For the 1st hundred or so pages.......the Prelude was quite interesting, but the rest was hard for me to get into. I was reading this in short spurts and it was hard for me to get into as it jumps around from character to character and sometimes I felt like I wasn't quite understanding what was written haha. It was 'okay.' I knew I would finish this book like I always do, but I don't think I will read the next book in this series.BUT...THEN...somewhere it happened, and I felt like I was actually LIVING in this world. Like I was walking with the characters and the forest was around me. I don't know what happened, how it seemed almost like a foreign language to me in the beginning to actually breathing life and making it come alive so. I almost want to reread the beginning. Almost, except there are too many other books out there that I want to read. Duh...now that I've finished this, I also realize that there's a map in the beginning of this book. I almost want to linger, check out the map, and revisit parts of the stories/the travels...but again, there are too many other things I want to read :0)This happens in the year 2,223. No, it's not 2,223 A.D. or B.C., but 2,223 E. (of Everon). It wasn't initially 'Everon' though, it began as the age of "Eberon Vhasris Slanon,' but that language was forgotten by most. The age of Eberon Vhasris Slanon begins during the Prelude in the beginning of the book, where we seemed to be taken to some epic battle. Where man must fight against those that wish to enslave them and die, or they will become slaves.From the Prologue on, we are taken to the year 2,223 E. It has the feel of King Arthur's time with kings, knights, queens, magic, battles, duty and loyalty, betrayals, and castles. There's a sense that the-world-as-they-know-it is coming to a decline and to a possible end. Keyes introduces us to several characters and we follow along their adventures, and Keyes does a wonderful job of weaving these supposedly separate/different characters into each other. Here's what I remember...Aspar White = A holter, one of the king's woodsman. His duty and domain is the forests. People are not to be living in it, taking from it (food wise), etc. And woodsman are the king's men to drive these trespassers out. Things have been different in the forests. There's a feeling of death, not something the king's woodsmen would do. He journeys to search out this new mysterious thing that is happening in the forest. What will he find? Evil? Love? Myth come alive?Stephen Darige = a mapmaker/language lover. In the beginning he is a priest wannabe. He travels to the monastery d'Ef, where he hopes they will take him in and become one of them. He encounters many unexpected things. Who do you trust? All he knows is that he must serve the church. Stephen becomes transformed through this journey. He does get an opportunity to work on translating some works. He's stretched physically and mentally. He gets the opportunity to walk the fanes. Where priests go on a journey alone where the saints slowly strip your senses and feelings away from you, if you survive, at the end they return them to you honed to an inhuman degree. Each man's journey is different.Neil MeqVren = a young man suddenly and unexpectedly made into a knight. Not just any knight either. A knight whose sole duty is to the Queen. Protect only the Queen. I forgot a phrase that Keyes uses, but if the King's life was in danger and the Queen was in danger of getting a bee sting, Neil must still protect the Queen.Anne Dare = youngest daughter of the King of Crotheny. She's a young teenager. She doesn't have the same degree/sense of duty that an oldest daughter might have to her station in life. Anne doesn't think the rules apply to her. She believes in wearing comfortable clothes, marrying for love, and forget about trying to get her to ride side-saddle. She's adventurous, full of life, stubborn, strong-headed, and daring. I don't want to reveal too much on the journey she is sent on, but I wouldn't mind if there was an entire book written about the place she goes.Cazio = a 'gentleman.' I guess the definition of a gentleman is one who does not work. But gentleman may duel for their needs. He even names his swords. Keyes introduces Cazio later in the story than the others, but Cazio sure brought humor to this book. I picture him as a mix between Zorro and Puss in Boots, I don't really know a whole lot about those 2 characters...just that they do come to mind when I'm thinking about Cazio.The teaser on the back of the book mentions Anne..."upon whom the fate of her world may depend." But after reading this novel, I don't really see that Anne was THAT important to the world. There are others from her royal family that survive at the end. But maybe the importance of her survival and life experiences will play out more in the next book?There are SO MANY other interesting characters in this besides the main ones I just mentioned. King William, Queen Muriele, Robert, Lesbeth, Fastia, Erren, Winna, Gramme, Alis, Roderick, Austra, Fratrex Pell, Brother Spendlove, Fend, Sister Casita, Sister Secula, the Briar King. So many more.I will eventually read #2 in this series.There was some humor in this which I really liked. "Cashew" page 482 = "Oh, look." he told her, pointing to her mouth. "You've something on your lip." (you won't get it unless you read it :oP)Here are some other random quotes that stuck out at me, though I can't exactly explain why:"If we have no past, we have no future.""You cannot see yourself, can you, Anne? Except in a mirror, and there everything is backwards."
Greg Keyes needed to torch his thesaurus, and who ever told him such a thing existed needs to be drug out into the street and shot.“But oh ye blogger, why would thou, an English major, deny the beauty that synonyms dost bestow upon the worn, weary, and drear language?”Because, ye ingrates– synonyms are only replacements. They don’t make worn, wear, drear language any better. They just make it ridiculous. Like putting Alexander McQueen or Prada on a scarecrow. Or a cow. And I mean a literal cow, not the denigrating derivative sometimes used to refer to fat people.Yeah, I know, I’m insensitive.To prove my point, here is a passage from J. R. R– wait, do I really need to tell you who that is and what he wrote? I would find that patronizing.“War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”Words more than two syllables: 1. Count it. One. And it’s “destroyer.” There’s elegance to that, rhythm… music. It’s grand, and wonderful. Beautiful. But uncomplicated, unpretentious.Now an outtake from The Briar King:“At that moment, Wilhilm reappeared, with a stoneware platter of cheese, a pitcher of mead, and mazers for each of them. It suddenly occured to Stephen that he was hungry, and when he bit into the pungent, almost buttery cheese, he amended that to ravenous. The mead was sweat and tasted of cloves.”Uh. Spork. I need a spork so I can dig my eyeballs out with it.Derivative spellings of common Earth names are lame. Respelling Lucas to Lucoth does not make it cool. It makes it lame. Virginia Dare spelled as Virgenya is also lame. Don’t insult the intelligence of your readers like that. William, Willhelm, whatever– Wilhilm? What the– even if you wanted a special name, there’s too many letters that look alike for your readers to get the sound and feel of it without painfully sounding it out.There’s a basic rule to good writing– use strong nouns and verbs. Prepositions typically function as adjectives or adverbs, and this book uses them to pieces. Dead horse, much? Of cheese, of mead, of them, of cloves– that is the sign of a writer trying entirely way too hard. “Of” does not make you sound cultured, historical, whatever– it’s pomposity.Also, Keyes uses adjectives on top of the prepositions. Adjectives on top of adjectives. No strong descriptions, no rhythm or music to his selections… just piecemealed synonyms plucked out of a bloody thesaurus.Also, the narrator’s voice– I would have understood if the narrator was a pompous ass. Or if one of the main character’s voice was a prick– but Locuth, the man who barely serves any purpose at all and in my opinion could have easily been completely obliterated without any detriment done to the plot at all – described a man’s voice as “cultured and sibilant.”Sibilant? Really? The backwater village’s local idiot used the word sibilant?Insert eye-roll here: ________________
What do You think about The Briar King (2004)?
I was very quickly carried away by the characters and the race-to-the-finish plotlies. Some developments I was able to predict, some not, but overall I bought in. I like that one of the main character is more if an aging hero - his insights add a great deal to the storyline. I also appreciate the younger brash and somewhat naive characters who are a counterbalance to his worliness. I like that some of the good characters can be petty and vindictive, and that some of the questionable ones are motivated to help (in their own twisted way). I could say more, but hate spoilers in reviews. My best recommendation is that I've bought the next three in the series, and plan to get to them soon!
—Laurel
I liked this book but did not love it and probably will not continue the series. I must note that this is likely due to personal preference more than due to the quality of the novel. I prefer “lighter” Fantasy literature in the sense that I prefer less fighting, swordplay and graphic violence. I very much enjoy epic fantasy with extensive plot, setting and character development; I just prefer more PG rated battles. This book was by no means extreme, just not my cup of tea.As for the book itself, while I was bothered by the use of stock characters, I was impressed enough with the creative use of the characters and plot that I was able to look past that criticism. This book is well written, highly suspenseful and imaginative. It certainly distinguishes itself from the slew of mediocre, epic fantasy literature published today. I would recommend this book to readers who enjoy this type of epic fantasy.
—Libby
Recommended for: Lovers of well-executed, standard fantasy, i.e. swordplay, magic, fantastic creatures, royalty, gifted commoners, children becoming legends, various locations strongly based on real-earth places, etc.I first read this series back in 2008. Once I'd forgotten the plot (which I do with almost all books), all I had left was the memory of really enjoying it while working the night shift at the front desk of a hotel. So, in search of some quality, non-epically-verbose fantasy to read, I turned back to it.Here's my take on second reading: So far, so good. Style: This story features multiple POV characters. For the most part, Keyes keeps the POVs clear and separate, though there are a few scenes in which he inexplicably breaks form and muddies the waters. I am not sure why, other than perhaps those awkward shifts weren't caught by editors. A similar small weakness, like tiny spots of mould on otherwise delicious old cheese, are some misused/misunderstood words in a book by a writer with an impressive lexicon. I had to look up at least 50 words while reading this book. This doesn't usually happen when I read fantasy. The let down? Keyes had the wrong sense of meaning for at least a half-dozen of those words. For example, 'laconic'. Keyes seems to believe it means 'languid', since he has a character raise a cup 'laconically'. Certainly, one could raise a cup using as few words as possible, but I don't think that's what Keyes meant, or meant to mean. Another small weakness-- Keyes does a fair bit of stereotypical, almost romance-style, cataloguing of physical characteristics when introducing characters. Add these weaknesses up, though, and they don't amount to a dastardly demolition of otherwise decent writing. 2 stars for Style.Characterization: Keyes focuses on certain characters, and the more POV time he gives one, the more important they are to the story, and the more they get developed. He doesn't work any miracles, but no POV character gets badly neglected or goes heinously undeveloped. Those who get a lot of time get a lot of change, and that is how it should be. Also, Keyes mixes up likeable and unlikeable characters nicely, with few being presented as definitively 'good' or 'bad'. There's still that typical fantasy 'good vs. evil' theme running through the story, but it's a little subtler, and I appreciate that. 3 stars for Character.Setting: Here's where Keyes stands a little above standard fantasy. There are some wonderful landscapes and tweaks to the world in this book. At the onset, it's standard fare: palaces, castles, forests. But as the story winds on, very interesting elements are added that add colour to the story, such as mysterious 'faneways' that give monks special powers, a cave city in which a strange tribe of people live, hidden valleys, half-worlds where the dead commune with the living, etc. These settings are excellently described and firmly root the reader in the world of fantasy. 4 stars for Setting.Plotting: Another of Keyes' strengths. I think the plot is why I remembered these books as being enjoyable. Keyes is no George R.R. Martin, I'll tell you that. This guy keeps his plots ripping along, and one in particular is an almost book-long cat-and-mouse chase scene. Like a master, he weaves plots together to bring things to a head, and the entire last third of the book is a very fast read. 5 stars for Plotting.Final Rating: 4 stars. (3.5 + an extra half for enjoying a book this much on second reading.)
—Jonathan
