There's a new review for Saladin Ahmed's 'Throne of the Crescent Moon' below. I really liked the novel but wished the author had taken a little different approach in describing the city. That's the spoiler free version of the review, basically.
I feel a little bad because I always seem to rag on Fantasy novels whenever I review them. I admit I don't read nearly as much of it as I do regular SF, but it just seems like the genre needs a little shaking up to stay interesting. There are too many books out there with the same old knights and wizards, on the same old tired quest to find something or other to prevent some kind of something from doing whatever. I don't want to read about it, and if I did there are plenty of great older novels covering the topic, and doing it better. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad about constantly bashing Fantasy novels everytime I write a review about them.
Crescent Moon does a good job of avoiding those same pitfalls. I kind of compare it to N.K. Jemisin's 'Hundred Thousand Kingdoms' in that it's a Fantasy that isn't built on Western Mythology, avoiding the trap of Tolkein and King Arthur entirely. Crescent Moon has it's faults, but it's definately not the same old Fantasy novel you've been reading.
I'm still working on on 'Shades of Milk and Honey.' And I'm afraid I'm not going to write a very good review for that novel either. Not that it's bad in any way, it's just not my cup of tea. I kind of compare it to Jo Walton's 'Farthing' in that I can recognize that I'm dealing with a well crafted novel, it's just not one I'm particularly interested in. I'm getting really tired of giving the novels I review poor marks, I'm starting to feel like I only point out flaws in the novels without giving them points for what they do that's good. I know my last three or four reviews all had bad things to say and I'm starting to feel like one of those jerk reviewers who thumbs his nose at everything.
I think I'm just going to have to dig a little deeper into the list of books I have read to find something I can't say anything bad about. It's not that hard to find one, 'Gateway,' 'Neuromancer,' 'Invisible Cities,' anything written by Ursula K. Leguin. I think I'm just going to have to pick something great and hope I can do it justice in a review. When I set out to do this I was hoping to do a lot more comparison between books, pointing out what something might have been the precursor of, or to, and a lot less pointing out flaws or bashing on poor writing. That's just life I guess, I'll pick something older to review next.
I feel a little bad because I always seem to rag on Fantasy novels whenever I review them. I admit I don't read nearly as much of it as I do regular SF, but it just seems like the genre needs a little shaking up to stay interesting. There are too many books out there with the same old knights and wizards, on the same old tired quest to find something or other to prevent some kind of something from doing whatever. I don't want to read about it, and if I did there are plenty of great older novels covering the topic, and doing it better. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad about constantly bashing Fantasy novels everytime I write a review about them.
Crescent Moon does a good job of avoiding those same pitfalls. I kind of compare it to N.K. Jemisin's 'Hundred Thousand Kingdoms' in that it's a Fantasy that isn't built on Western Mythology, avoiding the trap of Tolkein and King Arthur entirely. Crescent Moon has it's faults, but it's definately not the same old Fantasy novel you've been reading.
I'm still working on on 'Shades of Milk and Honey.' And I'm afraid I'm not going to write a very good review for that novel either. Not that it's bad in any way, it's just not my cup of tea. I kind of compare it to Jo Walton's 'Farthing' in that I can recognize that I'm dealing with a well crafted novel, it's just not one I'm particularly interested in. I'm getting really tired of giving the novels I review poor marks, I'm starting to feel like I only point out flaws in the novels without giving them points for what they do that's good. I know my last three or four reviews all had bad things to say and I'm starting to feel like one of those jerk reviewers who thumbs his nose at everything.
I think I'm just going to have to dig a little deeper into the list of books I have read to find something I can't say anything bad about. It's not that hard to find one, 'Gateway,' 'Neuromancer,' 'Invisible Cities,' anything written by Ursula K. Leguin. I think I'm just going to have to pick something great and hope I can do it justice in a review. When I set out to do this I was hoping to do a lot more comparison between books, pointing out what something might have been the precursor of, or to, and a lot less pointing out flaws or bashing on poor writing. That's just life I guess, I'll pick something older to review next.
No comments:
Post a Comment