Best Book Recommended by Folks Who Haven't Read It

It looked like just another Volume One of a Hack Fantasy Series. But, agrumer and womzilla both recommended The Last Guardian of Everness. They've not read it, but they like other books by the author, John C. Wright. I third the recommendation, and I'm 2/3rds through.

The blurb by the author does give me giggles. Hm, I'm not sure how much of it is the author quoting a third party, as all but the first few words are in quotations. In any case, the blurb says the book is "for readers weary of nostalgic pastoral setting and who object to the threadbare fantasy themes that technology is wicked and democracy is folly."

The book has nostalgic pastoral scenes, and quite good ones. And I was tempted to shout, "These counter-themes are not as original as you think!" But hey, drawing from a deep well is not a bad thing, and if the book is good, originality or lack thereof is not a problem. Besides, the book is original; it's just the counter-themes that aren't.

The blurb continues, "Neil Gaiman's Sandman and Roger Zelazny's Nine Princes in Amber won wide audiences because their characters talk and act like contemporaries and express the values in which modern readers believe."

Hm. Okay, first of all, most of the characters in Wright's book do not talk and act like contemporaries. He uses language wonderfully, both for the lyrical speech and the rare, down to earth, "contemporary" speech.

Second, several of Gaiman's characters also do not talk and act like contemporaries, and that's part of what makes Sandman work, just as it's part of what makes Wright's book work. Third, yes, Zelazny's characters in Nine Princes do talk and act like contemporaries, and, IMAO, that's at least as much a weakness as a strength. One of the things I loved about The Courts of Chaos was that it got lyrical. One of the big problems of the Merlin Amber books, again IMAO, was that they did not.

Fourth, "express the values in which modern readers believe" is an interesting phrase, but I'm not sure what's meant by it. I'm going to rant anyway, but take this with the knowledge that I don't actually know what the author means.

I'll grant that Lord of the Rings has some values I do not believe in, but also many that I do (fr'ex, loyalty, bravery, commitment to doing the right thing regardless of cost). Same for Malory and other Arthurian works, of which folks know I've read many. Given the continuing popularity of King Arthur and of Lord of the Rings, I'd say that older works don't necessarily not have values suitable for modern readers. I love the consideration of temptations and why good, intelligent people fall.

Spiderman II has similar values. So does The Last Guardian of Everness. This is part of what makes the book good. I have found that, for all I think I should be a moral relativist, the works I like best are fantasy novels with a strong moral core. It feels positively archaic, but there I am.

I'm really not sure what values the author of the phrase I quote -- whether it's Wright or someone Wright's quoting -- means. What are these values in which modern readers believe? What, if anything, makes them modern? How are they lacking from earlier works which share the same strengths as The Last Guardian of Everness?

No, Wright's novel fits into a line of books that are, IMAO, old fashioned, not at all repetitive, and damned good. Go and read. Who cares if the author -- of the novel or the blurb -- knows why it's good, so long as it is good?

Now Waiting for Part 2

I finished the book. The last chapter is the weakest, though this may be strictly because, well, it does end in medias res, and I don't have the next book because, well, it's not out yet. But things suddenly move fast where there doesn't seem to be a need for that, and there's stuff like, "Then Character X asked a bunch of questions" where, in earlier chapters, I think we'd have seen the questions.

agrumer suggested the blurb I snickered at was talking about modern values like democracy, high technology, and equal rights. Mm. I've seen at least two cases of the technology theme, one striking me as heavy handed, though in fairness, that might have been just because of the blurb, and another as subtle enough I only thought of it while typing up my reply to agrumer. Democracy, equal rights -- well, bad guys give small speeches against it, while good guys, um, at least one thinks the US Constitution is a good thing.

But it doesn't actually work itself into the novel as a theme, yet. One of the good guys shouts out orders, in a situation where I think it quite justified, but there is no democratic discussion or vote there. Again, I don't consider this a problem; I just don't see Democracy-as-Theme doing much here. I do find it amusing that I can see nods to C. S. Lewis. Same well of fantasy, different slant? Probably, but I will need to see the rest of the story before I know where the differences are.

So, now I wait for part 2.

And, for that matter, I wait for part 2 of Gene Wolfe's Wizard Knight sequence. Wolfe blows Wright out of the water, but that's no shame on Wright. And Wright is easier to understand than Wolfe, even in The Knight.