Reviews: fantasy

[rivkat]

Patricia Briggs, Moon Called: I really liked Briggs’s first Ward Hurog book.  Her other fantasy efforts I’ve found less successful.  This is a new direction for her: modern urban fantasy in the early Laurell K. Hamilton style, which is to say - magical female protagonist holding her own against a lot of hot supernatural guys, but no sexual

Comments

[buymeaclue]

I was very favorably impressed by Moon Called (http://buymeaclue.livejournal.com/248835.html). Blood Bound has me a little worried, though (http://buymeaclue.livejournal.com/346561.html).

I was just reading Outlander last week--grabbed it a while back at a used bookstore to see what the fuss was all about, and finally picked it up as a walking-around book. It had me utterly baffled in that amused so-that's-what-the-fuss-is-all-about sort of way, where what the fuss is all about is not so much my kind of thing. I like your kitchen sink theory.

[rivkat]

That's exactly why I bought Outlander too. I see the passion, though it's not mine, and I almost always give credit for deeply felt passion.

[iamza]

The Dresden Files had two episodes in which to grab my interest, and failed. I guess I just prefer the version of Harry Dresden that Jim Butcher's words magicked up in my head.

I thoroughly enjoyed Moon Called, and am very much looking forward to reading the sequel. I've never really been able to get into Laurel K Hamilton's books. Don't really know why--I mean, based on subject matter and content, they should appeal to me, but they just don't. I guess one of the reasons I liked Moon Called so much was that it offers for me the chance to read LKH-like stories without actually reading LKH. :-)

Strangely, outside of the Ward Hurog duology and Moon Called, I find I have no interest in Patricia Briggs' books. Odd.

[rivkat]

Briggs has quite a range within fantasy; I think it's perfectly reasonable to go for one or two types instead of the whole lot, and I think the Hurog books are her best. I'm hoping the Mercy books will also sustain my interest.

[chase820]

I liked the first Outlander, but my God does Gabaldon go to the well too many times with her personal kinks. What would have been a fine stand-alone historical fantasy has become a bloated behemoth after the nineteenth sequel. (Okay, I think it's more like five. But it feels like nineteen. Actually, I only read the first two sequels and skimmed the rest, but still.)

Glad to see you back! Congratulations on surmounting the tenure hurdle.

[rivkat]

Thank you! Suddenly I have free time, at least for the next few days of spring break, and all sorts of things to do to catch up with life.

I have no interest in the sequels to Outlander. I respect people who honor their kinks, but unfortunately they tend to get out of control precisely to the extent that they work well at tapping the initial vein. This is why Joss Whedon says you should give the audience what they need, not what they want -- it's almost impossible to avoid leaving the audience behind as you go ever more deeply into your own personal language of kink.

[chase820]

It's almost impossible to avoid leaving the audience behind as you go ever more deeply into your own personal language of kink.

Otherwise known as Laurell K. Hamilton syndrome.

Though her kinks must also be the kinks of others, because her books still sell. Either that, or she's sold her soul to Satan. That would certainly explain the spiral perm.

[jack_pride]

I'll admit to an unhealthy love for Diana Gabaldon's writing, but then again I started reading it when I was thirteen, and it's head and shoulders above the other romance dreck out there. A great deal of the enjoyment comes from anticipating the kitchen sink - I was always just waiting to see who would pop back up (or turn out to be related to someone else) in the next twist. Kind of like a soap opera, but better written. *g*

As for the time-travel shenanigans, you may find it interesting to know that she actually set out to write a straight historical adventure story... she just couldn't get Claire to fit in with that century, so she retrofitted the plot. Her writing style is not at *all* linear; she writes chunks all over the place then fits them together onto her vague outline, going where the research quirks she uncovers take her. Some of the historical info is downright cool. *g*

Maybe you can explain it to me, then...

[anonymous]

Because, I really didn't get the appeal of Outlander at all. I tried, I really did. I wanted to like this book because so many other people I know LOVE it. I feel like some unenlightened cretin or something, because I thought it was a huge snooze-fest. I didn't even think the sex scenes were all that hot. I'm willing to forgive just about anything if the book has hot sex scenes, but they just weren't good enough to keep me interested. Now, admittedly, I was so over this book by the last few chapters that I couldn't bring myself to read anymore, so maybe the last few chapters made everything come together and made the book...I don't know. As for the other books in the series...no thanks

Re: Maybe you can explain it to me, then...

[rivkat]

I'm probably not a good source of explanation for Outlander, because it didn't work for me that way either -- I wasn't into the characters, especially once the "domestic discipline for your own good" entered the picture, and relatedly I didn't get all that into the sex. I usually have to be in deep sympathy with at least one character before I enjoy sex scenes. The reason that I think I see why other people love it is just that every page seems to drip with emotional investment. It feels like it was written because Gabaldon loved this story -- loved it sexually and emotionally -- and wanted to share it. It had juice, and while it was papaya juice from my perspective (that is, I didn't like it), it still felt passionately done.