Reviews

So. I looked up the wiki page for this book out of curiosity, and apparently, it is kind of a "you love it or you hate it"-thing.

I am the latter.

I gave it 207 pages. Then I started skimming. So even though I have read the final pages, I will still shelve it as "didn't finish".

I usually avoid stories I don't like, since I don't enjoy giving negative reveiws. I know the process of writing, I know the level of cares and hopes that are usually poured into a novel by the author. So I don't want to bash things for bashing's sake - but when I'm this bored (and sometimes legit angered) by the writing, characters and plot, I have to speak my mind. I invested money and time in this story, you see. Please don't take my opinion personally - if you liked it, then hell yeah, good for you!

Starting with the setting.
Everything is grey, violent and miserable, then it goes from there to grey wastelands, to dirty city life, to happy countryside-living, and to finally land in courtly intrigue. And in ALL of these settings, things were described in an uninteresting way. Not to mention it was difficult to understand where exactly the characters were, at any given time.
And I have no idea if this is some sort of future dystopia (words like "OK" are being used) or medieval (swords and court and stuff), if it's supposed to be pure fantasy or if it's supposed to be loosely based on real life geography and histroy (Norweigans are being referenced to, and the Dutch, and Jews, and the "God" they talk about seems to be the same God that is in Christianity - they mention "His Son" and "The Holy Spirit" once or twice, so).

As for the characters - I found them inconsistent (they're heartless but they're also kind when the plot demands it? they've been taught blind obedience since young childhood but they're also witty enough to snark back for snarking's sake? granted Vauge Henri's method's of disobedience was believable, but for the rest? nah). And Cale - 'wow he's so strong he can do push-up-handstands'-guy - I couldn't pinpoint him at all. And it wasn't because of 'wow such a morally complex character' but rather a 'wait what was his motivation for this? not one that makes sense considering his other motivations and - oh, ok, he's in love now, because she's pretty? wait, what the--'.
I saw no depth.
Their 'funny conversations' felt so out of place to me.
And the women were written as either "shallow, jelaous, cold, beautiful" or, in Riba's case "empathetic, bright, beautiful".
I cannot avoid it any longer, then - the women were atrociously written. Where do I even begin?
FINE if the boys that has pretty much never seen a woman in their life think of her as "a strange creature", but why do the OMNIPRESENT NARRATOR use the same word when they're described "generally" - as in "all men has..."? (p. 205). It's nice to know that women are aliens, or some shit.
Also, when Riba's naked body is described, it is so messy and weird, my 'favorite' (meaning 'I absolutely hated it') being: "Her breasts were huge [...] the areolae that covered the tips were an extraordinary rose pink [...] Between her legs... but we must not go there - though this was not a ban that Henri countenanced for even a moment." (p. 206)
Don't bring me on this awful journey, narrator. The way this is written with the DOT DOT DOT makes me think of freaking Fifty Shades of Grey. There is no "WE" in this scenario, narrator.
Listen, alright - I can accept women being described as attractive to a character (man or woman or neither), and I don't mind it being sexual either, but I cannot feel comfortable when its like this "oogling and forbidden - women and sex are dirty ohohoh but we love their bodies anyway don't we". And not from a character stand-point, either. Not really. With the narrator the way it is (confusing as heck), I feel like it's the narrator saying his opinions. I feel alienated, honestly.
NOT TO FORGET - the beauty standard for women in this universe is apparently clean-shaven? I thought this was just for Riba, who was raised to be like a fairy-princess or something, and that the was supposed to be soft and extraordinary and exotic for disgusting men. And I thought "fine". But no. The ladies at court has this as a standard too: "lips red; legs smooth" (p. 208).
This was the middle ages (or is it? like I said before, who knows), so no one gave a single shit about body hair. Trimming? Sure, perhaps. But SHAVING? No sir. That was an ideal pushed on women in the early 20th century, after WWI. If this is a case of "in this fantasy universe the women were considered beautiful when shaven the author can do what they want with their fantasy cultures don't whine about it" it is a hollow excuse to make the women more attractive to modern readers. (not that there are any 700-year-old readers I don't think, but you get my point I hope).
I could move on to the description of Arbell Materazzi: "Describe her beauty? Think of a woman like a swan." (p. 161)
I nearly lost it here, splurting tea all over my table. Ah, yes, I imagine a woman with a neck as long as her body, that glares at everyone in close proximity and bites them viciously if they bother her. She also has a floofy body and two webbed feet.
And she will wreck you without hesitation.
I gotta say, in terms of personality it sounds interesting, but the rest... Not really what I imagine the narrator wanted me to see.
Seriously though, that description is the laziest thing, I swear. "It was a beautiful day... Describe its beauty? Think of a day like the sun."
Shall we move on to the part where Riba's mistress gets jealous of her charm and calls her a fat whore, because she steals the mistress' suitor's attention so the mistress cannot break their hearts for fun? I could, but all this terribleness surrounding the female cast has given me a headache.
To summarize, I don't think it is intentional misogyny, really, I don't. But I cannot see it as anything other than women written from a misogynistic lens, however unintentional. (yes, of course women can be pieces of shit, they can be empathetic, they can be beautiful - but in this work they're so generalized like "all the Materazzi women are striking, but cold", and "Henri had not felt the power of female sympathy before")

I'm exhausted, but I have to mention my problems with the writing in general:
It isn't to my taste. At all.

"There was much listening to his heart and checking him for wounds." (p. 113) This sentence feels like it is meant to come from the point of veiw of a three year old child - not a fourteen year old boy, or for that matter, an omnipresent narrator.

"Thirty miles from the last village protected by Memphis, IdrisPukke sat in a ditch and was rained on." (p. 147)
Clumsy grammar and a sentence crammed with information.

These were the specific examples that made me groan in agony, but in general, adverbs were used at odd times and the sentences clumsy.

What about the plot, then?
There was none, at least not something I could find in the midst of confusing pacing.

I gave it a shot but I think I can safely say that this might be one of my least favorite books I have ever read, by my own free will.
In no way am I stopping y'all from liking this, but to me, there was just TOO MANY things that antagonized with my interestes and taste.
So there you have it.

kikaas's review

Go to review page

1.0

3.5 / 5

Very weird and different which made it interesting and hilarious at times, despite the dark setting. It was a bit slow.

caitlinxmartin's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

Let's get one thing out of the way before I review this book. It's a confession. I was immediately attracted to The Left Hand of God because I grew up in Memphis and loved that Memphis was the place name used for the seat of debauchery. I'm not saying it's that way in real life, but it's got an interesting history so it's kind of cool to think it might have been or might still be.

This book is utterly compelling in an unusual way. It's unusual because, quite honestly, there really isn't a likeable character to be found in the entire book. There are reasons to despise just about everyone. Often books about unlikeable characters are difficult to read because it's hard to connect. Not so in this case. In this case, my connection was to the storyteller (the author) in an interesting metafictional kind of way. It's hard to say whether this is intentional because it's not terribly overt.

I love The French Lieutenant's Woman precisely because the metafiction is so very intentional and obvious. John Fowles spends most of the book telling you a story and talking to you about telling you a story and I find that wonderful. The Left Hand of God does this, but in a more subtle way. I fell in love with the storyteller's voice and through that the author and I was willing to follow him anywhere.

Aside from an interesting story, Mr. Hoffman does wonderful things with language and tone. Both change as location and circumstance change becoming more gray or more bright and always wryly humorous. This one of the best fantasy debuts I've ever read and I was excited to read this one along with the second installment.

jesterror's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark funny

4.5

gortrak's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

Bought this book years ago and was afraid that the cover would be better than the story...and it was.
Not the worst thing I have ever read, it was just a slow and I did not care for anything happening in the story. YA in an alternate history/fantasy setting without anything epic/magic/interesting, that's the best way I could describe this book.

bydandii's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

So, some intriguing elements for a fantasy/alternate history world in this book. I want to like it, and nearly do, but it feels unformed and incomplete in the execution. Enough so that it will go on the shelf and I will not look for the sequel.

I will quickly highlight just a couple of points.

Other reviews have focus on the 'not-Christian' religion offering a skewed or imply an intentionally anti-Christian message. I disagree. The story presents a 'what-if' militant heresy of Christianity resulting from a world where it did not become the dominant religious-social construct in Europe. A fascinating idea to play with, and the heretical sect actually seems plausible - certainly militant Christianity even existed in this timeline. But barely any hints about how this, and what there are are too vague. The setting just is not explained enough. It is the core of the 'what if' of the story and it just is... as a blank a slate at the end as at the beginning.

It also suffers from mentioning Lollards (a mid-14th century Catholic heresy) which implies Christianity did stick, but then fell with little detail or structure presented on such a drastic and meaningful social upheaval. Or Lollardy developed particularly early? This grey area in the core of the premise is the major element that makes the story feel unformed.

It may be unfair, but the WWI the concept of fronts of static trench warfare in a swords, arrows, and catapult era seemed like a weak contrivance to me that jarred my investment in the story every time it was mentioned.

The larger geo-political situation was also too undefined, and I could not help feeling that it was not presented because it did not exist to present. Unfair, most likely, but my perception all the same.

Relationships also seemed loosely associated - someone would be mentioned as not liking someone else, then getting along with them in comfortable comradery, and then not liking them in rapid succession. The ending of the love interest was similarly jarring with a build of up 'passion and love' to be casually undercut with a first mention of negative feelings that had been there for a while, but out of the blue.

It all just felt like it needed a solid edit to polish the package. As it is, a near miss.

More...