(no subject)
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackOver the Christmas holidays I have had *several* new books to enjoy, *many* of which have been classic enough for me to want to recommend them and buy everything else by the author.
Temeraire is Hornblower with dragons. That says it all really. If you're not off reading it now, you never will. But for those of you reading on, I'll mention some of the good, the bad, and the ugly in my opinion.
* The good. Hornblower. With dragons. And it represents it well. Captain whatsit isn't Hornblower -- he's happy, for one thing -- but definitely from the same world. The alternate history -- Dragons have been bread for various uses, mainly military superiority in parallel to navies, the Chinese have overwhelming air superiority if they ever chose to use it, and the most intelligent, charming dragons, though others have bread for size, flame, poison, etc. The tactics used all sound plausible and Napoleonic, in that dragons are useful and dangerous, but not overwhelming.
* The bad. The first book doesn't really seem to go anywhere. It's lovely to read, but there's no substance, no unfolding plot, no tension, no revelation, no anticipation. People who recommended it to me, did you think that? How did you feel about the rest of the series?
* The other. Of course, a dragon is a gigantic honking stonking Mary Sue. That's what dragons are. Some people may complain about that, but it's like complaining that some science fiction explores laws contrary to reality, or that romances have a happy ending. That is the genre, and if you don't like it, reading is not recommended, but it cannot be changed without destroying it :) As I ranted about an ex-depressed post, Dragons are metaphors, expressions of some human emotion or other, as often as not, which is why they're cool. OK, I may be stretching things, but I wanted to say it. The fact that of course he turns out to be one of the most important breeds of dragon, and of course at the end of the book saves everyone, is perhaps over the top, though I'm not surprised. But that he's so wonderful isn't a flaw, it's the reason for the book :)
In fact, the entire review can probably be summed up by the conversation it was first recommended to me in.
Naath: It's Hornblower! With Dragons!
Ian: But it's not very good. Egan--
Me: No! Thank you both. I, of course, very much appreciate any recommendations for good good books. But Naath, please continue to recommend good books that are just like other good books, but with dragons, how can that be bad?
Sorry to both :)
Temeraire is Hornblower with dragons. That says it all really. If you're not off reading it now, you never will. But for those of you reading on, I'll mention some of the good, the bad, and the ugly in my opinion.
* The good. Hornblower. With dragons. And it represents it well. Captain whatsit isn't Hornblower -- he's happy, for one thing -- but definitely from the same world. The alternate history -- Dragons have been bread for various uses, mainly military superiority in parallel to navies, the Chinese have overwhelming air superiority if they ever chose to use it, and the most intelligent, charming dragons, though others have bread for size, flame, poison, etc. The tactics used all sound plausible and Napoleonic, in that dragons are useful and dangerous, but not overwhelming.
* The bad. The first book doesn't really seem to go anywhere. It's lovely to read, but there's no substance, no unfolding plot, no tension, no revelation, no anticipation. People who recommended it to me, did you think that? How did you feel about the rest of the series?
* The other. Of course, a dragon is a gigantic honking stonking Mary Sue. That's what dragons are. Some people may complain about that, but it's like complaining that some science fiction explores laws contrary to reality, or that romances have a happy ending. That is the genre, and if you don't like it, reading is not recommended, but it cannot be changed without destroying it :) As I ranted about an ex-depressed post, Dragons are metaphors, expressions of some human emotion or other, as often as not, which is why they're cool. OK, I may be stretching things, but I wanted to say it. The fact that of course he turns out to be one of the most important breeds of dragon, and of course at the end of the book saves everyone, is perhaps over the top, though I'm not surprised. But that he's so wonderful isn't a flaw, it's the reason for the book :)
In fact, the entire review can probably be summed up by the conversation it was first recommended to me in.
Naath: It's Hornblower! With Dragons!
Ian: But it's not very good. Egan--
Me: No! Thank you both. I, of course, very much appreciate any recommendations for good good books. But Naath, please continue to recommend good books that are just like other good books, but with dragons, how can that be bad?
Sorry to both :)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 03:10 pm (UTC)The link's here; I'll see if I can persuade him to unlock it.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 05:33 pm (UTC)Isn't that true for a lot of fantasy series genesis stories?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-30 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 11:34 am (UTC)(Egan is also good, but contains fewer dragons)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 12:55 pm (UTC)> Egan
Yes, indeed. I've read, um, several of those too, which I have to rant about urgently. It's like, hard science-fiction. Now! :)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 02:10 pm (UTC)Jonathan Strange and Mister Norrel. It could *so easily* have had dragons in, and then there you would have been.
Indeed, the sequels could *yet* have dragons in. It'd fit perfectly. Susanna Clarke would do it RIGHT, would become the Ursula Le Guin of Napoleonic-wars-with-dragons books... :)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 09:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 02:07 pm (UTC)