danieltol's review against another edition
4.0
Some of the best prose I written, it is beautiful!
Interesting characters, lots of sword fighting and violence.
Interesting characters, lots of sword fighting and violence.
caraway_and_rye's review against another edition
5.0
A very solid fantasy story, more in the vein of nordic sagas than Tolkien.
Sombre and beautiful, with a touch of cruelty, moving inexorably towards the predetermined end.
Even without all floweriness of language and grand scenes, it feels like Tolkien’s heroes are able to chose their own destiny, while in this story the destiny is too strong and pushes them forward with no choice.
Sombre and beautiful, with a touch of cruelty, moving inexorably towards the predetermined end.
Even without all floweriness of language and grand scenes, it feels like Tolkien’s heroes are able to chose their own destiny, while in this story the destiny is too strong and pushes them forward with no choice.
sofijakryz's review against another edition
4.0
This one has been on my list for a while. A long, long while.
For a reason.
Issued in 1954, "The Broken Sword" came out in the same year as "The Lord of Rings". I had heard for quite some time about the similarities between the two and was wondering how extensive were they. After all, one has become something everyone will have read at some point in their lives and the other - more of a niche thing. Something you kind of have to know about if you're really interested in fantasy. But like really, hardcore interested.
Why?
There are some similarities between "The Broken Sword" and "LOTR", indeed. And there will be more on that. For now, in general, these two are very separate stories. Although they evidently share common influences. But there may be more than that. After all, "The Hobbit" came out, what, when - in 1937? And I will return to that in just a moment.
But first things first.
I am not sure what is generally considered the origin of "dark fantasy". The names that spring to mind are, evidently, Cook or Martin. But Anderson did the dark things before them. Following the tradition of Volsungs. And then other myths. While Tolkien was the good guy.
Changelings are a common trend in myths, at least in European ones? In Lithuania, we have them, although they are generally benign. Or too underdeveloped to be stories from hell. In our stories you simply have fairie-like creatures replacing human kids. But not much happens afterwards except for a few modern fantasy interpretations.
But changelings are exactly what Anderson kicks off his dark story with. The broken sword is just an extra, a plot device. But one, to a mild irritation, discovers this only later in the story. The Volsungs have way more importance than the sword here. And the concept of stolen identity. Which I kind of approve, except for I wish that Anderson would have developed that just a little bit more other than using that as a motivation for blind revenge. Which drives the plot and echoes legends but wants something more here.
And there is some kind of broad-human motiff in there as well - revenge for a horrible deed that then sparks off further cycles of revenge that work well for no one. You know - get revenge for free but gather the doom of centuries as 2 in 1 deal.
So just to be consistent - the story is set (kind of) in the islands of the today's Great Britain. In the days of the Vikings and/or possibly Normans attacking the lands. Somewhere between the Romans, King Arthur and William the Conqueror. And this is kind of important because Anderson stubbornly refers to the lands as England. This is where the viking Orm arrives from Juttland (Denmark, basically) and, by doing some exceptionally evil deeds, sets the doom for himself, his wife to be and their offspring by killing some people and letting a certain witch slip by alive.
Then, after the best of mythological traditions, the witch adresses a local elf-king/earl/whatever and the changeling thing occurs. Not fully with logic of modern or post-modern stories but that of myths and legends. Or just Anderson needing to twist the plot one way or another. Which I have some disgruntlement about, but on that - later.
So because of a changeling thing, you have a human growing up in elf-land and be an elf in all except for heart and thinking. And then you have a changeling and stolen identity thing which would be oh so beautiful if not for the way how it is implemented. Had that stolen identity of half elf-half troll substituted as a human being been more than a plot device, this would have been so much more. But then Anderson decided he needs to fit into less than 250 pages and the reader has to put up with some things not fully developed so others would be and the story would go somewhere.
Add in a few plot-required co-incidences and then you get the Volsungs for the most of the plot. Or something else. Won't share the details because that would spoil the story and Volksungs being so much of this story, you don't want to do that.
In a nutshell, because of reasons, you get the war between the changelings. Involving elves and trolls. And a twisted, but beautiful love story. And worldbuilding set combining the most powerful of European myths - Scandinavian and Celtic. With some glimpses from Greek or other stories. But the latter being very minor.
Although I have to say a word or two on the plot - mostly it being a combo of great European sagas, whatever the origin and that being a bit too evident and characters doing things sometimes just because they have to do them for the sake of the plot and not being covered enough or comin up a bit too deus ex machina sometimes for the reader not to notice, that being the major and quite essential criticism to this story, I quite like other things.
Like worldbuilding and the language.
The world is built very beautifully for so short a book.
One thing I was impressed with is how much research Anderson must have done for this story. I read his other works, e.g. "The Merman's Children" but they are but a shadow of this story (there are some common themes, some developed more in "The Merman's Children", in fact, despite "The Broken Sword" being more beautiful overall). After all, "The Broken Sword" combines so many references to the Old Norse stories. Not only Odin and Loki Asgard stories but also giants, the aforementioned Volsungs and others. Then there are Celtic elements in it. And they are so, so beautiful. Had you read Irish or Scottish fairy tails of Finn and his lads, humans stolen by fairies, kelps and whatsoever, you know what I mean. Plus, Edward Grieg on paper. Goethe's Erlkoenig, FFS! With a faun or so from other mythologies. And all so beautifully blended - from stealing humans to different races distinguished by their tolerance or lack thereof of iron. The ability of characters to turn into animals. To shift from Christian perspective to completely heathen, pagan, ancient Scandinavian. God, so organic, so beautiful!
Not much of dragons, though, despite the obvious influences on "TES: Skyrim". Starting with names (try Orm the Strong in the context of other Nord names, lol), following with physical, winter-overwhelmed environment and goblins being falmer-like creatures. Or some elves, based in Scotland or its islands physically reminding the dark elves and green-skilled trolls - the orcs, ice giants; "cave-riddled coasts".
And then the overlaps with LOTR. I can totally see why people see them:
- there is a Dvalin there (there you go - "The Hobbit");
- elves, especially Leea, laugh in silvery voices;
- there is a strict race hierarchy, albeit somewhat different than that of Tolkien and more based on Norse or Celtic tales;
- there are trolls that are very much like Tolkien's orcs (goblins are separate; and Anderson's trolls are more intellingent);
- there is a white elven-witch that looks much like Galadriel except for being more slutty and evil;
- there are Elven songs (more than in LOTR, in fact);
- there are tall ships and battles (although unlike those of Tolkien);
- there is powerful elven magic (greater than that of Tolkien, TBF);
- there is a quest for a treacherous divine-level item, when an item is only but supporting the plot;
- fair maidens of elven or human folk;
- the beauty of language, etc.
- evident inspiration of Old Norse sagas, myths and legends.
Then, possible influences or shared roots with influences on Sapkowski's Witcher saga and CDPR's fanfic of W3:
- "the drowned towers of Ys" (compare with the lost/drowned city of Ys)
- Tir-nam-Og (compare with Tir-na-Lia)
- the Sidhe (compare to Aen Seidhe)
- a vial of elixir that makes one look as if dead (compare to W3 "Towerful of Mice" quest)
- The Wild Hunt (common pan-European myth)
A literal Easter egg hunt.
But other than that...
Very different stories, like I said.
For one thing, plot differences aside, there is more respect to non-human races in "The Broken Sword" compared to "LOTR" at least (to goblins in particular,) although I would have liked that to be reflected more than in words, for dwarves, especially. Here they play no major role.
What I liked about "The Broken Sword", though, was wintery fairy tale based on the Norse and Celtic blend. And it being so graphic, written so beautifully and poetically. The language being perfect (and therefore being another similarity with Tolkien).
Just try this:
"A bitter wind whirled dead leaves through the air like ghosts hurrying down hell-road, and its shrill whine gnawed at Valgard's nerves."
"She shambled into the hall, gaunt, wrinkled, bent over from the centuries of crouching in the darkness. Out of her hollow skull-face the eyes stared, empty save for little ghosts of madness swimming far behind them."
"The night was still and cold, so cold that breathing was pain, and their breaths steamed out of the shadowed ravine in which they hid and up to glimmer in the moonlight like ghosts escaping the lips of dying men."
"The night deepened and the wind rose to a gale, driving armies of dead leaves before it."
"Down into the dungeons she went, swiftly, soundlessly, a dim white ghost in the dank gloom."
Anderson evidently liked ghosts as metaphors or images in any situations. And that's lovely - they are so beautiful. And only a tiny fraction of his descriptions. They alone deserve 7 stars out of 5.
But then. Those deus ex machina moments. Sticking very strictly to saga-like plot despite modern interpretations and refering to real countries, was something that did not work for me. The latter because it broke the immersion. England associates too much with tea and oat biscuits for it to be a home for fairies. Ireland is better, but still.
Unless for very specific story types, I want to keep distinction between the canon myth world and the human Earth. Unless there is a very good reason to blend it.
I understand what Anderson attempted here, but it worked better for me in "The Merman's Children". Just like Christianity pushing out pagan/mythical beliefs.
And I did not like him changing the pace for the last third of the story. The finale felt a bit rushed and happening because it had to happen.
He also sometimes stuck to the myth canon too strongly. E.g. I know where from the belief of fairie not having souls came, but from the way Anderson described fairie, I did not believe it.
I was expecting more!
I also wanted more character development. Even knowing the 200-something page-limit.
But nevertheless, this story inspired me to return to mythology and folk stories. And other inspiration upstream. Something I've been wooing for a while but did not dare to get immersed into it fully.
Thanks to Anderson, I will be soon returning back to the old gods and other creatures.
So yes, this is a perfect Easter egg hunt with an accompanying story. And beautifully written despite the plot or character issues. Ghosty imagery and language alone makes it worth to read. Not to mention it being a beautiful intro into Old Norse or Celtic sagas and tales.
Recommend despite the issues.
For a reason.
Issued in 1954, "The Broken Sword" came out in the same year as "The Lord of Rings". I had heard for quite some time about the similarities between the two and was wondering how extensive were they. After all, one has become something everyone will have read at some point in their lives and the other - more of a niche thing. Something you kind of have to know about if you're really interested in fantasy. But like really, hardcore interested.
Why?
There are some similarities between "The Broken Sword" and "LOTR", indeed. And there will be more on that. For now, in general, these two are very separate stories. Although they evidently share common influences. But there may be more than that. After all, "The Hobbit" came out, what, when - in 1937? And I will return to that in just a moment.
But first things first.
I am not sure what is generally considered the origin of "dark fantasy". The names that spring to mind are, evidently, Cook or Martin. But Anderson did the dark things before them. Following the tradition of Volsungs. And then other myths. While Tolkien was the good guy.
Changelings are a common trend in myths, at least in European ones? In Lithuania, we have them, although they are generally benign. Or too underdeveloped to be stories from hell. In our stories you simply have fairie-like creatures replacing human kids. But not much happens afterwards except for a few modern fantasy interpretations.
But changelings are exactly what Anderson kicks off his dark story with. The broken sword is just an extra, a plot device. But one, to a mild irritation, discovers this only later in the story. The Volsungs have way more importance than the sword here. And the concept of stolen identity. Which I kind of approve, except for I wish that Anderson would have developed that just a little bit more other than using that as a motivation for blind revenge. Which drives the plot and echoes legends but wants something more here.
And there is some kind of broad-human motiff in there as well - revenge for a horrible deed that then sparks off further cycles of revenge that work well for no one. You know - get revenge for free but gather the doom of centuries as 2 in 1 deal.
So just to be consistent - the story is set (kind of) in the islands of the today's Great Britain. In the days of the Vikings and/or possibly Normans attacking the lands. Somewhere between the Romans, King Arthur and William the Conqueror. And this is kind of important because Anderson stubbornly refers to the lands as England. This is where the viking Orm arrives from Juttland (Denmark, basically) and, by doing some exceptionally evil deeds, sets the doom for himself, his wife to be and their offspring by killing some people and letting a certain witch slip by alive.
Then, after the best of mythological traditions, the witch adresses a local elf-king/earl/whatever and the changeling thing occurs. Not fully with logic of modern or post-modern stories but that of myths and legends. Or just Anderson needing to twist the plot one way or another. Which I have some disgruntlement about, but on that - later.
So because of a changeling thing, you have a human growing up in elf-land and be an elf in all except for heart and thinking. And then you have a changeling and stolen identity thing which would be oh so beautiful if not for the way how it is implemented. Had that stolen identity of half elf-half troll substituted as a human being been more than a plot device, this would have been so much more. But then Anderson decided he needs to fit into less than 250 pages and the reader has to put up with some things not fully developed so others would be and the story would go somewhere.
Add in a few plot-required co-incidences and then you get the Volsungs for the most of the plot. Or something else. Won't share the details because that would spoil the story and Volksungs being so much of this story, you don't want to do that.
In a nutshell, because of reasons, you get the war between the changelings. Involving elves and trolls. And a twisted, but beautiful love story. And worldbuilding set combining the most powerful of European myths - Scandinavian and Celtic. With some glimpses from Greek or other stories. But the latter being very minor.
Although I have to say a word or two on the plot - mostly it being a combo of great European sagas, whatever the origin and that being a bit too evident and characters doing things sometimes just because they have to do them for the sake of the plot and not being covered enough or comin up a bit too deus ex machina sometimes for the reader not to notice, that being the major and quite essential criticism to this story, I quite like other things.
Like worldbuilding and the language.
The world is built very beautifully for so short a book.
One thing I was impressed with is how much research Anderson must have done for this story. I read his other works, e.g. "The Merman's Children" but they are but a shadow of this story (there are some common themes, some developed more in "The Merman's Children", in fact, despite "The Broken Sword" being more beautiful overall). After all, "The Broken Sword" combines so many references to the Old Norse stories. Not only Odin and Loki Asgard stories but also giants, the aforementioned Volsungs and others. Then there are Celtic elements in it. And they are so, so beautiful. Had you read Irish or Scottish fairy tails of Finn and his lads, humans stolen by fairies, kelps and whatsoever, you know what I mean. Plus, Edward Grieg on paper. Goethe's Erlkoenig, FFS! With a faun or so from other mythologies. And all so beautifully blended - from stealing humans to different races distinguished by their tolerance or lack thereof of iron. The ability of characters to turn into animals. To shift from Christian perspective to completely heathen, pagan, ancient Scandinavian. God, so organic, so beautiful!
Not much of dragons, though, despite the obvious influences on "TES: Skyrim". Starting with names (try Orm the Strong in the context of other Nord names, lol), following with physical, winter-overwhelmed environment and goblins being falmer-like creatures. Or some elves, based in Scotland or its islands physically reminding the dark elves and green-skilled trolls - the orcs, ice giants; "cave-riddled coasts".
And then the overlaps with LOTR. I can totally see why people see them:
- there is a Dvalin there (there you go - "The Hobbit");
- elves, especially Leea, laugh in silvery voices;
- there is a strict race hierarchy, albeit somewhat different than that of Tolkien and more based on Norse or Celtic tales;
- there are trolls that are very much like Tolkien's orcs (goblins are separate; and Anderson's trolls are more intellingent);
- there is a white elven-witch that looks much like Galadriel except for being more slutty and evil;
- there are Elven songs (more than in LOTR, in fact);
- there are tall ships and battles (although unlike those of Tolkien);
- there is powerful elven magic (greater than that of Tolkien, TBF);
- there is a quest for a treacherous divine-level item, when an item is only but supporting the plot;
- fair maidens of elven or human folk;
- the beauty of language, etc.
- evident inspiration of Old Norse sagas, myths and legends.
Then, possible influences or shared roots with influences on Sapkowski's Witcher saga and CDPR's fanfic of W3:
- "the drowned towers of Ys" (compare with the lost/drowned city of Ys)
- Tir-nam-Og (compare with Tir-na-Lia)
- the Sidhe (compare to Aen Seidhe)
- a vial of elixir that makes one look as if dead (compare to W3 "Towerful of Mice" quest)
- The Wild Hunt (common pan-European myth)
A literal Easter egg hunt.
But other than that...
Very different stories, like I said.
For one thing, plot differences aside, there is more respect to non-human races in "The Broken Sword" compared to "LOTR" at least (to goblins in particular,) although I would have liked that to be reflected more than in words, for dwarves, especially. Here they play no major role.
What I liked about "The Broken Sword", though, was wintery fairy tale based on the Norse and Celtic blend. And it being so graphic, written so beautifully and poetically. The language being perfect (and therefore being another similarity with Tolkien).
Just try this:
"A bitter wind whirled dead leaves through the air like ghosts hurrying down hell-road, and its shrill whine gnawed at Valgard's nerves."
"She shambled into the hall, gaunt, wrinkled, bent over from the centuries of crouching in the darkness. Out of her hollow skull-face the eyes stared, empty save for little ghosts of madness swimming far behind them."
"The night was still and cold, so cold that breathing was pain, and their breaths steamed out of the shadowed ravine in which they hid and up to glimmer in the moonlight like ghosts escaping the lips of dying men."
"The night deepened and the wind rose to a gale, driving armies of dead leaves before it."
"Down into the dungeons she went, swiftly, soundlessly, a dim white ghost in the dank gloom."
Anderson evidently liked ghosts as metaphors or images in any situations. And that's lovely - they are so beautiful. And only a tiny fraction of his descriptions. They alone deserve 7 stars out of 5.
But then. Those deus ex machina moments. Sticking very strictly to saga-like plot despite modern interpretations and refering to real countries, was something that did not work for me. The latter because it broke the immersion. England associates too much with tea and oat biscuits for it to be a home for fairies. Ireland is better, but still.
Unless for very specific story types, I want to keep distinction between the canon myth world and the human Earth. Unless there is a very good reason to blend it.
I understand what Anderson attempted here, but it worked better for me in "The Merman's Children". Just like Christianity pushing out pagan/mythical beliefs.
And I did not like him changing the pace for the last third of the story. The finale felt a bit rushed and happening because it had to happen.
He also sometimes stuck to the myth canon too strongly. E.g. I know where from the belief of fairie not having souls came, but from the way Anderson described fairie, I did not believe it.
I was expecting more!
I also wanted more character development. Even knowing the 200-something page-limit.
But nevertheless, this story inspired me to return to mythology and folk stories. And other inspiration upstream. Something I've been wooing for a while but did not dare to get immersed into it fully.
Thanks to Anderson, I will be soon returning back to the old gods and other creatures.
So yes, this is a perfect Easter egg hunt with an accompanying story. And beautifully written despite the plot or character issues. Ghosty imagery and language alone makes it worth to read. Not to mention it being a beautiful intro into Old Norse or Celtic sagas and tales.
Recommend despite the issues.
ben_miller's review against another edition
4.0
A fast-moving, dark, bloody hero myth. Comparisons with Tolkien are inevitable (it was published the same year as The Fellowship of the Ring), but it has much more in common with Beowulf or The Tain: a grim tale of morally-ambiguous superhumans locked in a struggle to the death, told in high-flown prose that at its best has a certain cold majesty.
maitrey_d's review against another edition
4.0
Inevitably, one will compare The Broken Sword with the Lord of the Rings (since both came out roughly the same time in 1954-55), and both authors were busy re-creating mythology (Norse, Fairy, to some extent Greek) for modern readers.
While Tolkien went for a completely novel setting, borrowing elements from the aforesaid mythologies, and adding some of his own, in fantasy parlance, creating a primary world (although, there are some who would argue that Middle Earth is actually medieval Earth, including surprisingly, Tolkien himself); Poul Anderson's fantasy novel is set in 11th Century England, with elves, trolls, and some of England still ruled by Vikings (again, the mythology is borrowed from similar sources as Tolkien's).
Other reviewers, including Brit fantasy writer [a:Michael Moorcock|16939|Michael Moorcock|http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1222901251p2/16939.jpg], have hailed this book as even better than Tolkien's. I honestly can't come down on either side.
This book has some great strengths:
1. I thought it captured the original moral tenor of the Norse sagas, a magical realm in which both men and faerie often find themselves at the mercy of capricious forces whose aims and motives are far from being clear.
2. Wild storms back-light the drama, dire fates dog its participants, as much a tragedy as heroic adventure!
3. There is an attempt at separation of the pagan and Christian traditions, which I haven't seen in any fantasy book I've read so far.
That said, the book does end rather abruptly (But I'm told it borrows from Saga traditions there), and I was disappointed the character of the changeling Valgard wasn't closed in a better way.
Overall, well written, great rehashing of mythology, and superb setting. In no way a modern novel (it's lack of fleshed out women characters being a major flaw), but it captures the 50's and war hysteria really well.
While Tolkien went for a completely novel setting, borrowing elements from the aforesaid mythologies, and adding some of his own, in fantasy parlance, creating a primary world (although, there are some who would argue that Middle Earth is actually medieval Earth, including surprisingly, Tolkien himself); Poul Anderson's fantasy novel is set in 11th Century England, with elves, trolls, and some of England still ruled by Vikings (again, the mythology is borrowed from similar sources as Tolkien's).
Other reviewers, including Brit fantasy writer [a:Michael Moorcock|16939|Michael Moorcock|http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1222901251p2/16939.jpg], have hailed this book as even better than Tolkien's. I honestly can't come down on either side.
This book has some great strengths:
1. I thought it captured the original moral tenor of the Norse sagas, a magical realm in which both men and faerie often find themselves at the mercy of capricious forces whose aims and motives are far from being clear.
2. Wild storms back-light the drama, dire fates dog its participants, as much a tragedy as heroic adventure!
3. There is an attempt at separation of the pagan and Christian traditions, which I haven't seen in any fantasy book I've read so far.
That said, the book does end rather abruptly (But I'm told it borrows from Saga traditions there), and I was disappointed the character of the changeling Valgard wasn't closed in a better way.
Overall, well written, great rehashing of mythology, and superb setting. In no way a modern novel (it's lack of fleshed out women characters being a major flaw), but it captures the 50's and war hysteria really well.
jax_hughes's review against another edition
3.0
More like 3.5. this is not my typical style of reading. Very interesting tale of the war of good vs. the evil in everyone.
mizar's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
My second Poul Anderson book and have to say that I am impressed. My first contact with his writings was Tau Zero, a hard sci-fi novel exploring the dynamics of a group of space colonists stranded aboard a ship ever accelerating towards the speed of light. The Broken Sword is a different beast altogether, falling squarely into the fantasy genre and making heavy use of the myths of faerie and the Norse pantheon.
There are those who compare this with Tolkien's world, but I think the comparison is unfair. Both of those works were published on the same year and both are heavily influenced by Norse myths but the similarities end there. Tolkien's creation is much more complex and with a clear division of good vs. evil. The Broken Sword offers us a tale reading like an old saga, where the lines between hero and villain are often blurred.
There are those who compare this with Tolkien's world, but I think the comparison is unfair. Both of those works were published on the same year and both are heavily influenced by Norse myths but the similarities end there. Tolkien's creation is much more complex and with a clear division of good vs. evil. The Broken Sword offers us a tale reading like an old saga, where the lines between hero and villain are often blurred.
jobinsonlis's review against another edition
3.0
This is some real old-fashioned, earnest fantasy, which charmed me at the beginning and then started to bore me a bit near the end. It’s playing a lot of these tropes completely straight and that made the characters instantly recognizable but not particularly lovable. The mighty, tragic hero is mighty and tragic. The good, sweet heroine is good and sweet. There are some shocking twists that aren’t really that shocking. The elves and gods are dicks but mostly helpful when they want to help. Do I recommend it? If you like a well-written example of some standard Norse-inspired fantasy, then yes. It won’t be anything new but it will be enjoyable to revisit these ideas.