lazygal's review against another edition
3.0
Chabon seems to be equally adept at any genre - historical adventure fiction included. I admit to not knowing much about the 900s, much less that time in the borders of Russia. Who knew that there was a Khazar empire? Well, now I know and I'm inspired to learn more.
The book itself is a little confusing at times, as you slowly learn more about the two gentlemen (one Frank from Regensburg and the other an Abyssinian - how did they meet up and join forces?!), their "mission" and lives. When they take on the guardianship/protectorship of Filaq, the son of the former bek of Atil, their nomadic style becomes more complicated and filled with deception and fighting. Ultimately they manage to right the wrongs done to Filaq and restore the kingdom to its rightful heir and path. Along the way we meet warriors, whores, merchants and an elephant.
One enchanting feature was the illustrations, with Zelikman looking like Puddleglum (and sounding like him, too).
The book itself is a little confusing at times, as you slowly learn more about the two gentlemen (one Frank from Regensburg and the other an Abyssinian - how did they meet up and join forces?!), their "mission" and lives. When they take on the guardianship/protectorship of Filaq, the son of the former bek of Atil, their nomadic style becomes more complicated and filled with deception and fighting. Ultimately they manage to right the wrongs done to Filaq and restore the kingdom to its rightful heir and path. Along the way we meet warriors, whores, merchants and an elephant.
One enchanting feature was the illustrations, with Zelikman looking like Puddleglum (and sounding like him, too).
kristennd's review against another edition
3.0
Very Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. The twists were predictable, but it's the kind of story where you want them to be. An action movie of a book. Fun and fast. Wish I had the British cover.
eling's review against another edition
3.0
ashamed to say I haven't read any other Michael Chabon so I can't compare but I enjoyed this well enough. It was quick & interesting, but not totally engrossing. Stylistically I really loved the design of the book, the typeface and illustrations were great.
julieartz's review against another edition
4.0
Oh yeah, this is a good one, but also very different than Chabon's other books in that it's set in some ancient time--like around the crusades. It is the tale of two thieves-for-hire who end up taking in a young fugitive whose tragic history pulls them into a great adventure. A tale of two thief-adventurers would not normally attract me, but this book is short, beautifully written, and unusual. I loved it!
dannb's review against another edition
3.0
short "read" just 4 CDs/hours...one down already...the two main characters a little like to old lady bickering sisters...entertaining. I will keep you posted! I had read Chabon's "Pittsburgh" book previously...and not a fan; however, I really enjoyed listening to this one. Loved the reader's deep, rich voice....and the twists and sense of adventure.
tw1tch's review against another edition
4.0
I liked this book. I didn't love it, I think because of its length, but Michael Chabon can definitely write. If it'd been about a hundred pages longer I'd probably have loved it.
bellatora's review against another edition
2.0
Dear Michael Chabon,
I think we need to spend some time apart. I’m glad we tried, I really am. But I just don’t think things are working out between us. I know everyone will think I’m crazy—everyone loves you! Hell, my family loves you. But we just aren’t good together. There’s no spark, you know? I just…I just don’t enjoy our time together. You're a great guy, but you just can't give me what I'm looking for.
You're an ideas man, and I love that about you. Like, for example, Gentlemen of the Road. Great idea. Love it, Michael. I mean, who writes about the 9th century Near East? No one. But you did, and that was really amazing. I really do love how big and wild and, hell, unique your ideas are. I’m going to miss that about you. And, hey, you’re almost as big into bromance as I am. Joe & Sammy in [b:The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay|3985|The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay|Michael Chabon|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1311986910s/3985.jpg|2693329]? Amram and Zelikman in Gentlemen? You love two men who have each other’s backs fighting against the world. And I do, too. We do have things in common, Michael. Just…not enough.
But…this was a pulp novel. And you kind of played with that, but at the same time you didn’t transcend it. There’s subverting a trope, and then there’s just playing into it. Pulp novels are big on adventure, but not really there with things like character development. It felt muddled and confused and just kind of flat.
And there’s just one more thing. Sometimes I feel you’re too…defensive, and it clouds how you look at the world. Maybe that’s where our real problem lies. And I think I understand where you’re coming from. I had a surprisingly moving conversation with a friend recently of the “we will never again march passively to our deaths” mantra that motivates a lot of people these days. There’s a reason why people have chips on their shoulders, Michael. Some wounds cut so deep that the scar remains on succeeding generations. Your reaction is normal. But it’s hard to really understand others when you’re so sure you already know what they’re thinking.
Look, this is all coming up because of your discussion of the original title. You wanted to call this book Jews With Swords. And you were offended when people found the title hilarious. You took it to mean that people were thinking of the title through Jewish stereotypes. That it was the fact that Jews were holding swords that was so humorous. But, Michael, that’s not why it’s funny. I realize that there is a stereotype of Jews out there as nebbish and spindly and weak—the kind of person that is more likely to be bullied and picked on than to be a fighting badass. I would argue that the stereotype is dying down, but that’s not the point here. The humor of the title had nothing to do with the fact that it was about Jews. It’s the fact that the title itself is RIDICULOUS. Try replacing “Jews” with any other religion. Just try it. Catholics With Swords. Hindus With Swords. Presbyterians With Swords.. It’s ridiculous, right? Or try any other ethnicity/nationality: White People With Swords. Hispanics With Swords. Germans With Swords. Somalis With Swords. Still funny. “X With Swords” is just an incredibly pulpy, zany, giggle-producing title. But you didn’t acknowledge that, and I think that defensive view bleeds through into your writing and, frankly, weakens it.
I’m sure you won’t even notice that I’m gone, what with all those awards you’ve won to keep you warm at night. Maybe in a few years we can try again. But right now, I think it's best we see other people.
Best,
B
I think we need to spend some time apart. I’m glad we tried, I really am. But I just don’t think things are working out between us. I know everyone will think I’m crazy—everyone loves you! Hell, my family loves you. But we just aren’t good together. There’s no spark, you know? I just…I just don’t enjoy our time together. You're a great guy, but you just can't give me what I'm looking for.
You're an ideas man, and I love that about you. Like, for example, Gentlemen of the Road. Great idea. Love it, Michael. I mean, who writes about the 9th century Near East? No one. But you did, and that was really amazing. I really do love how big and wild and, hell, unique your ideas are. I’m going to miss that about you. And, hey, you’re almost as big into bromance as I am. Joe & Sammy in [b:The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay|3985|The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay|Michael Chabon|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1311986910s/3985.jpg|2693329]? Amram and Zelikman in Gentlemen? You love two men who have each other’s backs fighting against the world. And I do, too. We do have things in common, Michael. Just…not enough.
But…this was a pulp novel. And you kind of played with that, but at the same time you didn’t transcend it. There’s subverting a trope, and then there’s just playing into it. Pulp novels are big on adventure, but not really there with things like character development. It felt muddled and confused and just kind of flat.
And there’s just one more thing. Sometimes I feel you’re too…defensive, and it clouds how you look at the world. Maybe that’s where our real problem lies. And I think I understand where you’re coming from. I had a surprisingly moving conversation with a friend recently of the “we will never again march passively to our deaths” mantra that motivates a lot of people these days. There’s a reason why people have chips on their shoulders, Michael. Some wounds cut so deep that the scar remains on succeeding generations. Your reaction is normal. But it’s hard to really understand others when you’re so sure you already know what they’re thinking.
Look, this is all coming up because of your discussion of the original title. You wanted to call this book Jews With Swords. And you were offended when people found the title hilarious. You took it to mean that people were thinking of the title through Jewish stereotypes. That it was the fact that Jews were holding swords that was so humorous. But, Michael, that’s not why it’s funny. I realize that there is a stereotype of Jews out there as nebbish and spindly and weak—the kind of person that is more likely to be bullied and picked on than to be a fighting badass. I would argue that the stereotype is dying down, but that’s not the point here. The humor of the title had nothing to do with the fact that it was about Jews. It’s the fact that the title itself is RIDICULOUS. Try replacing “Jews” with any other religion. Just try it. Catholics With Swords. Hindus With Swords. Presbyterians With Swords.. It’s ridiculous, right? Or try any other ethnicity/nationality: White People With Swords. Hispanics With Swords. Germans With Swords. Somalis With Swords. Still funny. “X With Swords” is just an incredibly pulpy, zany, giggle-producing title. But you didn’t acknowledge that, and I think that defensive view bleeds through into your writing and, frankly, weakens it.
I’m sure you won’t even notice that I’m gone, what with all those awards you’ve won to keep you warm at night. Maybe in a few years we can try again. But right now, I think it's best we see other people.
Best,
B
martha_imani's review against another edition
3.0
fanciful adventures with horses and swords. Not my thing.