![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
green_appleApparently Democrats getting their ears flicked for using inappropriate words zomg! on the House floor was all the incentive my [insert inappropriate word here] needed to remember that nature has courses to follow and stuff.
I believe this one should be filed as Things About Me You Might Have Been Better Off Without Knowing...
Also, Thursday is very lucky that I like her plentifully. I'm actually considering stuff.
Finished reading The Kingmaking a few weeks ago and only just know it hits me what bothered me about it . It is a nice, interesting take on the Arthurian legend, almost as interesting as Firelord in fact (not that anything ever will be as good as Firelord in terms of Arthurian fanfic afic), I particularly loved how medieval it all felt, thing is I didn't care for anybody over-much. Gwenhyfar was set up to beArya The Awesome Heroine Lady Who Stole My Heart and then she fell in love with Arthur and decided that anything not related to him was overrated. Arthur himself is FUBAR'd like the best of them and yet, he feels very unsympathetic. He actually beats up a slave, beats up his wife and then rapes her (all in the same scene) and NEVER GETS CALLED ON IT, never even regrets it. His rampant alcoholism and philandering are always getting the better of him and landing him in troubles that are really more noise than they're worth BUT CHANGING HIS WAYS OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THE WRONGNESS OF THEM IS ENTIRELY TOO RIDICULOUS AN IDEA TO EVEN ENTERTAIN.
I suppose the book is actually quite honest to the time's sensibilities, and I'd be okay with this if it were condoned on everybody else. But it isn't. It stands out to me the punishment Arthur dealt to another rapist while hoping with all of his stunted little heart that it could carry on into the afterlife because RAPE IS THE WORSE CRIME EVER AND THE PERPETRATORS SHOULD PAY ACCORDINGLY. Obviously, forcing his then wife into intercourse right after beating the crap out of her does not constitute rape because a) she deserved it, being the little cunning bitch she'd been and, less importantly of course but still worthy of notice, b) she wound up enjoying it. Now, Winifred was also severely damaged (as was everyone else in this story, really) and much could have bee done with that but she was firmly entrenched in the slot of Villainess and thus she was unworthy of our respect and ::gasp:: sympathies, AS WAS EVERY OTHER FEMALE IN THE STORY who wasn't, in one way or another, inferior to Gwen, or at least perceived to be so, at which point Gwen would take it upon herself to protect them and through this demonstrate just how superior to them she was.
Also, Arthur and Gwengyfar are it. The bee's knees. And everyone wants to get in their pants/skirts or have them killed. Like, this is what the entire story was about. Even though it wasn't. It just feels to me like it was because the levels of annoyance this trope awakens in me tend to obliterate anything else that might surround it.
In light of which, I'd dimiss this entire 'review' (ha!) as product of reader annoyance and blame Parke Godwin for raising the stupid bar so high.
Er, though I wouldn't dismiss the part where I, in a thoroughly implied fashion, suggest you give your villains some reasonable motivations for their villainy, as opposed to just have them turn their collective noses up in the air anytime they're on scene to prove the point that they are EBOL indeed, and the political reasons for their desire to turn Arthur into a mere greasy smear on the ground are supposed to be understood by your readers whom are, clearly, intelligent folk and do not need to be told everything because they can suss things out for themselves. Because that's just cheap. And if your readers are anything like me, they'll think you were being either too lazy or too eager to get to the part where your protagonist long for each other and misunderstand each other by lack of communication skills or the people around them throw themselves at them.
In all fairness, though (and because you might be wondering what kept me reading), it is a well-written story. A fresh take that has no (real) love triangles and does touch (lightly and perfunctorily) upon the political and social implications of the Romans walking off, the Saxons invading Britain and the religious shifting that was taking place at the time. Arthur remains a military genius (again, for the time) and an excellent leader you would follow to the end of the world (just don't follow his example, please). Gwen is a strong woman who gets put through much crap and decides she ain't having no truck with it, no siree, she actually rescues herself this one time and then carries off to be pregnant and mostly okay with a future of being looked down upon because she was unwed and refused to tell who the father was. She retains her agency throughout and actually brings Arthur several pegs down when necessary. Lovely, evocative prose makes an easy, quick read, as well.
Maybe a second reading will purge the bothersome aspects, since I'll know to expect them (and fastforward through them), which will mean a better chance of me focusing on the good parts and actually coming to like in it's own. I mean, it is one of the better Arthuriana Revisited in Modern Times novels I've read, so it might merit a second chance.
In other news, the sun is hot.
I believe this one should be filed as Things About Me You Might Have Been Better Off Without Knowing...
Also, Thursday is very lucky that I like her plentifully. I'm actually considering stuff.
Finished reading The Kingmaking a few weeks ago and only just know it hits me what bothered me about it . It is a nice, interesting take on the Arthurian legend, almost as interesting as Firelord in fact (not that anything ever will be as good as Firelord in terms of Arthurian fanfic afic), I particularly loved how medieval it all felt, thing is I didn't care for anybody over-much. Gwenhyfar was set up to be
I suppose the book is actually quite honest to the time's sensibilities, and I'd be okay with this if it were condoned on everybody else. But it isn't. It stands out to me the punishment Arthur dealt to another rapist while hoping with all of his stunted little heart that it could carry on into the afterlife because RAPE IS THE WORSE CRIME EVER AND THE PERPETRATORS SHOULD PAY ACCORDINGLY. Obviously, forcing his then wife into intercourse right after beating the crap out of her does not constitute rape because a) she deserved it, being the little cunning bitch she'd been and, less importantly of course but still worthy of notice, b) she wound up enjoying it. Now, Winifred was also severely damaged (as was everyone else in this story, really) and much could have bee done with that but she was firmly entrenched in the slot of Villainess and thus she was unworthy of our respect and ::gasp:: sympathies, AS WAS EVERY OTHER FEMALE IN THE STORY who wasn't, in one way or another, inferior to Gwen, or at least perceived to be so, at which point Gwen would take it upon herself to protect them and through this demonstrate just how superior to them she was.
Also, Arthur and Gwengyfar are it. The bee's knees. And everyone wants to get in their pants/skirts or have them killed. Like, this is what the entire story was about. Even though it wasn't. It just feels to me like it was because the levels of annoyance this trope awakens in me tend to obliterate anything else that might surround it.
In light of which, I'd dimiss this entire 'review' (ha!) as product of reader annoyance and blame Parke Godwin for raising the stupid bar so high.
Er, though I wouldn't dismiss the part where I, in a thoroughly implied fashion, suggest you give your villains some reasonable motivations for their villainy, as opposed to just have them turn their collective noses up in the air anytime they're on scene to prove the point that they are EBOL indeed, and the political reasons for their desire to turn Arthur into a mere greasy smear on the ground are supposed to be understood by your readers whom are, clearly, intelligent folk and do not need to be told everything because they can suss things out for themselves. Because that's just cheap. And if your readers are anything like me, they'll think you were being either too lazy or too eager to get to the part where your protagonist long for each other and misunderstand each other by lack of communication skills or the people around them throw themselves at them.
In all fairness, though (and because you might be wondering what kept me reading), it is a well-written story. A fresh take that has no (real) love triangles and does touch (lightly and perfunctorily) upon the political and social implications of the Romans walking off, the Saxons invading Britain and the religious shifting that was taking place at the time. Arthur remains a military genius (again, for the time) and an excellent leader you would follow to the end of the world (just don't follow his example, please). Gwen is a strong woman who gets put through much crap and decides she ain't having no truck with it, no siree, she actually rescues herself this one time and then carries off to be pregnant and mostly okay with a future of being looked down upon because she was unwed and refused to tell who the father was. She retains her agency throughout and actually brings Arthur several pegs down when necessary. Lovely, evocative prose makes an easy, quick read, as well.
Maybe a second reading will purge the bothersome aspects, since I'll know to expect them (and fastforward through them), which will mean a better chance of me focusing on the good parts and actually coming to like in it's own. I mean, it is one of the better Arthuriana Revisited in Modern Times novels I've read, so it might merit a second chance.
In other news, the sun is hot.
no subject
Date: 4/1/11 16:25 (UTC)I haven't actually read the book you're talking about and thus cannot really offer any more thoughts on it, but thank you for typing this all up - besides anything else, these all sound like perfectly valid criticisms! I'd actually only heard glowing reviews of it before, so I'm glad I read this and had my expectations bought back to a slightly more normal level before reading it and then being sadly disappointed, haha!
Hope you're well lovely lady <3
no subject
Date: 4/2/11 09:13 (UTC)Well, I've read two whole books since The Kingmaking so, two weeks or so (?) since this has been bothering me too.
Firelord is, as I think my rec informed you, the best piece of Arthuriana I've come across, and this includes the classics ::gasp::, besides it is a really well constructed story and every character is well-rounded and lovable/despicable in their own ways. Which comes to show, really.
I wouldn't say DO NOT READ UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, just come to it forewarned about certain things, this Arthur is hard to like, if at all, for example, yet he is very human and you can see where he's coming from, it's not all gratuitous. It's not a bad book, and as I wrote, it is an interesting take, Helen Hollick goes entirely historical here, aiming for potential accuracy instead of magic mysticism, besides, the ambient-setting is really worth the time. But it does not come without it's caveats which I wish I'd known about beforehand. Glad I was of some help here! &hearts
Aw, I am now that I know to be useful! Hope life's good to you too, dear.