A review by ashleylm
Lord Valentine's Castle, by Robert Silverberg
4.0
For a novel featuring sea dragon attacks, pitched battles, mysterious shape-shifters, and blood-thirsty forest creatures, it's a surprisingly gentle, calm read. There is very little in the way of characterization*, and the plot essentially unfolds as one would have it. The incidents are interesting in-and-of themselves, but don't particularly propel the plot forward or add to any depth or richness. It is, at the core, a travelogue, with evocative settings quickly visited, but somehow it all works.
(I read it once, ages ago, as a teenager, and remembered almost nothing of us other than I'd enjoyed it. I liked it at least as well on this return visit--and look forward to more Majipoor, not having realised back then that there would be others in this series).
*If you absolutely insist on psychological complexity, or at least interesting, distinctive personalities, you will be profoundly disappointed. It makes The Lord of the Rings's cast seem like Hamlet. Almost everyone is nice, brave when required, concerned about others, plucky, thoughtful, etc., and not one of them springs to life or stands out. It didn't bother me. I've read enough early fiction where this is not a strong point, and to a large extent this book resembles those traditions (e.g. A Pilgrim's Progress or Le Morte D'Arthur).
(Note: 5 stars = rare and amazing, 4 = quite good book, 3 = a decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. There are a lot of 4s and 3s in the world!)
(I read it once, ages ago, as a teenager, and remembered almost nothing of us other than I'd enjoyed it. I liked it at least as well on this return visit--and look forward to more Majipoor, not having realised back then that there would be others in this series).
*If you absolutely insist on psychological complexity, or at least interesting, distinctive personalities, you will be profoundly disappointed. It makes The Lord of the Rings's cast seem like Hamlet. Almost everyone is nice, brave when required, concerned about others, plucky, thoughtful, etc., and not one of them springs to life or stands out. It didn't bother me. I've read enough early fiction where this is not a strong point, and to a large extent this book resembles those traditions (e.g. A Pilgrim's Progress or Le Morte D'Arthur).
(Note: 5 stars = rare and amazing, 4 = quite good book, 3 = a decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful. There are a lot of 4s and 3s in the world!)