My intent here is to share thoughts on fantasy books I read. I have been doing a fair bit of beta reading, much of it in exchange for others reading and offering feedback on my works. I may include some of those beta reads in here, for works which I think will be ‘ones to watch for’ if / when they make it to publication. Others will be just books I read that evoked thoughts others might find interesting (or not). These are my reactions to the texts, and are not intended to be formal critiques, or indications of the worth / quality of what others have written.
Written on the Dark, Guy Kavriel Kay
This is the first of his books I’ve read, perhaps surprisingly, given he’s written 15 now, and is from Canada. It’s a short book, especially by fantasy standards, and is divided into 3 parts. It is set in a version of medieval France; the author’s afterward describes the historical works he used as reference materials. For that reason I would regard it as an alt-history with magic realism, rather than a true fantasy. He pulls it off well.
Throughout the prose flows like warmed honey. There are sections where he pauses the story to outline semi-philosophical ideas. On the whole I think these do not add enough to warrant the degree to which they pulled me out of the story.
I loved part one. I found the plot tight, the characters well sketched. The investigation and consequences of the death for the main characters give them real decisions to make. Their choices are plausible and fit with what is shown of the characters. There is a direct parallel to events in the modern world for those who like / choose to see such things, but it is its own story and not simply allegorical.
I liked part two less. I found it less tightly plotted. There were some beautifully written scenes, but they felt less linked than part one. There were long sections of exposition and parts written in the passive rather than an active style. Had the whole novel been written in that way, I think the change would have been less noticeable.
Part three was similar to part two in style, with several short episodes put together. The exposition felt better balanced than part two and did not intrude in the same way. SPOILER ALERT There was moment when the Queen, who had been running the country while the king was unwell, is denied access to key information after the king regains his health. I thought this would lead into a deeper exploration of the gender power imbalance, but the Queen’s reaction amounts to a shrug, and “I guess I just have to accept that”. For me it felt wrong that such a strong capable woman would have that response.
So overall the way the book came across for me, was that Part one was finished and highly polished, but parts two and three were unfinished drafts where key scenes were completed, but the mortar around those blocks was missing, leaving cracks and gaps.
I still enjoyed it, and may well go get another of his books and compare it to see if the elements that stood out for me here are part of his style, or something he has come to as a hugely popular and successful author: does his prior success mean he gets away with things that us mere aspirants would not?