The Swan's War

[burgs]

Don’t judge the first sentence. Read the entire review, please, before “voting”. If you don’t care to, that’s fine.

I’m disappointed in this effort. Not only because of the content of the book, but also because I’ve recently started the third book in the trilogy, and the stakes seem to be completely different. Also, I object to those who praise his writing style. Some is good, some of it is inexcusable. I imagine that I’ve lost many people with that statement, but I hope you read on. Actually, I believe that he lost a broad readership because his writing and plotting was sup bar. (Let the boo birds begin. But please, read everything.)

I struggled through this book, and to be honest, I only read it because Stephen Donaldson and Robin Hobb gave it high praise. They are two authors that I believe are the finest writing fantasy fiction today. (There are others…George Martin, leading the pack.)

I didn’t find the writing as prosaic as Publisher’s Weekly, or other reviewers, found it to be. It is reasonably good writing, especially when held up against most of the fantasy nonsense being published today. (I think I lost more helpful votes with that comment. Oh well.) Reviews are meant to be honest, and I’m not “Harriet”, the #1 Amazon reviewer who summarizes books as well as a librarian could without reading them, and who gives most everything 4 or 5 stars. That’s ridiculous. If you’re reviewing something, you review it as you see appropriate. (I wonder if I’ll ever get in trouble for that statement. If I do, I really don’t care. I’ve given many books and movies one star, and on more than one occasion have wished I could given the chosen media a lower ranking. Her reviews are all identical, and patently ridiculous, as they rarely evince an opinion – they simply tell you what the book is about. Well, yay. You could get that off the book cover.) Russell committed two heinous sins. After describing exactly as it was, he would say, ‘they moved “this way and that” or “to and fro”. This is the laziest form of writing, and it happened far too many times. I’m certain that if Russell read this review, he might disagree with everything I say, but he would agree with the “this way and that”, and “to and fro”. I haven’t a doubt in my mind.

Seriously, any editor worth their weight in hay penny’s would have picked up on that.

What I do like about the book is that the characters were all unique (with the exception of Tam and Prince Michael – they seemed to be the same character, ethically and morally). All other characters seemed to be woven from a fresh cloak – and that was well appreciated. That is the highest praise that one could give a writer…that his characters were all different people. that they came from different backgrounds but learned to live together.

What I didn’t like about it was that there was a distinct lack of urgency. He was building to a crescendo, but when the crescendo was revealed, in the third book, I nearly threw the book to the floor. I had no idea – and the author never gave me the idea – that the crescendo was legitimate. He introduced factors slowly, most of them in the second book.

The single most important part of writing a successful fantasy is letting the reader know what is at stake – immediately, or as soon as realistically possible. I didn’t get the urgency until the second book, and even then, I didn’t get the REAL urgency until the third book. Nor did I believe it. *spoiler, somewhat, Death Smeeath*

Some could argue that such a presentation is a strength. I would have a hard time disagreeing with them. Allowing the reader into your world gradually is a marvelous and difficult task. That said, I sincerely believe that we should have been given more information than we were given in the first book – because Russell didn’t give us enough information “step by step”. The strategy of the final book is so radically different than the first book that I nearly wanted to throw it down. If it wasn’t for Donaldson’s recommendation on the cover, and Russell’s dedication to Donaldson in The Isle of Battle, I would not have continued. I still don’t know what is at stake, and if they venture into the netherworlds that I assume they will, it will make it less believable – unless Russell does something amazing (in my opinion, he did something good, but not great.) If there were hints and clues presented in the first book, then they missed their target. I am, fortunately or unfortunately, a good critic when it comes to what is at stake, and the specific magics that exist in the world. Neither exited in The One Kingdom. Quite honestly, though, I don’t’ think anyone knew what the “magic” was beyond what we have been shown so far. It’s quite vague – and for that I give the writer points. I like a fantasy that makes a reader think. That said, I don’t think that this author provided his readers with enough clues to believe that what happened in Book 3 *needed* to happen.

So what does that leave this book. We need to know *exactly* what is at stake, and we simply don’t know what that is. We do learn what the stakes are, in the third book, but that is far too late. Stakes need to be laid down in the first book of any genre.. Dozens of interesting characters, with lives that existed prior to the writing of the book were introduced, and they were introduced well. Almost, but not quite (ok, by a long shot) he resembles George Martin. Remember that I said long shot. He gets points for that. Many points. But what happened? Really, what happened? If this were historical fiction, I might give it a higher score, but it isn’t. It is fantasy fiction, and we should be more engaged. We should also know more about the arcane properties of the world – for example, nagar and smeagh. I’m currently reading the third book, and I still don’t know *exactly* what they are. I can guess, specifically with the Nagar, but I can’t guess within 90% certainty. That just doesn’t work.

There was considerable action, but we didn’t know what that action was for. Black arrow men shot at Tam and his companions while the rode the river Wyyr, on a constant basis, but while they traversed the river, they ran into the typical archetypal fantasy characters. This book had tremendous promise, and knowing that Stephen Donaldson at least read it (the second book is dedicated to SRD, so he must have read a first draft or two), I am dismayed to offer it such a low rating.

The second book, which I have read, will not fare much more kindly, although threads start to weave themselves together, and I’ll say that the 2 star review jumps to a 3.5 review, which means I’ll give it four stars.

I’ve started reading the third book, and unfortunately am unpleased. Don’t, however, vote on this review based on my eventual review of the third book. The third book may WOW me, and I am open minded enough to know that Russell possess both skill and creativity to make it work.

I believe that the third book will assuage my concerns, and make this into a veritable trilogy. That said, a veritable trilogy consists of three consistent. Books.

[Roland of Gilead]

I only read the first part of the first book in this trilogy, and I found it too slow-paced for my liking. The characters were well-developed, but at the price of the story itself. I just didn't care what was happening to them. I think that is one of George R. R. Martin's greatest strengths - he creates three-dimensional characters without sacrificing narrative. It's not an easy task.

I do agree with your comments re: amazon's reviewer, Harriet Klausner. I personally don't doubt that she reads the books, but her reviews are usually nothing more than a synopsis of the plot, and often contain spoilers.

But my biggest complaint is that never (and believe me, I read many, many reviews) has she given any book less than four stars. And that is simply ludicrous. You can't read dozens of books per month and not come across something you dislike. Therefore Harriet's credibility is highly suspect, and I rarely pay attention to her opinion of anything now.

[___]

Hey, I liked it, and I don't even know what "It" is.

[burgs]

I've never seen Harriet have an opinion. You're right about the 4-5 star nonsense. Her reviews are identical: three paragraphs, and complete summation. Perhaps a tidbit about the author or a comparison to another book, but those are usually gleaned from the Publisher's Weekly, or other reviews posted on the site.

[duchess of malfi]

The one thing I really enjoyed about this trilogy were the two princesses (one from each of the two Great Houses). One of the fantasy stereotypes that I am so sick of that I could either scream or vomit next time I run into it is the spoiled and bitchy and beautiful "headstrong" (usually to the point of outright stupidity) princess. These two women, while not perfect (and perfection would be a character flaw in its own right and could be downright boring to read about), did both possess a genuine concern for others, and a genuine kindness. Neither one is stupid. And neither one is a classic stops-all-men-in-their-tracks beauty.