Eden

Camelot's Honour

The first time I read this series, I wasn't all that impressed. There are still things I'm not so keen on -- the love at first sight, for one thing, doesn't ring very true, and also the books could do with better proofreading. There's punctuation missing, and I'm pretty sure "grieves" and "greaves" don't mean the same thing. But, this time, I found myself a lot more interested. I preferred Geraint to Gawain, I think, and I was interested in him and his feelings about his relationship to Morgaine, and his way of dealing with his legacy from his father -- and his love for Elen.

I don't know if the story of Elen and Geraint is based on any legend, Arthurian or otherwise, although I suspect that the story of Gwiffert, at least, has some kind of link to existing mythology. Still, it's nice to see a lot of mythology together and coupled to the Arthurian mythology, to make something new. The ongoing story of Morgaine is interesting, too: I can't actually remember very well how that's resolved, and I forgot that she seemed genuinely in love with Urien.

I originally didn't like Elen much, but there is something compelling about her, too, and her struggle, and Collanau. I wished the book had more about the Lord, the Lady, and Elen's family. As far as I remember, the Lord and the Lady don't come into it again, which is a shame.

Camelot's Sword

I'm liking all of these books in my second reading. It's interesting to see all the different threads of Arthurian myth and Celtic myth brought together in this way -- this book especially weaves so many things together: Tristan and Iseult, Lyonesse (Laurel) and Lynet, Lancelot and Guinevere, Morgaine, the Celtic Otherworld... I think I'm focusing a lot more on that, in this reading, instead of on the romance -- which isn't actually as central as I thought. It could do with more time spent on it, actually, because Gareth's transformation from a womaniser into Lynet's faithful knight is very hasty and not really given the time and space it should be. Perhaps the scene on the moor could've been expanded -- another fifty pages would probably have made the love story much more engaging and satisfying. There were some parts of the relationship with Ryol that were glossed over a bit too much -- that was closer to the centre of the story, I think, and didn't suffer too much, but there were a few places where I wondered why the heck it was happening like that. For example, how did Guinevere figure out that the mirror was the problem? Whence came her sudden decision to confiscate it?

One thing that is becoming clear to me is that the relationships aren't as cookie-cutter as I thought, my first time through. The relationships between Gawain and Rhian, Geraint and Elen, Gareth and Lynet... they're much more distinct than I thought at first, and the brothers are less alike than they thought at first. I'm not sure why I thought them so cookie-cutter the first time through, actually. Possibly because all the romance is that bit hastier than I'd like. Possibly I'm a slightly more discerning reader. Possibly my taste has just changed!

I really wish this book had received a little more attention from a proofreader. The little nags I have about grammar and punctuation are really little. For the most part I like the writing. But it's so distracting to keep thinking, "But where is the comma?"

For bottle_of_shine's cat herding challenge, which, misleadingly, involves no cats. It actually involves books. And you can read more about it here. The basic idea starts with listing ten books you love. I've decided to list trilogies and the like as a single book, otherwise my list would get swallowed up by about two authors! But I'd say that reading and reviewing any book from the trilogy/series would count as one.

( Ten books I love )

Right now, it seems books have to be intriguing -- if not brilliant -- right from the outset to actually get me to pay attention to them. I knocked three books off my "read before you get more books" list today: not because I finished them, but because I read the first chapter of each and knew I wouldn't want to finish them. At the moment, my standards are skewed from usual (when I would give everything a good long chance) because I'm trying to read all these books before I buy new ones.

Thirty-two remain on my list. A load more might get knocked out after the first chapter: we'll see. I think this exercise in getting books knocked off my list might make me more selective about buying books. I bought two of Tad Williams' series on a whim, reading just the first couple of pages of the first book in each quartet. That gamble paid off: I love all those books. Same goes for Sarah Zettel.

On the other hand, Robert Newcomb's books turned out to be unbearable. So much telling, so little dialogue -- one line of dialogue, spoken to calm a horse, along with pages and pages of exposition covering years of history. Booooring.

For another example: Fiona McIntosh disappointed me. I bought two of her trilogies after a recommendation. I found the first book of one of her trilogies derivative in the extreme -- I was told she was like Robin Hobb. Well, she wasn't just like Robin Hobb. Some parts of it were lifted directly from Hobb. For example, a man is sentenced to death. He goes into someone else's mind and survives, only to be put back into his own body after he's supposed to have died. Hmmm. Sound familiar to any Hobb fans?

I wince to think how much money I've spent on books I didn't end up reading more than the first chapter of. Lesson for the future for me: read the first chapter sat on the bookshop floor, regardless of the looks you get.

Lesson to authors: that advice you hear about cutting the first chapter out? Consider it long and hard.

For my own future reference as much as anything else... Hooks are good. Begin in medias res. Introduce a mystery that the book will solve. Give me a character I instantly love or loathe so I have some kind of emotion about it all. The first chapter is not the place for minor characters. Feel free to introduce things in a way that will be turned on its head later on -- for example, I love the way, in A Sorcerer's Treason, Sarah Zettel introduces the characters of two main females completely skewed, and then proceeds to make you and the main character discover the reversal. But don't spend a chapter's loving description on a guy who'll be dead by chapter two.

(Of course, there are exceptions to that and valid reasons for doing it. But as a rule...)