Discover new books on Goodreads
Meet your next favorite book
Ulff Lehmann's Reviews > The Court of Broken Knives
The Court of Broken Knives (Empires of Dust, #1)
by
by
The Court of Broken Knives
Julius - Ajlius. Andreas - Nadrias. Alexander - Laexandar. Amrath - Marith.
I'll get back to this.
I read, I write and I'm content. Or some such, but not really no. Sometimes, most times, what I read leaves me wanting. In Anna Smith Spark's "The Court of Broken Knives" case it leaves me wanting with more. Sadly not more of the story. Don't get me wrong it is an interesting read, but I want more from the stories I read. More character, more insight into the characters, more perspective. And less info-dumps. Please.
I had the same problem with Abercrombie, though, so she is in good company.
Maybe it's the sub-genre? Granted, all of her characters are of the I'd-rather-not-know-this-person-at-all variety, so are Logen and the rest of Abercrombie's creations. Nothing redeeming about them. The priestess who kills because that's what the religion asks of her, granted that could also be Aztec, but her hometown has more of an Arabic feel to it. The noble who thinks himself an idealistic freedom fi… director (he doesn't really fight at all) but in truth is an opportunistic asshole. The mercenary lieutenant who lives up to the name and lets his greed supersede common sense. And the mysterious dragon-slaying fresh recruit to the mercenary band who turns out to be a prince and a psychotic killer. Nothing redeeming.
Given such a cast, getting into the head of any one of these characters might be a bit too much to ask for, and indeed the author just scratches the surface -- even with the priestess's first person point of view.
Which brings me to the style. It's a curious mixture of the standard third person singular in past tense which while not omniscient lacks the focus of the narrowed down, immersive point of view, third singular in present tense, and first person both in present and past tense. I'm not sure what to make of it. In the beginning it was jarring, with time I accepted it. But do I like it? No. Certainly, I understand what Smith Spark tried to achieve, and maybe it works for some readers, to me it felt like an artificial change for change's sake if nothing else.
Battles and battles and battles. The hallmarks of the sub-genre Grimdark are realism and more realism, and c*nts as protagonists, or so I'm told. That being said, "Kill and kill and kill" does not count as battle description. More like a placeholder for something that is meant to evoke emotions. But whereas Manowar songs have driving rhythms, thundering bass, guitars and drums to evoke whatever kind of reaction they try to achieve, Smith Spark's "Death and death and death" to me is about as interesting as reading Bob Salvatore painstakingly describing how Drizzt moves every toe to get a better foothold. I know I'm exaggerating here, but it certainly feels that way. To me! As with her stylistic choices, I understand what she tries to convey, a valiant try but as my buddy Yoda used to say "Do or do not, there is no try."
World building. It's there, certainly, but as with "battles and battles and battles" it feels rather hap-hazard to me. We have ocean-worthy ships, fountains, currencies. We also have bronze swords, and silver armor and stir-ups. And then, in the same city that has running water, we also have chamber pots and shit on the street. A strange mix of antiquity and medieval that doesn't quite fit. I'm a fiddler for detail, so when I read bronze and broadsword in the same sentence, I get upset. Why you may ask. Because broadsword is a term originating in the Renaissance, and bronze was used before people figured out how to work iron. Bronze and Iron Age are named for the usage of the metal. We have Renaissance terminology for weapons used in the Iron Age and beyond but crafted from Bronze Age material. Sure there may have been broadsword type of weapons in the Bronze Age, and it is a fantasy world after all, but to me it feels all too much OD&D's Known World than realistic Grimdark.
Almost forgot: the biggest reveal can be spoiled by the names. Granted, I am not your usual reader, but then I guess no writer can switch off their inner editor and just enjoy a book, which makes us the harshest critics, I think. If you're paying attention to the info dumps and can add one and one, you can figure out the big reveal…
I didn't finish Abercrombie, but I finished Court of Broken Knives. Which does mean something, a lot actually, since I never finished Lord of the Rings either. All of the above is me being critical, same as I would be if I were handed a manuscript and asked to give the author my 2 cents. So, it held my interest, but it wasn't interesting/exciting enough for me to anticipate a sequel.
Julius - Ajlius. Andreas - Nadrias. Alexander - Laexandar. Amrath - Marith.
I'll get back to this.
I read, I write and I'm content. Or some such, but not really no. Sometimes, most times, what I read leaves me wanting. In Anna Smith Spark's "The Court of Broken Knives" case it leaves me wanting with more. Sadly not more of the story. Don't get me wrong it is an interesting read, but I want more from the stories I read. More character, more insight into the characters, more perspective. And less info-dumps. Please.
I had the same problem with Abercrombie, though, so she is in good company.
Maybe it's the sub-genre? Granted, all of her characters are of the I'd-rather-not-know-this-person-at-all variety, so are Logen and the rest of Abercrombie's creations. Nothing redeeming about them. The priestess who kills because that's what the religion asks of her, granted that could also be Aztec, but her hometown has more of an Arabic feel to it. The noble who thinks himself an idealistic freedom fi… director (he doesn't really fight at all) but in truth is an opportunistic asshole. The mercenary lieutenant who lives up to the name and lets his greed supersede common sense. And the mysterious dragon-slaying fresh recruit to the mercenary band who turns out to be a prince and a psychotic killer. Nothing redeeming.
Given such a cast, getting into the head of any one of these characters might be a bit too much to ask for, and indeed the author just scratches the surface -- even with the priestess's first person point of view.
Which brings me to the style. It's a curious mixture of the standard third person singular in past tense which while not omniscient lacks the focus of the narrowed down, immersive point of view, third singular in present tense, and first person both in present and past tense. I'm not sure what to make of it. In the beginning it was jarring, with time I accepted it. But do I like it? No. Certainly, I understand what Smith Spark tried to achieve, and maybe it works for some readers, to me it felt like an artificial change for change's sake if nothing else.
Battles and battles and battles. The hallmarks of the sub-genre Grimdark are realism and more realism, and c*nts as protagonists, or so I'm told. That being said, "Kill and kill and kill" does not count as battle description. More like a placeholder for something that is meant to evoke emotions. But whereas Manowar songs have driving rhythms, thundering bass, guitars and drums to evoke whatever kind of reaction they try to achieve, Smith Spark's "Death and death and death" to me is about as interesting as reading Bob Salvatore painstakingly describing how Drizzt moves every toe to get a better foothold. I know I'm exaggerating here, but it certainly feels that way. To me! As with her stylistic choices, I understand what she tries to convey, a valiant try but as my buddy Yoda used to say "Do or do not, there is no try."
World building. It's there, certainly, but as with "battles and battles and battles" it feels rather hap-hazard to me. We have ocean-worthy ships, fountains, currencies. We also have bronze swords, and silver armor and stir-ups. And then, in the same city that has running water, we also have chamber pots and shit on the street. A strange mix of antiquity and medieval that doesn't quite fit. I'm a fiddler for detail, so when I read bronze and broadsword in the same sentence, I get upset. Why you may ask. Because broadsword is a term originating in the Renaissance, and bronze was used before people figured out how to work iron. Bronze and Iron Age are named for the usage of the metal. We have Renaissance terminology for weapons used in the Iron Age and beyond but crafted from Bronze Age material. Sure there may have been broadsword type of weapons in the Bronze Age, and it is a fantasy world after all, but to me it feels all too much OD&D's Known World than realistic Grimdark.
Almost forgot: the biggest reveal can be spoiled by the names. Granted, I am not your usual reader, but then I guess no writer can switch off their inner editor and just enjoy a book, which makes us the harshest critics, I think. If you're paying attention to the info dumps and can add one and one, you can figure out the big reveal…
I didn't finish Abercrombie, but I finished Court of Broken Knives. Which does mean something, a lot actually, since I never finished Lord of the Rings either. All of the above is me being critical, same as I would be if I were handed a manuscript and asked to give the author my 2 cents. So, it held my interest, but it wasn't interesting/exciting enough for me to anticipate a sequel.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Court of Broken Knives.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
April 29, 2017
– Shelved as:
to-read
April 29, 2017
– Shelved
September 9, 2017
–
Started Reading
September 9, 2017
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)
date
newest »
message 1:
by
Lukasz
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Sep 09, 2017 02:22PM
I liked the book but your perspective is interesting. Great review.
reply
|
flag