Scan barcode
A review by ashleylm
Lyonesse: Suldrun's Garden by Jack Vance
5.0
Let's be clear: it's not perfect, and it's not for everybody. But (for me) it's imperfections seem deliberate and charming. It was apparently written in the 1980s, but has the air of something written in the 1940s crossed with something written in the 1600s.
If you're familiar with the "romance" genre--not the Harlequin or Mills & Boone kind of romance, but the antecedent of the novel, exemplified in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia, you will have a sense of what to expect: a dazzling array of characters, whose character is little delved into, points-of-view that skip all over the place, an uneven sense of scale and description (there is no guarantee that the more that is written, the more important it is. At one point he lists, in list form, the characteristics of a dozen or-so individual fairies, none of whom enter into the story), and other such flaws.
And yet, it felt like a masterwork to me, and criticizing it would be like criticizing The Odyssey or Grimms' Fairy Tales. I loved it. It was odd, but lovely, and very much itself throughout.
(Note: 5 stars = amazing, wonderful, 4 = very good book, 3 = decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. I'm fairly good at picking for myself so end up with a lot of 4s). I feel a lot of readers automatically render any book they enjoy 5, but I grade on a curve!
If you're familiar with the "romance" genre--not the Harlequin or Mills & Boone kind of romance, but the antecedent of the novel, exemplified in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia, you will have a sense of what to expect: a dazzling array of characters, whose character is little delved into, points-of-view that skip all over the place, an uneven sense of scale and description (there is no guarantee that the more that is written, the more important it is. At one point he lists, in list form, the characteristics of a dozen or-so individual fairies, none of whom enter into the story), and other such flaws.
And yet, it felt like a masterwork to me, and criticizing it would be like criticizing The Odyssey or Grimms' Fairy Tales. I loved it. It was odd, but lovely, and very much itself throughout.
(Note: 5 stars = amazing, wonderful, 4 = very good book, 3 = decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. I'm fairly good at picking for myself so end up with a lot of 4s). I feel a lot of readers automatically render any book they enjoy 5, but I grade on a curve!