” This book caused me braingasms – in both a good and bad way. So, prepare yourselves for nuttiness and confusismism (real word)”
I was really non” This book caused me braingasms – in both a good and bad way. So, prepare yourselves for nuttiness and confusismism (real word)”
I was really non-plussed about reading The Gunslinger. My brain was telling me this was about ‘cowboys in a fantasy/disaster setting.’ A weird combination, but I don’t always read the synopsis, so my brain made those connections, for whatever reason. Happily (for me) I was both right and wrong. This strange combination of genres just works. There was a lovely foreword in the edition I read, whereupon Stephen King tells the reader how he came to write this series. Later he goes on to explain what he has changed from the original release of The Gunslinger. Originally, when it was released as several short stories, being serialised in some magazine in the 1980s. Interesting stuff, even if King does read as a been-there-done-it sort of foreword. The 2003 revision, which I was reading apparently streamlines the story telling and makes it more linear – blimey, what was the original like?
As for the novel, we’re introduced to Roland, a gunslinger. He hails from Gilead a once great city, now lying in ruins. He is after the main in black (not cliché at all!). Tailing him through the desolate desert, we’re thrown in to a sort of foot-chase (horses don’t seem to exist – but cowboy hats do). Along the way we’re introduced to a bevy of characters and locations. The world is (sort of) a post-industrial/western affair. King said in his forward the objective was to write something akin to Tolkien’s epics, but with a spaghetti western/Sergio Leone feel to it. For me, other than the feeling of environmental desolation, I really didn’t get that as I was reading this.
Gunslinger is a rather slow and ponderous read, however it does have that feeling of epicenes to it. I had a strong feeling that I was observing not only the characters, but the world around Roland as well. I thought of it as if I was sat on a pack bench somewhere, observing the comings and goings. The descriptive narrative is excellent and some of the best I have read in some time. I’ve not read many of Stephen King’s novels, but I’ve a feeling this is a strong point of his.
I will say, there was times I was completely lost with Gunslinger and confused to what I was reading or meant to be observing. The conversations, at times, were very, well weird. I couldn’t make heads-or-tails to what was being said. The characters seemed confused themselves at times – just read the conversation at the opening of the story. Very strange. Take corn farmer Brown and his talking raven Zoltan, or Roland’s future companion Jake- who seems to have found himself relocated from another timeline – or is that dislocated – it’s all very confusing – I mean he could have dislocated something. I must say, the confusing state of the read actually adds to the appeal and beauty of the story. It’s a weird thing to say, but I feel the story is purposely obnoxious and high-brow for this reason. It gets weirder with Roland’s flashback to his past. He is basically at gunslinger academy, as a cadet. We see how he grows up in Gilead and read how plots of treason, which cause revolution within, slowly mutating Gilead.
Gunslinger gets weirder. Once Roland catches up with (is it Mr O’Dinn or Flagg? I forget) the Man in Black, through a vision, they end up having a ten-year discussion upon the universe. Que a Nasa style Solar system and it goes from there. What I feel they really are discussing is size, yes that’s right. Not the type of size where they discuss their waistlines, but the type of size where one questions where they fit into the world and the universe as a whole. What happens when you reach the end of the universe, what’s there, if anything? Is there a sign saying “turn back now or nothingness await!” Take an unborn egg – it cracks the shell – then a new wonderous world opens up to it. The baby chicken looks up to the sky and wonders what’s up there. To me it seems to be a question of layers upon layers of one’s understanding of the scope of the universe – well that and a strange philosophical debate upon size and chicken eggs. The overriding feeling you get from this strange encounter is that the size of the universe is to much for one person to comprehend – questions of space and time, meta-physical equations and other lofty stuff I have no idea about is talked about. Layers upon layers upon layers… alternate dimensional timelines. It never stops, my head hurt! It’s a question of scope, size, theoretical stuff and chicken eggs. Though Roland Deschain takes it all in his stride. If your confused reading this as I am writing these strange lines, then your welcome.
So, at its core Gunslinger is an old western/fantasy (there’s sorcerers, succubus, demons and other strange messiness going-ons) world, but exists alternative timelines/parallel universes. As Roland keeps emphasising “… the world has moved on” . I’m going to be honest; I think Gunslinger is a fantastic novel, but at times can come across as absolute waffle. I feel like this is the appeal though. It’s beautifully written, the story, simplistic at its core, thought if you add the number of layers I’ve mentioned and factor in that you will lose your way here… it’s rather unique and wonderful. Strange to say after everything I’ve said.
I need to squeeze something in about the characters other than Roland. Ten-year-old Jake Chambers is a great little character and a stepping stone during Roland’s quest. I will say, towards the end the parting left a sour taste in my mouth, especially towards Roland – if I say much more, I’ll be in spoiler territory. I was conflicted. I’ve mentioned Brian and Zoltan (possibly the worse named crow history). So really, we’re left with the citizens of Tull and Roland’s flashback. In Tull there’s the bar owner Allie, who takes care of more than just Roland’s burger and drinking needs. Sheb who is a piano playing drunk, I mean nutter. Lastly, there’s Sylvia Pittston – think preacher-this-is-how-I-interpret-God my way, and you get the idea. The whole ‘Nort’ saga is… well it’s a thing that happens.
I kind of feel that’s enough words – this was a strange review to write. I get the feeling Gunslinger is going to be a fairly divisive book. I’ve already summed it up, great book if you can get past the grandeur waffle....more
"Ever danced with the devil in the middle of the night?"
Once there was Twilight
Then True Blood
Somewhere in the middle came The Vampire Diaries
Robe"Ever danced with the devil in the middle of the night?"
Once there was Twilight
Then True Blood
Somewhere in the middle came The Vampire Diaries
Robert Pattinson's forehead, move over please, The Night Watch is here.
What a great writer Sergei Lukyanenko is. Many reviewers seem to think he is a Russian-Tolkien. I can't really see that, given that The Night Watch is set in Moscow, with no real invention with languages or places. What the author does well is keep a concise story flowing throughout, even though the novel is essentially three novellas. He blends several genres into his own mould if you will. All the stories interlink flawlessly, where the main protagonist is Anton - a 'Other' and a drunk, not the best hero, more a anti-hero if you will. He fights for the 'Light' side. What a goodyliltwoshoes!
The moralistic make-up of many could be viewed as black and white, socially this is a standard archetypal construct. Some actions are viewed as good, other's bad. Who decides what is good and bad? In this case, 'The Inquisitors' who up hold the Treaty which has been in effect for thousands of years. There's always a fine line between good and evil, sometimes you have to skirt both, or jump in the middle of the two, whereupon you take action from somewhere in-between the two. This is essentially what The Night Watch do. They are of the light, they believe in all those good things you might associate with such a acronym. Now the Dark Watch are the opposing faction, they are not so nice; demons, forked tongues, vampires, werewolves, witches and the feeding of energy from human, whom they view as cartel. Nothing wrong with that from their perspective, something wrong about it from the light side stance. Both of these factions are known as 'Others', not quite human, but something else altogether. Well let's be honest, nothing different many other fantasy novelist haven't written in the past.
To keep balance between the two factions is the Treaty, which essentially says 'for every action there is a re-action.' So, if the Night Watch decide to influence someone's happiness, then the Dark Watch are a loud to do something similar, such as cause a car crash. Why would they wish to do that? They feed off human's misery. Where the Light feeds off people happiness. We're being leeched!!! No wonder I wake up some mornings feeling like a car wreck!
I believe what the author is attempting to show (abide more subtly than I) is for every action, there is a re-action, which brings a balance to the natural order of 'things'. Good and evil is one facet, the concept has been around for generations. There is a belief that everyone has a angel and demon looking over them, influencing them to do things and take action. Really, what is happening is you are in control, you cause say a affect due to your action, then attribute that to being 'influenced' by your angel or demon. This is essentially a major posit of The Night Watch, good things happen because those people make it happen, and so on.
The story begins when Anton stumbles across a victim of a unlicensed vampire attack, a cursed woman named Svetlana - soon events are set in motion and not just by 'cause or effect' but influenced by someone or something *shudders*. Scary stuff huh. How is Svetlana cursed? Well 'obviously' if you're a 'Other' you can see the auras that float above human's heads - the one above Svetlana isn't a good one.
Sergei's writing style could be described as minimalist - there is no flowery prose here, it never get's over descriptive. I mean how descriptive can one be when describing the suburbs of Moscow - which really sets the tone for a depressing gritty backdrop - one that could be described as taking that first shot of vodka, harsh but warming - now the warming part comes from the romantic content, which you may enjoy, I did as it lead to some tough moral choices for some of the characters.
As for the dialogue, well mostly it's really simple, however I really had difficulty with the formal nature of some of the characters. For example Anton, always called his boss by his full name, every time - "Yes Boris Ignavatich" - on one occasion he said his name six times. Are Russians really that formal? Myself, I can be, but really would be awkward after the first time haha. Other than that, we get a good look at some of the 'Light' characters; Tiger Cub (a shape-shifter), Seymon (a magician), Ilya (a magician) and a few other's. I particularly found Seymon appealing. The sort of 'old sage' with fountains of information, who's been there and done it.
The Night Watch is a really thought out novel, with elements taken from supernatural, fantasy and horror genres. This isn't Harry Potter or Buffy The Vampire Slayer - in fact I'd go as far to suggest this series is fairly unique given it's Soviet-style urban decay and cross-genre jumping. It's not just about good versus evil, it's about moral choices that skirt between the two or some time's goes beyond one's moralistic beliefs. Are the 'Light' side blind to the evil they do towards humans? Will Anton make choices that are for the betterment of mankind, or will he be lead marionette-style to do another's bidding - even if it's on a sub-conscious level. Will Bruce Springsteen be singing "On the streets of Soviet Moscow... dada da da da" instead of Philadelphia? Read on reader, but be warned, this is adult content and not YA. ...more
About a decade ago, there was a film released called The 13th Warrior which also, like this book, had a Viki"Swords of good men who are rather, dull!"
About a decade ago, there was a film released called The 13th Warrior which also, like this book, had a Viking/Fantasy theme. Based upon the writings of a real Caliph of Baghdad, Ahmad ib Fadlan - it was rather enjoyable. The tales of Beowulf weaved in, with the bowels of Hel being unleashed upon a small village in a relocation. Besieged on all sides to a unrelenting foe, it takes one man (a foreigner) to stem the tide. If you've read Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton, then your know the jeist of the film. Herein lies the problem with Snorri Kristjansson's Swords Of Good Men, it's almost a exact replica, with name and location changes to the previously mentioned book and film. As you might have gathered, the novel is essentially a non-historically/fantasy themed book. I'm not sure the places mentioned in Snorri's novel actually existed - I'm only guessing, but I don't recognise any of the locations by name.
Essentially the first 200 pages are really about setting the tone, for what I felt, was a fairly solid read. There isn't much going on, other than the author attempting to flesh out his characters (of which there are MANY). The main character here is Ulfir, a 'nobel' Swede, sent with his cousin Gerri (by the King of the Swedes) to familiarize himself with the Viking-way. During his time, Ulfir gets bogged down in a lustful romance and politicking within the town of Stenvik. While Ulfir is having his fun, religion is changing, there is the White Christ as well as the old ways (Thor, Freya, Odin, Valhalla, etc) battling for provenance over Norway. King Olav is attempting to bring the North of the country under his banner and belief of Christianity. While in the South, the old ways hold sway. So there is disagreement amongst the populace, surprise!
I'm rather telling a 'story' here, but to cut out the guff, the town of Sternik finds itself besieged by true Vikings. With Ulfir locked in, along with the Chieftain Sven, Harold, a rather brutish chap and pig-farmers to boot, things get interesting - to a extent. The real problem with the novel is that for 340 pages, it really gets bogged down with too much talking and not enough doing! I'm interested to see, from the authors point of view, how a town during this time would interact with each other, but not for 220 pages. There's no action, there's no broads, there's no booze! This is a book about Vikings right? Hmm.
Here is a small list of main/middle characters; Ulfir, Gerri, Sven, Harald, Sigurd, Egil, Audun (who is rather a awesome persona!), Skargrim, Thora, Valgard, pig-farmers, Lilla, Sigmar, Thorvald, Prince Jorn, King Olav, Runir, Harvar, The Twenty, Ragnar, Oraekja, Finn. There is more, I've just grown tired of listing them. It's was a real chore for me, to cut through the characters - at times I felt the narrative wasn't descriptive at all. Just literally putting a name down on the page doesn't work, you need to really flesh out a persona for the reader to 'imagine' - well in my opinion anyway. I moaned to someone that the characters seemed 'dead' and there was no real likeable one - well other than Audun towards the end, but I won't spoil that.
The authors prose style is solid, no flares of brilliance sadly. For example, when the first attack on Stenvik takes place. Sven's rousing speech is rather amusing, it's meant to inspire seasoned warriors:
"We will strike fear into them, we are the nightmares that frighten children..."
Children? The protaganist (in this novel) isn't a anti-hero, he is meant to be a likeable rogue not the opposite. So why say something that doesn't fit the persona you are trying to build. For me it just didn't ring true. There were other lines that didn't sit right with me also. I should go back through the book and highlight them, but I just don't have the time, sorry about that.
The mystical element to the book comes from Slude, a sort of wisp/witch/not sure-thing. She can command men by touch and sense alone, no not jumping in bed for a bit of rumpy-pumpy (what even is that?). I really felt this element to the book didn't need to be there. I feel fairly strongly that the story itself would have held up better without this. It kind of rubbished, for me, all those mighty warriors at her command. Mind you, they say Agamemnon had the mightiest host of warriors ever, and it didn't work out to well for him. Given that, he didn't have some harpy with magical powers!
If I was sitting with the author right now, I'd say cut out the mystical element and come out with something more befitting the theme and tone of the era. Make sure your characteristics of your main character fits with the personality. I admire anyone who can piece together a novel, but for me, this was a fairly bad read and haphazard at best. ...more
Terrible Reviewer
>
Books:
cross-genre
(4)
Loading...
