic to the times with actual research into medieval life obviously completed by the author. The stories progressed along the classic lines of Beauty and the Beast, Snow White and the 7 Dwarves and Cinderella. There were some changes – as one would expect in a new retelling of a very old tale. I will also add that I like the way the author tied together Fairest Beauty and Captive Maiden to her other novel The Healer’s Apprentice – that was neatly done.

Book Cover (not mine) – retelling of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

They were slightly offensive in that every heroine was divinely beautiful (inside and out – the author was quick to point out). I found this most frustrating in the Cinderella retelling as the evil people in that story was generally described as hideous – and much effort was made to emphasize the ugliness of the villains. Yet, while I appreciate the effort made to reflect the medieval period in which the stories were set, I found the general oppression of women too much for me to handle. There was no complexity to the characters or genuinely interesting twists to the old plot lines. Being that I am not devotedly Christian, the insertion of God only made these stories more banal and lifeless.

I like the classic fairy tales. I love when they are retold in new and exciting ways. I prefer when they are told in different worlds – so are not restricted to our history. These were fine stories, but they were not exciting, were definitely slow in pace and progress, and were not my thing.

The other book I read (not young adult) was surprisingly more enjoyable than I had expected when picking it up. Shanghai Sparrow by Gaie Sebold had an ugly – at least unappealing cover – but I picked it up anyway. Without reading much of the back I borrowed this book from the library. The main protagonist, Evvie, is a spirited orphan thief when we first meet her on the streets of London. She is about to get roped into a devious plan that will involve training at Britannia’s School for female spies, learning as much as she can about etheric sciences and travelling halfway around the world in an airship. Granted the time in Shanghai doesn’t happen until the very end.

Book Cover (not mine) – I still think there is something unappealing about the monsterous creature (which does not say Dragon to me).

It was an interesting tale set in steampunk, Victorian England. It was darker (but not too dark) and filled with the Fey. I am not a big fan of the Fey (or Fay or however you spell it). In this book they were the Folk. And while the Folk were intimately tied to the story they did not overpower the telling so I was able to ignore most of the aspects of the Fey I don’t like (primarily their other world – which is often considered underground of our own). The main heroine is quite likeable and the plot generally progressed at a good pace. There was the strange cut out, part way through the narrative when we skipped back in time to experience Evvie’s childhood. It was not my favourite section – though I do appreciate the author’s attempt to show and not just tell.

Still of all the books I have read recently, and not just the four I admit to reading this weekend (but the other’s really terrible books not worth mentioning by name) this has been my favourite. I like that it was fun. I like the twists in the plot and the character development. I liked the world in all its imperfect, smoke choked glory. I liked that it is a stand-alone (at least it is to my knowledge as I write this).

Stumble through time – Downton Abbey

Leave a reply

Downton Abbey is a period drama that came highly recommended. Everybody I know who has seen this TV series raves (positively) about it. After debuting in 2010 it has only taken me four years to finally watch the first season. Being a British drama, this meant only 7 episodes.

Obviously I own none of these images – all curtesy of the internet.

First reaction was a sense of general enjoyment, enough that I then borrowed season 2 from the library. So, what did I like about this series? Well, first response would be to adamantly celebrate the two old ladies dominating the cast: the amazing Penelope Wilton and the incomparable Maggie Smith. These two women steal every scene they grace with their presence. I liked the visuals, it is a very pretty set. The costumes are gorgeous. The actors do a good job with what they are given. I quite enjoy the concept of following both the upstairs and downstairs of a very well to do country estate during the early decades of the 20^th century.

Maggie Smith as Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham – One of the Very Best Characters.

However, some discussion has presented several very real and substantial issues I have with the program. My mother’s first reaction to the first season was, ‘This is so Pride and Prejudice’. Of which I quite agree. However, Jane Austin’s work took place over a hundred years earlier. Does this mean that English society did not change one bit over the intervening time? I am not an expert in English history (far from it), but even I feel things must have changed even a little during that time. Instead, so much seems to have been borrowed from those classic stories, the plots, the petty trials of the upper class men and woman, the cadence of their speech.

The scenes in Downton are supposed to be snapshots of daily life. Unfortunately I am left confused about much of what happens during the day – primarily for the Earl’s family. Do the women really spend 14 hours dressing, drinking tea and eating dinner? The script makes tantalizing suggestions of philanthropy activities beyond the walls of the house. Why do we never hear about them?

Penelope Wilton as Isobel Crawley – One of the Very Best Characters (foreground); David Robb as Dr. Richard Clarkson (backgound)

I like the everyday drama’s they make the best stories for the setting and visuals. They also make some of the best episodes; such as when Mrs Crawly is searching for an occupation in the village, the day the fair comes to town or the flower show. All of these are everyday sort of events taken from the perspective of the Family and Staff. Unfortunately not nearly enough time is spent on these little things.

In fact I have several complaints about the writing. First, why is every relationship a love triangle? Seriously! If a romance is teased between two characters, a third is suddenly introduced. Does this mean that the only desirable partner in life is one that another already covets? When one party loses interest in pursuing the relationship, will the other person lose interest as well? I get that we are watching a TV series, but not every relationship on the planet is a love triangle or quadrangle. Sometimes, two people meet, become friends and fall in love. They can have all sorts of tiny disturbances as personal opinions and biases are bound to colour their perspectives on various life things. The current set up is simply too melodramatic for me to maintain my suspension of disbelief.

Second, why does everyone like Mary? She is a selfish, self-centred bitch and yet no one (except the middle daughter) seems to recognize this. In fact, if a man is introduced to the scene he instantly is attracted to her. Does she produce a particularly intoxicating mix of pheromones? Now, I don’t have a problem with the concept of dislikable lead character. I even appreciate the idea the creators have in giving Mary some sympathetic scenes to create a more balanced character. I don’t think they were successful in what they did, but that is me. Still, more of the other characters should be able to see her for the bitch she is. Really, this illustrates a greater problem of not fleshing out the characters. Edith the second daughter is as bland as board. Their mother’s American background has never had any bearing on the character. I think the writers have been a little more successful with the great Lord Grantham and his recently chosen heir. Similar to the Family, many of the servants are one dimensional stock characters fixated on their good or evil perspectives.

The Three Sisters: Laura Carmichael as Lady Edith Crawley (middle child); Jessica Brown Findlay as Lady Sybil Crawley (youngest); and Michelle Dockery as Lady Mary Josephine Crawley (the eldest).

Third, what is the timeline? So, the first seven episodes span a two year period. The problem there is no sense of time flow as the episodes occur. The stuff that happens in the first episode or two is still fresh gossip by the end of the season. Really, do people have so little happening to cling to the petty gossip two years old? Perhaps things are spread out more? The problem is I cannot tell. There are not clear markers to indicate the changing of the seasons. For all intents and purposes all the episodes could have occurred over a four month period. There is nothing wrong with spanning a two year time, just make sure that comes out in the dialogue. The characters should have been referencing new scandals and incidents (that we obviously didn’t see).

This brings me to one of my brother’s greatest complaints and soon to my primary issue – Mary and the Turkish Ambassador. This episode has everything that is wrong with the series in it. It creates a love triangle/quadrangle with Mary and her consortium of male admires. The Turk is instantly taken with the eldest daughter of the Earl’s house. So much so, he goes beyond the acceptable flirting to convincing her to have sex with him during his one night stay. Then, in keeping with the ridiculous series of improbable events he dies upon her. Melodrama at its best, I suppose. So, of course, Mary cannot be found out. She enlists the help of her maid and mother to move the hefty Turk to his room where he will be found in the morning. Naturally, this is scandalous. Naturally there is a witness (of sorts). What is not natural is that it continues to be a threat to the family. At first it is one of the footmen that starts to spread the rumour of Mary’s misdeed. Then Mary’s own sister writes the Embassy about what she has overheard to have happened that night. Ok, footman is an ass and stirring up trouble – whatever. Edith however has as much to lose from the scandal brought to the family if this is flung around town. Also, the threat of such a scandal is still potent nearly four years later, when it is brought out once more in the first episode of the second season. What was a stupid plot to begin will not die. For an important diplomant, whose signature was supposedly necessary for peace with Albania – there were never any political ramifications. The only lingering plot device is the potential to tarnish Mary’s reputation – which shouldn’t be that great as every should already know she is a bitch. I simply do not care! I am tired of this thread and wish it would finally get buried beneath a mountain of granite never to see the light of day again.

This the ‘upstairs’ portion of the staff with the upstairs house maids flanking the central group of footmen, Her Ladyship’s maid, the Butler and Housekeeper.

The second season commences two years after the end of the first season. I still don’t understand the purpose these time jumps have. Well into the First World War there is much you could talk about. Instead, the writers are busy trying to ramp up the drama between all the couples in the story while only paying passing homage to the struggles of the times. I am not impressed and just about ready to wash my hands of the entire series.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Leave a reply

Really, what can I say about this much anticipated, well-liked (according to Rotten Tomatoes) film? I know there are lots of people out there who really like X-men, who like anything to do with the comics. I could add that my mother really enjoyed the film. Or that my brother didn’t hate it. In fact, it was me who had the strongest negative reaction to this terrible addition to the X-men world.

My first and largest complaint is that the story essentially negates the first two X-men movies (X-men and X-men 2). I really enjoyed their stories and the characters and while both had their flaws, the resulting product was well executed. Days of Future Past (DFP) manages to reboot the franchise and thus rewrite history – even the really good stuff. This was disappointing.

The plot was ridiculous. Starting with the over-exaggerated grim future where a war against mutants and the humans who stand beside them are ruthlessly killed. The landscape is burnt black and there is no evidence of the winners of this terrible apocalyptic future. Seriously, if humans have managed to effectively cleanse the planet of the dangerous mutant threat, then where are they hiding? Why are they not running happily through the streets? Why is everything so impossibly grim?

So the magical sentinel robots manage to fight (with graphic brutality) and kill the mutants. They are able to target the mutant gene (I would love to know how) and amazingly they can target humans whose grandchildren will be born with this gene. First, in order to have this many different mutations, it is not one gene that is being affected. Second, exactly how do you screen for individuals whose distant relations will spontaneously develop a genetic modification. Please, someone glance at a biology textbook. Of course the super-duper robots are also able to adapt by copying the genetics of one super-special mutant. Really? I thought every mutant was its own special, unique individual – hence the variation in traits.

While the film was filled with cameos, it also heavily relied on the audience knowing most of the characters. At least it didn’t feel compelled to introduce many of the mutant extras – particularly those in the future. This may have had more to do with the fact those in the future spent the entire movie being torturously destroyed, violently ripped apart, etc. However, as my brother so neatly pointed out, there was no blood so that made the decapitations and subsequent skull smashing OK for a younger audience.

Ah, having now alluded to the future, I will divulge the twist, the main crux of the film takes place in the past. While time travel is stupid, the writers didn’t even bother to explain how this one happens. Further, their timeline, dates and technology do not mesh in the slightest. As the film is theoretically set about fifty years from today to create the Future, the main plot occurs in 1973 – for unknown reasons. It is amazing the robotic technology the super-genius villain is able to create using the most primitive computers. The sentinels of 1973 are more advanced than any technology we have now (40 years later). The age progression of characters seemed awkward because of this time travel plot.

Then there was the super cheesy characters and dialogue. Why is Wolverine the one to go back in time? Look people, he is kind of cool for his rapid healing, but there are lots of other really interesting characters in the X-men universe. Also, why does Eric have to be Evil all the time? Why did he supposedly kill JFK, only then confess he was trying to save the president? Why did Charles just accept this explanation so easily when he apparently spent the previous 10 years drowning his life and sorrows in drugs and alcohol? Why did this movie have to destroy the cannon set up in the first two films (the only two of worth)?

Most importantly, why am I even bothering to write about a film this bad? As my irritatingly observant brother noted, the writers, directors and general creators clearly didn’t care that much about the product they were creating. They didn’t bother to explain anything: the time travel, the magically amazing robots, the super-fabulous alloy that was not metallic, the room sunk beneath the pentagon that was accessed through locked doors but apparently not constructed of metal, the fact that whenever Raven/Mystique shifts she loses clothing when becoming herself but gains clothing when becoming someone else.

Movie Poster found on the internet.

The visuals were nothing special, the acting was, the fight scenes were largely predictable (expect the use of portals – which was pretty cool) and the final product was boring. It was long, tedious and didn’t make any sense. But it was not nearly as bad as Last Stand, so I guess that is something.

The Winner’s Curse – Book Review

Leave a reply

According to the author the concept for the Winner’s Curse comes from a discussion about economics. In particular the idea that those at an auction who outbid everyone else have also been foolish enough to pay way more for something that the rest of the company thinks is worth considerably less. It is an interesting idea.

The book jacket designed by Elizabeth H. Clark.

However, that was not discussed or mentioned in the book jacket. The brief synopsis, like so many of its kind, misleads the potential reader. Or perhaps the attempt to simplify an entire story inevitably must distill down to something only vaguely connected to the actual plot. I know from the few lines I read before requesting the book from my local library, I had certain expectations about what I was going to read. I knew the main characters were young adults, that the main female, Kestrel, was going to purchase a slave, Arin, and that incident was going to change her life. I suppose that is in fact vague enough that anything could happen. However, as is the case I started to supplement the limited information with probable scenarios. It is something I am wont to do on a regular basis. In the past this has led to disappointment. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the Winner’s Curse. It was both well written and unpredictable.

I particularly enjoyed the manner in which the author dealt with slavery and conquering by foreign peoples. There was just the right balance justification so the reader could appreciate how both of the main countries involved in this relationship would see its rise and fall differently. It was power in the way it was subtle. There was not long-winded preaching paragraph about how slavery was bad, how war was bad or how being invaded and conquered was bad. Or even how rebelling was bad. There were atrocities committed on both sides, though happily not in graphic detail. Characters challenged preconceived ideas in realistic manners.

Kestrel and Arin were both strong characters with distinct points of view and ideas that shifted slightly over time. They worked well together, and the romantic in me kept trying to write a happy ending to their story. The final was not precisely sad, but it was a touch melancholy. In many ways it made the book. A more weak-willed author would have concluded with something light, fluffy and ultimately unrealistic. Rutkoski concluded the Winner’s Curse in a manner that was both satisfying and hopeful and yet, sacrifices had to be made. Neither character got everything they wanted. That was same sentiment was shared by the reader (at least it was for me). I wanted them to ‘win’, completely. To outsmart the rest of the world and pull of something that only works in books. Still, I cannot complain because this ending, the fast pacing of the rest of the book and the engaging characters kept me reading. In fact, had the book ended the way I wanted it too, then it would have been more like so many poorly written pieces out there – predictable.

In short, I thought the Winner’s Curse was surprisingly well written, fun to read and nothing like the book jacket suggested. I would recommend this for those interested in young adult reads.

* * * *

Well, I just was reading the fine print and discovered this is actually book one of a triology. I have to say this does indeed lower my opinion of the book. As a stand-alone, I thought it was great, as a trilogy…. Well, I haven’t read the second or third book yet, but I am not feeling it.

Mirror Sight by Kristen Britain – Part 2

Leave a reply

Well, I can formally say that all my predictions for Mirror Sight by Kristen Britain were wrong. As for my final verdict on the book: it was largely a waste of time. It reads like filler, a story that has no real bearing on the great arch of the world.

So what went wrong? The primary culprit was the time travel. This was a problem in many different ways.

First, the reader was disconnected from the Green Rider world. The fantasy medieval setting with its largely equal views on the role of women and hate of slaves was replaced with a repressive society. Two hundred years in the future, women are treated more like Victorian Era ladies, to be barely seen and rarely heard. In fact they are to wear fully covered bodies and long veils. Further slaves abound (mostly to show how Evil the future is). This was disconcerting in many ways. While the author tried to use Karigan’s perspective to show how bad society in the future was, it was all tell and no show. It came across as preachy and utterly unnecessary. The entire set up of the Green Rider world with its strong female characters does more for equality than Mirror Sight’s long-winded rants ever could.

Book 4 in the series. I was not fond of this one either.

The steampunk elements served no apparent purpose in the world other than making it different. Long sections were spent describing some of the mechanicals. This bloated the book but added nothing as the descriptions were not engaging. There was no sense of wonder when reading about Enforcers. In fact, machines seemed to be present as further evidence the Emperor was Evil. If anything was to come out of it, I would say the author was once again expressing a negative (preachy) view against technology.

Finally, being in the future stripped the reader of all their favourite secondary characters. Personally, I feel the previous books became too tangled with secondary plot lines and additional points of view. So in principal I appreciated the more focused story telling in Mirror Sight. On the other hand, we had glimpses of other characters, teasers, to remind us that we would certainly be returning to the ‘proper’ time. This lessened all the experiences of the future. Ultimately, the author undercut her long-winded novel herself when she returned Karigan to the past (the main-character’s present) with hints the future was completely changed (unmade) and the main character now forgetting all her experiences (because they never happened). If this doesn’t scream Waste Of Time, I don’t know what else would.

Now, I might have been able to forgive such terrible set up if the writing had been brilliant. It wasn’t. This was the least engagingly written book in the series. After a little thought, I believe there were a couple of very obvious and correctable problems. First, it was by far too long. I don’t know the word count of a novel with 770 pages, but it felt like it was well over 300 000 words. The author cannot even claim that she was rushed and didn’t have time for editing as it has been three years since Blackveil.

Book 5 in the Green Rider Series.

Another complaint (that I will reiterate from the previous mess of a post) was the long exposition about what was happening without ever doing anything. Description is both good and important. However, every chapter in the book should serve a purpose. The first half …. Hell, the entire book dragged because of its inflated word count and lengthy paragraphs of explanation. The book should NOT have summarized every previous novel. It should NOT have described events like a log-book of a scientist. The reader didn’t need the information and they can read the earlier works to better understand the references. Also, I am pretty sure it was repetitive in its descriptions. One clear example stands out. About 4/5 into the book Karigan ‘explains’ her experiences from Blackveil (previous book) to another character in the world. The reader gets a one page paragraph rehashing old information. This could have been handled in several ways. For example one sentence could have been used to indicate what Karigan was talking about (topic only). Or Karigan could have related her experiences in dialogue in some interesting manner.

Further, the character development was weak and often last minute. There was little progression of the characters and when they did ‘grow/change’ it was rushed, requiring more paragraphs of explanation. For example, the kindly Professor that shelters Karigan is driven to turn against her. The explanation of why he is doing this comes mostly as he is giving her a large dose of morphine (or the fantasy world equivalent). Now, I will grant the lead up to this decision was not entirely out of nowhere. It was not well structured, but not entirely surprising. However, within two sentences, the Professor instantly regrets his decision, has a complete about face, helps Karigan to escape and kills himself in part to protect her. Really?! If it only took 10 seconds for the character to go from betrayer to martyr why did he have to betray her in the first place?

Like the above, there were too many instances when characters did things only to drive the plot. Which is amusing as this was the slowest moving plot in the world. But while Miriam never betrayed Karigan, the Professor, Arhys, and Luke all did. Why? Well, we were given explanations as needed to help explain why these characters did what they did. Sure, the explanations were reasonable, but that doesn’t change the feeling everything is more than a little contrived.

Book 1 in the series. The best book I think.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to indicate how disappointed I am with the manner in which the Author dealt with her other great creation, the Black Shields (Weapons). This order of elite swordfighters has dedicated their lives to their monarchs. They are cultish in their oaths and highly secretive. Yet, throughout all the books the Author has teased her readers with the idea of ancient order of Weapon masters. In the first books there was just enough mention and reaction to the Weapons to make their mysteriousness intriguing. However, here we are in book 5 and the Author is trying to incorporate a Black Shield (well, a want-be-Weapon) into the story. Now is the time to unravel some of the mysteries, at least to the reader if not the main character. Only she still only teases about the goals and beliefs of the Weapons. Why? Well, I have come to the conclusion the Author does not herself know anything about this elite order. It is a great shame, because this was an opportunity for her to do something new and interesting that was still tied to the familiar world of the ‘past’.

I could continue to complain about the introduction of p’hedrose (half human half moose creatures – which don’t make any sense), the suggestion of a half-Eletian (half-elf), the tediously drawn out relationship between Karigan and her King (please let it end) or any other of things that irk me. But I won’t.

Instead I will say in my own self-defence that I do not hate everything. In fact I am still quite fond of the first Green Rider book. It was good. It was fast paced. I had magic, adventure, structure and compelling characters. Even the second book, though much dark, held a world in change. So, while I might not continue with this increasingly ridiculous series, I will fondly reread the Green Rider (book 1) periodically.

Mirror Sight by Kristen Britain – Part 1

1 Reply

Book 5 in the Green Rider Series.

I was terribly excited when the library called to inform me that my hold had arrived – and on the day the book was released! Mirror Sight is the latest book in the Green Rider Series by Kristen Britain. Over the past 20 hours I have managed to consume 276 of the 770 pages in this thick novel. So, while this post will be full of Spoilers. It is part one for a reason.

Before I start, I just want to clarify. I really enjoyed the Green Rider (book 1 of the series). I really appreciated what Britain tried to do with book 2 (First Rider’s Call). I thought book 3 was lots of fun (The High King’s Tomb). I was sorely disappointed with Blackveil (book 4) and so started Mirror Sight with mixed emotions. On one hand it is very exciting to read something new in a world I generally enjoy, especially when the author takes 3-4 years to write the next work in the series. However after the abysmal failure that was Blackveil I could only foresee disappointment in the newest novel.

Fortunately the book starts by dealing with the cruel and unnecessary cliff-hanger that ended the previous story. So far that is the best thing to have happened. Almost 300 hundred pages into the book we have finally started to create a plot.

The story takes place nearly 200 hundred years in the future. This leap in time travel is a bit weird to say the least. It is as though Britain became bored with her standard fantasy world – more medieval in feel than anything else – and decided she wanted to do something Steampunk because that is the latest greatest thing. Well, the attempt to add steampunk is meh at best. It mostly comes across as preachy against technology. And the leap forward 200 hundred years is silly – at least when you try to think of the mechanisms. Sure time travel has cropped up in the previous tales, but in small bursts and largely into the past (far more acceptable).

The future world lacks the feel of the original setting. It comes across as flat, underdeveloped and largely uninteresting. It is too much evil emperor à cartoonish in the villain. Granted, the villains in the stories do tend towards the Evil variety. It is one of the drawbacks of the writing. Evil villains (with a capital E) are really bland. It was one of the strengths of the earlier books. While Evil existed in the world, each story centred around a much more approachable villain – a force with clearly defined motivation.

The huge surprise that the Emperor in the future is not the Evil Mornhavon the Black was so clearly set up from the beginning as to be unsurprising. It is not entirely a bad thing; at least this was set up in advance.

I heard Mirror Sight was supposed to be a stand-alone story in the series. Not dependant on the previous books. Again, I have not finished the story, but thus far I would not recommend it to anyone not already indoctrinated. Mostly because I still feel the first story is the author’s strongest. This book suffers from weak writing and some silly characters. The silliest characters are the Eltians à Tolkien’s elves reused in a different setting. Yup I am bored with these immortal, perfect, beautiful, arrogant, tree-hugging non-humans. They are tiresome in the extreme. Their use is lazy and their character traits are all derivatives of Elves. There is nothing particularly new in these magical beings that are superior to humans in every obvious quality.

The weak writing surfaces most in the telling and not showing. There is far too much info dumping in these first 300 pages. Everything is description and explanation. Sure you could argue the author is providing a recap of all previous books so a new reader doesn’t feel lost – but it sucks! If there is something that has to be retold then find an interesting way of doing so. Don’t just have our main character think about it. At the very least make sure her perspective is biased. But the fact of the matter is I have read all the previous books. If I wanted to know more about them, I would pull them from my shelf to reread. Just to be clear, I totally love the idea of referencing previous events/books. Again it should be done in a new and refreshing way. It can be done obliquely so those familiar with the early part of the series are able to make the connection and those new just skim over that part as unimportant.

Which brings me to one of the interesting connections I had the pleasure of making. The earlier books deal with an underground movement (secret society) dedicated to replacing the world’s king with an ancient emperor (the Evil Mornhavon the Black). This group skulks in the shadows and plots against the good guys. Well, fast forward to book five where our heroine finds herself on the other side of things. Now she is part of the group wanting to over through their emperor and hiding in the shadows. I rather like the symmetry of the situation. Only of course, in this case everything is so decidedly black-and-white we know the emperor is Evil and has to be overthrown.

I feel like I should wrap this up with some sort of unifying comment. I don’t have one, so instead I will put down some of my predictions for the rest of the story.

*Mirriam will end up betraying the underground movement in some fashion.

*Karigan will help to burn the future capital but have to return to the past to prevent Amberhill from becoming the Sea King Reborn.

*The weapon they seek is really a jewel used to trap the spirit of the dragons (possible akin to gods).

Now it is time to find out how are sword yielding, horseback riding heroine fares at a dinner party in a restrained Victorian-esp social setting.

Cinderella

1 Reply

Haha! It is not even the end of April and I am posting. On the downside I am procrastinating my novel writing … Don’t expect too much.

From the movie version.

I am a fan of fairy tales. I was brought up with the Disney retelling of the Grim Brother’s classics. Over the years I have read a number of iterations and have watched numerous movie versions. Recently I found myself watching the film adaptation of Ella Enchanted, which urged me to reread the source material. Then as luck would have it another book arrived at the library for me – another Cinderella-based story.

All three of these stories involve the same basic characteristic elements. They have a young girl whose mother dies when she is young and whose father is either mostly absent or dies. There is a stepmother who despises her stepdaughter and works to make her life miserable. There is a charming suitor of prestigious background and a grand ball somewhere towards the end. Magic is thick through all three of these Cinderella retellings, though each one is different.

While the movie Ella Enchanted starring Anne Hathaway, Hugh Dancy, and Cary Elwes (and others) is based on the novel by the same title they should be treated as two different works. Certainly, I could not stop the flood of ‘that was not in the book; that was not how things happened, and where did that come from?’ comments while watching. The movie version takes the idea of freedom and runs with it. Everything is changed to make freedom the driving theme. Suddenly, there is a wicked uncle who is enslaving portions of the population. Of course Ella is the primary example, for she is under a curse of obedience which has stripped her of her freedom since birth. While this is not a bad way of dealing with the transition, I do think it removes much of the elegance found in the book. The movie is garish in colour and humour. It is loud, oversized and extreme. But it is also fun. It has an interesting mix of modern music, ideals and dance numbers set in a more medieval setting (with some visual quirks like the moving stairc

The book cover.

ase – also not found in the book). The evil stepsisters are even more comically driven to woo the prince than they are in the book. I would say it is fun, but childish and certainly lacks any depth.

I infinitely prefer the book version by Gail Carson Levine. Though my recent rereading reminded me it was written for a much younger audience. It is not the plot, by the simplicity of the writing, aimed more for early rather than late teens. Still, I really like the struggle the cursed Cinderella faces over the course of the novel. Her we can see how she has always fought against the curse. It also better explains how the orders work. Ella is not magically good at everything. When ordered to sing she does so, but being untrained her voice is awful. However, after a series of increasingly more specific commands, she can be ordered to do what is required. The specificity of the commands is not dealt with at all in the movie. Which actually brings me to the other thing I liked about the book, there is an incident with ogres in which Ella clearly helps the Prince – rather than being saved by him as is seen in the film. Being a book the story spans a year or more, in which Ella is allowed to slowly fall in love with her prince. It shows them building a relationship, something that is difficult to do on film because of time constraints.

While both works could be described as dealing with Freedom they come across very different. The film is taking the most obvious route of oppressed and oppressor. The message being that no one should be ordered around and told what to do with their lives. The book is not so blatant. Here the author explores choice and responsibility in less obvious ways. Ella is still cursed and ordered around by those who know. However, the ogres are also capable of making unwary people do what they want. It is more manipulation of people and freedom on a very personal level being discussed in the book; the freedom to be yourself in expression and personality. It seems such a slim difference. However the manner in which these ideals are expressed produced two very different works.

Both of these works are targeting a younger audience with their Cinderella retellings. Glass slippers, another Disney element play only a nominal role in the novel version and are not present at all in the film.

The glass slippers take on a slightly different role in Wayfarer: A Tale of Beauty and Madness by Lili St. Crow. Here the stepmother’s job is to manufacture high-end footwear. While many of the Cinderella elements are present in this book, much was done to create a different and unique fantasy world. I would say the world building was successful – I also enjoyed the first book in this series dealing with Snow White. However, my age started to show through while reading Wayfarer. Ellie Sinder – Cinderella – was not the spunky girl from Ella Enchanted. She was ultimately depressed, convinced that no one would believe how terrible her stepmother was (at least no adult) and that her friends only stayed next to her through pity. Even while she professed these ideas, Ellie also admitted that her friends were really good to her. And really, so many of Ellie’s problems would have been solved if she just told someone she needed help. Instead she flopped between bleak desperation that no one cared and the noble need to sacrifice herself to protect her friends. It was tiresome. Especially, since you get to the end of the book and the adults are quite reasonable and ready to believe the stepmother was evil (she really was). So, while there were many good ideas brought forth in this world it was simply too much self-pity and needless whining for me to really enjoy the story.

Moth and Spark – Book Review

Leave a reply

In my dutiful attempt to chronicle the books I actually finish reading I present to the readers of this blog another hum-drum title: Moth and Spark by Anne Leonard.

While searching for fantasy book suggestions I stumbled across a list that was supposed to include: good, new, adult fantasy titles that are not the common big names (things like a Game of Thrones, etc).

The tagline held promise: A Prince with a Quest. A Commoner with Mysterious Powers. And Dragons who Demand to be Free – at any Cost.

The jacket cover than goes on to introduce the two leads, Prince Corin, just returning from the North with strange tidings for his father, the King and apprehension about the Summer court and his mother’s intensions to marry him off. Tam is joining her sister-in-law at court. She is cuirous to see what it is like, though disdainful of the flighty chatter of insipid airheads (not quite the words used in the synopsis, but close enough).

“Chance leads Tam and Corin to a meeting in the library, and he impulsively asks her to join him for dinner… Tam is surprised by how easy it is to talk to Corin, and Corin thinks to himself that Tam is the first person to genuinely see him as a man rather than The Prince.”

Well, this section holds promise. Obviously, we are expecting a romance. However, from the last line I am looking forward to a developed romance based on wit and conversation. Things are looking good.

The jacket cover continues to explain that the Dragon’s want Corin to free them from bondage and Tam will discover she is a Seer. Good, good, we have dragons, a romance based on strong personalities, a threat of war, and a bit of magic in the form of a Seer. Things are looking up. And in fact I enjoyed the opening. The prologue spoke of vague, unsettled powers starting to waken and dangerous things to come.

The first couple of chapters were solid in their introductions of the key players. Everything was looking up. Until things stagnated. Until my romance was utterly crushed. Until the ending resolved itself in the most contrived and poorly explained matter that destroyed my enjoyment for this stand-alone novel.

First, the political intrigue initiated at the beginning was solid. But it didn’t develop into anything. What was the importance of the death at the start if it was not to play a roll later in the work? Why kill that character and why do the murder with a very illegal and dangerous substance if you are not going to use that for character development?

Second, the romance sucked. Granted part of that was based on my expectations of strong, witty dialogue. However, even without my preconceived notions I would have been disappointed as the attraction between the characters was physical. She was sooo pretty he just wanted to bed her right then and there. He was sooo handsome that she wanted him as a lover even if that ruined her chances of marriage at some later date. Bleh. Their conversation, when they got past staring longingly into each other’s eyes was flat and boring. It was so restrained as to say nothing. The teasing was so mild I would not have noticed it if the author hadn’t drawn obvious attention to those lines. While she tried to set up conflict within the romance: Corin was a Crown Prince and Tam was a commoner, she undermined it at every opportunity. Tam was from a wealthy, respectable family, who had married into the edges of nobility. Worse, the King and rest of the Royal family instantly liked Tam the moment they met. And unfortunately Tam turned out to be so beautiful that she attracted the attention of everyone at court – all the men wanted her. Which was tedious.

Then there was the magic, it was undefined and supposedly relegated to myth and legend. Certainly, the fact that wizards existed was kept secret. I don’t have a problem with this. I do have issue with the manner in which the King miraculously seemed to know about all the magical happenings around him. He was not fazed to discover his son had been recruited by the dragons. He was the only one who recognized that Tam was a Seer – something she didn’t know anything about. To top it all off magic did stuff without ever being properly defined. The cutting away of reality just meant that it could do anything whenever it was needed. Sigh.

While I liked the animal characteristics of the Dragons their plot line was stupid. They were stolen from their Valley by the Emperor who used them to solidify power and claim more lands. How was this accomplished? A Wizard did it! Really, somehow (though it is not properly explained), the wizards managed to steal the Fire from the Dragons. And how does one correct the problem? Well apparently, the Prince had to enter a crevice and die. Only then the Emperor came, he fought the Prince, nearly died and Tam told a story and ta-da the dragons were free. Confused? I know I am. How did any of those actions return Fire to the Dragons? Hard to say. Why did the Emperor have to live? Apparently because he drank dragon blood which meant that the dragons could only be freed while he lived. Why? Reasons, I suppose. It never was clearly communicated in any manner.

The first two thirds of the book was spent setting up conflict and introducing problems: Dragons want Corin to Free them; the Emperor is plotting against our heroic vassal Kingdom; another evil threat is sweeping its way in from the East (with a torturous and twisted leader); there are bandits in the country and war on the horizon and political unrest at the court (only I was never entirely certain what the court nobles were trying to do as their goals became mudded in the confusion). The last third was a rush of trying to tie up all these loose ends. We spent a little time experience war. A little time talking with Dragons. A little time talking with the mysterious Wizards. A very little time being introduced to and then killing the mean Emperor. And someone else went off to kill the Evil Guy from the East – cause really we were running out of time. Still, we did manage to spend more time with the leads as they kissed, touched and proclaimed their love for each other – oh and they had some weird, prophetic dreams and freed their people at the last moment.

The good thing about this book – it is a standalone. The bad thing about this book is the plot progression, the undefined use of magic, the illogical trapping and freeing of the dragons, the random war, the random evil killing of the minor noble, the bland main characters, the king that knows everything for unexplained reasons, the rushed ending …

In short, it could have been better. Though, in all fairness it could have been much worse too.

What is Good Writing?

Leave a reply

As with most discussions this didn’t just come out of nowhere. It started with a comment my brother made, which I have mostly forgotten (I have no memory for details). Ultimately he was mocking me for thinking the first part of Name Of the Wind was good, and thus I had not sense of good writing.

Naturally, I was offended. I like to think that I can recognize good writing from bad writing. Which brought me to today’s question: What is Good Writing?

A scribe at work.

To answer the question I started by considering the various aspects of writing: plot, character depth and progression, setting and world building, language and dialogue, description, grammar, flow of prose, voice, style, etc. I tried to tease apart the various components of writing as I would break down the elements making up a film (director, writer, actor, cinematographer, etc). With my list of components making up writing I tried to strip away the least important elements. I argued with myself that plot was not as important – a good book could follow a familiar plot and still be interesting because of good writing. However a bad book could have a new and exciting plot and still be terrible to read because of poor writing. Thus, plot was not necessarily part of the intangible writing.

I tried to remove characters under similar arguments. I am drawn to classic archetypes. But then I thought of books that included those familiar archetypes but failed to properly develop the characters. These flat, boring imitations were bad writing. So perhaps I character depth and development was critical to good writing.

How else could I form a base definition of good writing?

I decided to look at books that exemplified good writing and bad writing (for contrast). Examples of bad writing were far easier to remember. First on the list: Name of the Wind which had started this whole problem. At the time, I was intrigued by the opening pages. I read with a curiosity. Then the pages started to elapse and I continued to wonder when the story was really going to start. From my perspective I was reading a very long (and often ridiculous) character introduction. I never got to the end to see if anything came of the opening which held promise for me. As for the bad writing, what caught my eye was the author’s failed attempt to play up classic tropes. The killing of the family (too clichéd for words), the sojourn in the city to show how the child was first bullied and then became stronger and I quit by the time the lead reached university (it was Harry Potter all over – only worse). For me the bad writing was in the character and plot development.

I am not good at reading details in books – mostly I skim read. While this allows me to eat through a story in an afternoon, it does mean I will miss the little details. I was blind to the black on black on black description that proliferate the start of Name of the Wind. I also missed the compulsive bottle polishing performed by the main character. A shame as these two examples are comical for all the wrong reasons. However, this is also an example of terrible writing; world inconsistency and illogic of action (and boring detail).

Now what about an example of good writing?

All the Book covers – the first books are way better than the later ones.

For various reasons my mind drifted to my bookshelf and the Harry Potter collection I have there. First, Harry Potter is not brilliant writing. That said, I thought of books 1&3 which I hold as the very best of the series. Are they good writing? Well, they have engaging characters, tightly written plots and an engrossing world. They had that intangible feel, the spark in the writing that I notice in the books that I really like. In contrast the latter half the series is undeniably terrible. It is a combination of things: a plot that is recycled throughout all seven books, a world that becomes internally inconsistent, a villain without motivations (moustache twirling is not a real motivation), and a main character so obnoxiously whiny I really wanted to punch him in the face. They were also bloated, rambling and poorly written. It was more than just bad plots and undeveloped characters. There was something in the stringing of the words and sentences together that was rough, poorly edited, primitive – ultimately bad. It is an interesting series in that I feel you can see deterioration of the actual writing over the seven books.

For an undisputed example of good writing I had fall further back to one of the classics: Pride and Prejudice. It is well written, with compelling characters and a tightly organized plot. There is definite character development. There is functioning world that does not contradict itself. And most importantly it is fun to read. It is good writing.

But was I any closer to defining good writing?

Meh book.

Well, I tried to apply my thoughts and examples to a book I was reading: The Golem and the Jinni by Helene Wecker. Reading the first few pages led me to think this was not an example of bad writing. There were characters with goals and flaws. There was semblance of a plot. However, the style was such that each character of future importance came with their own backstory. It was a trifle cumbersome to read. You would be following the goings-on of the Jinni when he came in contact with another character (on in at least one instance, he came in contact with a tertiary character that then interacted with a secondary character). The introduction of the secondary character was followed by a two page synopsis of that individuals history: he was born in … went to school… married, had a family and was happy until the day when… and that is why he ended up in New York. It was consciously done and thus I attributed it to the style of the book. However, I cannot say it was a good style. I slogged through some 200 pages or so before the two main characters met. I then continued to plod forward until eventually I became bored with the pace and skipped to the last chapter.

What can I take away from this experience? Was it an example of bad writing or an incompatibility between author and reader?

I know that some books, sometimes terribly written books, can be engrossing. I pick them up and charge headlong to the finish without putting them down. Others I savour and all too many books I lose interest in and leave unfished. Personality and taste play a huge part in how a reader reacts to a book. The same can be said for art. I don’t like all art. However, while I may not like a painting, I can appreciate whether it is good or bad. There are qualities that distinguish a child’s crayon drawing of their horse … I mean dog, from those of a master artist. The viewer may prefer the crayon drawing but that doesn’t make it good. So I feel the same can be said with writing.

There has to be some defining characteristics that make the writing of some books good and the writing of other books poor irrespective of who much an individual enjoys the story. Only, after all this thinking I am still not certain exactly how to define those characteristics. It is a combination of plot, character and style that weave together to produce strong writing. A flaw in one of those threads weakens the entire work. And damage to more than one aspect will produce a piece of heavily flawed material, weak to all who read it.

Man Writing a Letter ~ 1665 This is not me – I typically use a computer and I am not a man.

*PS – I would really love to talk to someone who actually liked Rothfus’ Name of the Wind and can defend it as good writing. I am honestly interested to know what you enjoyed about this piece.