Review: The Handmaiden's Tale

Author: Margret Atwood
Genre: Distopian Future Fiction
Pages: 324
Warnings: Holy shit, so much.
Rating: 4.5/5

"The Handmaid's Tale" by Margret Atwood is set in a dystopian future where a fanatical religious organization has taken over the US government and enforce a restrictive hierarchy. The main character, Offred, is one of the few women left in the country who can successfully reproduce, so she's been forced into servitude. This novel is her fictional first-hand account.

There is so much I love about this novel, I have trouble picking a place to start. If there was a gun to my head, I would start with just how fucking scary this novel is. There is such horrific dehumanization of every woman in the world Offred lives in this world that I shudder to imagine something thinking about me (and my female ass) that way. We don't even know the main character's name: Offred is literally "Of Fred", Frederick being the head of her household. She has no humanity outside of being a keeper of his sperm. That is pretty damn scary, until you consider how everyone deals with this enormous decay in women's rights. They just go on. All of the characters are trying to just get through the day, and they do that by pretending all the horrible things being done to them and the people doing those things to pretend the all the horrible things being done to them by real people are just happening. Once you realize how easy it would be for people here and now to ignore on that scale, you start waking up in a cold sweat.

There's also something really amazing about Offred's narration style. Some authors find the first person perspective to be stifling, because the scope of one person is often to small to encompass the plot. Atwood doesn't fumble around trying to get Offred to listen in on the right conversations to find out what Old Man River is up to, she incorporates the supposed limitations of the 1st person narrative into her story. Only being able to see what Offred sees, we're trapped looking between the confines of her habit, and the claustrophobia a reader feels is not unlike her's. Every aspect of Offred's narrative, from her hesitant grasp on reality to the tiny window of the world she can see, is finely crafted to put the reader in her painful shoes. It's wonderful so see a story where there is not a wasted word.

I can't get enough of this book, and I expect you won't either. I won't lie to you and pretend it's an easy read, since the narrative style is intentionally a little frustrating. However this is one of those books where the feeling you get when everything Atwood has orchestrated comes together is well worth any discomfort you felt along the way. This book isn't just a good read, it's got a lot to consider about human nature at it's tasty center. And if that stirring endorsement doesn't encourage you, realize this is a realiatively short book, so dig in. 

Review: The Sword of Shannara

Author: Terry Brooks
Genre: Fiction/Fantasy
Pages: 726
Warnings: Death, some imagery of violence death, Tolkien-clone
Rating: 2.5/5

One of my friends suggested I look into Terry Brook's Shannara book series, but it took me no small amount of time to decide which book to start with. After a bit of research I gave up trying to be systematic and settled on "The Sword of Shannara". It's the first book in the series Terry Brooks wrote, although it takes place towards the end of the universe's chronology.

I swear, "The Sword of Shannara" is a clone of Tolkien's style, archetypes and plot. This goes beyond the basic similarities most high fantasy books share. Some of the similarities were positive, but Brooks also copied some of my least favorite aspects of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. The wholesale borrowing of major plot points is the most obvious.

The plot is as follows: A mysterious wizard druid arrives in the peaceful Shire Shady Vale and informs Frodo Shea that only he is qualified to destroy wield the legendary One Ring Sword of Shannara so it can't be used by the evil Sauron can be used to kill the Warlock Lord. He and a few close companions travel to an official meeting in Rivendell Culhaven, the home of the elves dwarves. Along the way they are harrowed by Ring Wraiths Skull Bearers. There the main characters band with a group of humans, elves and dwarves to quest for the ring sword. During their travels they shortcut through the cursed mines of Moria Hall of Kings. After a certain amount of running around which I can't be bothered to remember, the party gets split into at least two groups culmination of the story. The majority of the humans, elves and dwarves converge on the kingdom of Rohan Callahorn, where they must free the king from the evil influence of Wormtongue Stenmin. Then his people retreat to Helm's Deep Tyrsis, a highly fortified keep where they attempt to hold back the forces of evil. After a long and painful siege, the elven army comes to their rescue, and the army of Mordor the Skull Kingdom is defeated. At the same time the main character and his stalwart sidekick Samwise Panamon Creel travel to the heart of enemy territory with their guide Gollum Keltset to destroy the ring use the sword.  After a certain amount of soul-searching, their mission is accomplished, and everyone who's still alive goes home!

To be fair, I did simplify some points to emphasize their similarity and skipped over some of the more boring fight scenes in LotR. However with only mild embellishment most of the major plot points of "The Sword of Shannara" are a name-change away from those in "The Lord of the Rings". On the plus side, that meant the plot was solid, and could be described using words like "epic" and "legendary". On the down side, I've already read LotR. For anyone else who also just happens to have read Tolkien's trilogy, there will be zero sense of suspense generated by Brook's book. For instance, when the heroes traveled into the Hall of Kings, I already knew there was a terrifying monster lurking at the end. The surprise? It was a water-monster instead of a fire-monster! There is very little different material, so I'll try to avoid revealing any more of it.

I can't fault Brooks for using the same species list as Tolkien, since almost every high fantasy writer draws from said list. I believe there are good fantasy books that feature species aside from Elves, Dwarves, Trolls and Gnomes out there. I do! Brandon Sanderson, back me up here.

Another characteristic of Tolkien's that I would have preferred Brooks left alone was his overly wordy prose. It took me almost a year to finish "The Two Towers", because I just lost the motivation to read it three times and didn't come back to it for months. Brook's first book is a little better, but I found myself skipping over huge chunks of descriptive paragraphs to get to dialogue. My interest in hearing more about some of the characters who diverge from Tolkien's template warred with my disinterest in his prose. The result was that I finished this book, but I didn't like it all that much. I don't want to read any more novels written by Brooks unless I can get some assurance he stopped trying to be Tolkien.

Some of the areas I thought Brooks shined as an author was when he left Tolkien alone. I enjoyed all of the new characters Brooks created, like Panamon Creel, and Menion Leah. I thought they were most interesting personalities because they didn't have analogues to Tolkien's characters and because Brooks spent more time fleshing them out. I also liked that "The Sword of Shannara" is set on a post-nuclear-apocalypse Earth, which was a relatively new story idea in 1967.

If you liked Tolkien, you'll like Terry Brooks. You'll definitively like "The Sword of Shannara" for all the same reasons "The Lord of the Rings" tickled your fancy. Enjoy rich fantasy worlds, with an author who dreamed up a timeline lasting thousands of years before or after the book you're reading? Like the reassuringly familiar structure of high fantasy, the straightforwardness of Good versus Evil in Black Cloaks? Have a crush on elves? Good, you should read this when you have some free time. If you've already read LotR and you don't want to read it again, stay away from this. Go read some science fiction, for goodness sake.

Questions, Comments and Kvetching Welcome~

Review: Fool's Errand

Author: Robin Hobb
Genre: High Fantasy
Pages: 662
Warnings: Acts of torture are mentioned
Rating: 3/5
Series: 1/3 of The Tawny Man

Before I comment on the quality of "Fool's Errand", there is a rant that I have to get out about series in general. For reasons I cannot fathom, every time a new book in a series comes out, the first quarter of it is devoted to recap. Who is this recap for? Not the loyal fans, who if they have free time have already re-read the entire series so the knowledge is fresh in their minds, and if they don't will remember it as they go. I can almost, almost imagine the author is recapping for the first-time reader of the series, but so often I get to hear about crap that doesn't matter to someone who just picked up the book. It's such a waste! It makes me a little crazy, because it's such a common narrative choice.

"Fool's Errand" is more guilty of this than most book's I've read, but in Robin Hobb's defense there is significant action which takes place well before the book starts. This book is actually the seventh book in this universe, following two other trilogies. While it does help the reader to know who is friends with who, and why their bond is so close, I could have lived with a book that felt like it was jumping into the middle of a story. There's nothing wrong with a detailed history that the reader doesn't know about. It creates a sense of mystery, which is something high fantasy books don't have a lot of.

I should warn you that I haven't read the Farseer Trilogy or the Liveship Trader's Trilogy, so the first 200 pages or so of this book were a complete surprise for me. I think those pages would have dragged much, much more if I had known any of the things that were being recapped. I don't know a lot of the details even now, and that's okay for me. It's a better motivation to go back and read the first six books. I would strongly suggest you try reading from the end at least once.

Anyway, on to the actual novel. "Fool's Errand" is the (continuing) saga of FitzChivalry Farseer. From what I estimate, the book picks up 15 years after the previous trilogy. Fitz has been living a simple life raising Mishap, his adopted son. Nigheyes, his awesome wolf companion, has grown old and Mishap is ready to make his own way in the world. While Fitz is slowly coming to the realization that his life must change, Dutiful, his royal son, vanishes. It takes a lot of convincing from all of his old friends (and lots of oh-so-subtle references to the previous two series) to get Fitz moving. Eventually he rescues his son and saves the day, but I figure you should read the book to find out how.

I feel like the action in this book isn't very smooth, but it works out well enough. The first third of the book involves lots of talking and place-setting, which makes the character's interplay during times of high stress much more believable. The other two thirds of the book are lots of travelling interspersed with some fight scenes. It played out nicely, because constant action or constant talking gets boring.

As usual the most fascinating part of this book for me was the characterization. Fitz, the main character, is difficult to like and to get along with, but since the story is first person, it's hard to tell that he's scary. There's a disconnect between how Fitz sees most of his actions (and therefore how the reader views them) and how others interpret his behavior, and Robin Hobb does an excellent job of highlighting this. At one point his companion runs away from him in the middle of the night. In addition, Fitz's has many secrets, and no single character knows all of them. It's wonderful to see an author that can write such a complicated set of characters well.

Nighteyes and Fitz's friendship was lovely for me. As far as magic systems go, the Wit is one of my favorites. In terms of story-telling, the lack of barriers between Nighteyes and Fitz is a counter-point to the levels of secrets between Fitz and everyone else. As odd as it is to see characters keep things from each other for longer than a book, it's odder to see two characters who are essentially soul-mates.

So, typical fantasy fare. I think the main attraction to me was that I started at the end, and don't know how Fitz got his scars, or became friends with Fool among other things. Unlike most fantasy stories, characters were able to keep really valuable information from each other, and I spent part of the book holding my breath, waiting for someone to slip up. Otherwise, the characters carried an acceptable but hardly original story.