The Year of Our War - Steph Swainston

[watervole]

 I always try to read books by Eastercon guests, however this was not one of the best.

I hit several problems with this book.  

Firstly, it takes forever to sort out who is who and what is going on.

This isn't helped by the fact that many characters have multiple names and titles that are used on difference occasions.  eg Lightening, Saker, Micawater and Archer are all the same person.

Second problem is that the writer occasionally drops into present tense for no apparent reason. I found this jarring and can only attribute it to poor editing.

Third - occasional point of view slips.  The narrative is first person throughout, but there are a few places where the non-psychic narrator suddenly knows exactly what another person is thinking.  Poor editing, again.

Fourth - I didn't initially find any characters that I actually cared about.

Fifth - why do Awians have wings if they can't fly?

Sixth - I know the narrator is a drug addict, but there were sill an awful lot of descriptions of injecting drugs.

Seven - it took me ages to sort out the level of technology - I initially thought it was all medieval as the battles are all like that;  a passing reference to trams confused me totally.  This world turns out to be a Victorian level of technology, but with no firearms and odd modern styles of t-shirts, etc.  The trams turn out to be water-powered (which I didn't find convincing).  The bit I found most unrealistic is the communication system.  There isn't any.  No telegraph, no semaphore towers, no postal service, nothing. Battlefield communications are equally bad.  This is a massive plot device simply to ensure that the narrator (who is the only person who can fly) ends up carrying all communications of any importance.

I nearly gave up a quarter of the way through, but persevered  and found that the book did get better.  A plot finally started to develop and the characters got more interesting.  I enjoyed it enough in the end to pick up the sequels in the Red Cross shop, but I wouldn't have paid full price for them.

Comments

[kerravonsen]

I'd call that worldbuilding fail. Fine, one could decree no telegraph, but why no semaphore towers?

This is a massive plot device simply to ensure that the narrator (who is the only person who can fly) ends up carrying all communications of any importance.

(shakes head) That's lazy writing.

[watervole]

Exactly. Pratchett got that one exactly right. He didn't use semaphore, but an equivalent system that worked just as well.

[damerell]

Pratchett's "clacks" is a real-world system (before it gets impossibly automated). I forget the name of it, but the British used grid-of-shutters before Popham replaced them with large semaphore arms, which are much more visible. Popham also revolutionised naval flag signalling - clever chap.

[matgb]

FWIW, the series is one of my favourites and I recently reread. I don't know where it's set out but the Messenger's principle job is to organise the communcations relays, mail coaches, etc.

A lot of communication of importance is carried by people other than the narrator, but he carries the stuff that's urgent, by dint of being the fastest person alive.

However, while I know it's set out in at least one of the books, there are four of them and I don't know where all the details are set out.

[watervole]

The details of the mail system certainly aren't in the first book.

[damerell]

The semaphore might not be that obvious an idea. The Romans could have built them, but didn't - is that worldbuilding fail in the real world?

[watervole]

We don't necessarily know all that the Romans had. I was very surprised to discover that they had building several stories high in cities. Who's to say they didn't have some long distance signalling system (be it anything from smoke signals to carrier pigeons) that we simply don't know about.

[damerell]

I can think of a number of reasons, but one is that the Roman military loved record-keeping. Given the obvious military value of a long-distance signalling system, it's extremely implausible that one existed but that there are no military records of its establishment or use or of orders and messages transmitted by that system.

[matgb]

Like I said above, the series is one of my favourite's, and Steph's decision to stop writing and go into teaching is something I respect, but wish it weren't so. Consequently, soem of the issues you've highlighted I either didn't notice, actually liked, or they didn't bother me. For example:

I found the name/title thing quite good and some nice worldbuilding. The person holding the role of Archer is given the title Lightning, the Messenger is Comet, but they all have real personal names, Sakar (Lord) Micawater and Jant Shira.

Never noticed tense change as a problem, although I think some is written as a memoir and some is written as it happens?

You're probably right on POV slips, didn't notice TBH. I did actually like Jant, quite a lot (a fairly close friend signed up to LJ as jantshira as she liked him even more), but that'd definitely be a case of YMMV.

The explanation for the vestigial wings on Awians is given in one of the books, but I forget which. and yeah, the tech level is all over the place-again, it's sort of covered later (short version: blame the Emperor), but some of the stuff does exist, but just not mentioned by our self-absorbed unreliable narrator.

[watervole]

The naming system is good, but it takes too darn long to figure it out. It could have been made much clearer from the outset with a bit of thought.

It was only when I got confused by Jant addressing Lightening as Saker that I finally had a moment of inspiration and realised that all Awians were named for species of birds. After that, the names stated to fall into place, though the castle names would be a lot easier to spot if the spelling was normal. eg. I didn't realise Rayne was a castle title for some time, whereas if it had been spelt as 'Rain' then I'd have seen it as part of the pattern of castle names being natural phenomena.

It's not that the system is bad, but that it takes the reader a long time to key into it, and a few hints from the writer would have made it massively easier. It wouldn't have needed an info dump, just the occasional snide comment from Jant.

[matgb]

Heh...

I never realised the bird name thing, neither did I notice the natural phenomena thing. Um, oops?

To an extent though, first novel, I do tend to give authors a break for them to a large extent, but you're probably right, and that's somethign the editor should've been poked for not making sure happened.

[watervole]

Harrier, Saker, Swallow, Tern, etc.

Lightening, Mist, Comet, Rayne, Tornado, etc. (even the ones you think break the pattern turn out to be good if you consult a dictionary) I assume 'San' is 'Sun' which would make sense.

It wasn't until I keyed into these that I was finally able to make sense of the naming patterns.

Given that you didn't spot the patterns at all, it's clearly another case of the editor should have given her a nudge. It would have been so easy for Jant to comment that the fact he didn't have an Awian bird name was yet another thing that pointed him out as half-breed bastard.

I must admit that doing editing myself has made me very aware of when the editor is slipping - you'll notice that I attribute several of the problems to poor editing. (the tense shifts are still happening in book 2, though I notice the writer is providing a much better introduction to the overall setting in the first chapter this time)

[vicarage.livejournal.com]

I tried to read it for a Jomsthing, but gave up for similar reasons. She's dropped out of being an Eastercon guest now too.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I don't think she'll be missed much.

[uitlander]

Actually she will. I liked her book, and didn't find her mixtures of different technologies offputting. Her books are very different from many in the science fiction/fantasy genres. Her books are not comfortable reading, but I've found them rewarding.

I'll also admit that she was a near contemporary at University on the same course as me, and then one of my academic rivals for jobs. I'd call her an acquaintance rather than a friend, but I'm sad that she's dropped out of Eastercon. She's a thoughful and considered Con guest who comes in with a different and well constrcuted set of arguments and opinions.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I find the technology offputting for two reasons. One - unlike the biological stuff (where I suspect she's more comfortable and knowledgeable), it's poorly described and mostly glossed over. This leaves you with very little mental picture of what it's like, and when you do form a mental picture, it often turns out later to be wrong.

Secondly, I just can't see it actually working. eg. I simply cannot see oil lamps making good floodlights. If she'd used limelight instead, I'd have bought it - and she still wouldn't have needed to use electricity.

[uitlander]

You'll probably think this odd but her speciality was not biological, but technological (she dealt with stone tools). I don't mind her playing with technological alternatives - its what archaeologists do most of the time whilst trying to look at things through different eyes.

I don't think her world building is perfect by any means, but it's an interesting and different take on things which is what makes her book so refreshing for me; and every so often there are hat tips in there to things I recognise from our archaeological world (which I readily admit only another 30-50 people in the world will probably spot).

I like the ways she plays with ideas and has a very different approach. The narrator is an unreliable junkie who misses vast tracts of the action. The alternative world he slips into - the shift - is unpleasant, disturbing, and unexpected. I'm not so bothered by the details, but the broad brush of what she has produced is refreshingly different from much of the genre, and I think its a shame that we've lost her voice to a different career.

[jophan.livejournal.com]

Huh? She was GoH at a con I went to a couple of years ago and she was engaging, enthusiastic, intelligent and loads of fun. That was a strange remark.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Correction - she won't be missed by people who have never met her in person and whose only knowledge of her is 'The Year of our War'. (I've started on the second book and I think it's getting better in the way it introduces concepts)

[jophan.livejournal.com]

After having finished The Year of Our War I thought it was worth the effort, because of its originality if nothing else, but No Present Like Time, and The Modern World in particular, were much better. So I see what you mean.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I read a couple of chapters then decided it wasn't for me. Life's too short...

[temeres.livejournal.com]

Second problem is that the writer occasionally drops into present tense for no apparent reason. I found this jarring and can only attribute it to poor editing.

Or author was thinking, "If John le Carre can get away with it why can't I?"

[j-lj.livejournal.com]

So it was not just me then, well at least you finished it. I gave up on it after a few chapters

[the-gardener.livejournal.com]

I have all four of the books down on my Little List, but in the light of your comments I think I'll look for them second-hand rather than new.