A review by maitrey_d
The Broken Sword by Poul Anderson
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.