![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Year of Our War - Steph Swainston
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.