Scan barcode
abaugher's review
1.0
I give this one star because there are parts of this book that actually have merit. However, the connections between one part and another are weak, confusing, abrupt, or otherwise lacking in a sensical transition.
I requested this as my World Book Night title-3rd choice. I am so disappointed, I am considering sending back the free copies of it. I was to embarrased when I tried to give some of them away that I couldn't offe4r any kind words about it. I even found myself telling people that they didnt have to read it, they could pass it on to someone else. I have brought my readers advisory integrity into question by even giving away 3 copies. ugh.
I requested this as my World Book Night title-3rd choice. I am so disappointed, I am considering sending back the free copies of it. I was to embarrased when I tried to give some of them away that I couldn't offe4r any kind words about it. I even found myself telling people that they didnt have to read it, they could pass it on to someone else. I have brought my readers advisory integrity into question by even giving away 3 copies. ugh.
heroineinabook's review against another edition
1.0
This book was a recommendation I saw somewhere that had all the right ingredients: Vikings, Arthurian legends, fantasy, and retellings. How can it be bad?
Hoo boy.
Let us start on page iv with the Editor’s note: Viken is a historical name in southwestern Norway, believed to derive from Old Norse word ‘vik’, meaning cove or inlet. Etymologists have suggested that the modern word "viking" may be derived from this place name , simply meaning "a person from Viken."
This little note is almost entirely lifted from Wikipedia page for viken. The etymology of the word “viken” is correct, but how it relates to Vikings is horribly incorrect.
So there's that.
The prologue which is a to give the book ambiance is lifted from Norse legend, except our bro dude here is Celtic (yes, there were some heavy influences but this is a very direct lifting of Norse mythology) and then we're told the protagonist's name is Vincent (Mary Sue much?). Vincent is kidnapped by Viken raiders who sell him at a market to a Chinese monk with a VERY mysterious past and then the story shifts to the monk's backstory for a zillion pages that had no bearing on the story itself.
The prose is terrible. It's written in mostly stream of consciousness with some dialog thrown in to make it a "story." And there is description of everything everywhere about everything, which just reinforces the stream of consciousness technique. You have no idea who is talking when, about what, or to whom. The jump in direction and sudden shifting in points of view were edited badly.
Other points to consider:
-- He claims to be the nephew of Terry Pratchett - who is an only child. Vincent also marks it pointedly that he is related on his book bio.
-- His publishing house, YMAA, publishes titles mainly in martial arts / spirituality, but rarely fiction.
-- He (or something) paid $69 to enter in the USA Best Book Awards, which after viewing their site just screams, "scam."
-- People have commented on GR and other places they were embarrassed to hand his book out for World Book Night
-- The misuse of plain/plane, their/they're/there, and other grammar and spelling atrocities.
I just can't. Nope. Not gonna even try.
Hoo boy.
Let us start on page iv with the Editor’s note: Viken is a historical name in southwestern Norway, believed to derive from Old Norse word ‘vik’, meaning cove or inlet. Etymologists have suggested that the modern word "viking" may be derived from this place name , simply meaning "a person from Viken."
This little note is almost entirely lifted from Wikipedia page for viken. The etymology of the word “viken” is correct, but how it relates to Vikings is horribly incorrect.
So there's that.
The prologue which is a to give the book ambiance is lifted from Norse legend, except our bro dude here is Celtic (yes, there were some heavy influences but this is a very direct lifting of Norse mythology) and then we're told the protagonist's name is Vincent (Mary Sue much?). Vincent is kidnapped by Viken raiders who sell him at a market to a Chinese monk with a VERY mysterious past and then the story shifts to the monk's backstory for a zillion pages that had no bearing on the story itself.
The prose is terrible. It's written in mostly stream of consciousness with some dialog thrown in to make it a "story." And there is description of everything everywhere about everything, which just reinforces the stream of consciousness technique. You have no idea who is talking when, about what, or to whom. The jump in direction and sudden shifting in points of view were edited badly.
Other points to consider:
-- He claims to be the nephew of Terry Pratchett - who is an only child. Vincent also marks it pointedly that he is related on his book bio.
-- His publishing house, YMAA, publishes titles mainly in martial arts / spirituality, but rarely fiction.
-- He (or something) paid $69 to enter in the USA Best Book Awards, which after viewing their site just screams, "scam."
-- People have commented on GR and other places they were embarrassed to hand his book out for World Book Night
-- The misuse of plain/plane, their/they're/there, and other grammar and spelling atrocities.
I just can't. Nope. Not gonna even try.
scubacat's review against another edition
2.0
I got 75% done with this book before I started to enjoy it at all. The writing was at times beautiful and other times pretentious and unbearable. With an engaging story, it was less grating, but so much of the story is boring and ridiculous that the language then comes off as self-important. I intended to give up on the book a dozen times but I have a goal of reading 50 books this year and needed to just get this one under my belt, so I endured. Like I said, around 75% in it got more interesting but the ending was still unsatisfying. I wish the book had been edited way down to move more quickly. Overall, I don't really recommend it.
eoghann's review against another edition
2.0
This is one of the most frustrating books I've read in some time.
The author Vincent Pratchett notes in his bio that he is a blood relation of Terry Pratchett, but don't expect similar writing. The only thing in common really is a strange fondness for lots (and lots) of very short chapters.
_The Raven's Warrior_ frustrates me because there are so many *good* ideas in the book. The author clearly has a passion and knowledge for the core material (martial arts and China) and the notion of combining this background with Arthurian legend is certainly an interesting one.
But as a reading experience the whole thing is just incredibly... passive.
There are maybe five characters in the book who get a name. Most are just referred to as "the rebel" or "the beggar". That sort of verbal distancing makes it hard to really connect with a character.
We dot around to many different view points, but one thing remains consistent. Everything is presented in a passive fashion. Things are happening, but we view them as we might history. There's no element of emotion here. We're not given a reason to care about anyone.
And while the Arthurian connections are made painfully obvious at the beginning, I'm left at the end not knowing what the point was.
Yes, stuff happened. Some characters may have been at least somewhat changed by it. But, there's really no clear character progression or development. Stuff happens and then... well we leave the characters but the implication is that more stuff will happen at some point.
Nothing is decided. Nothing is resolved. But then no clear questions or problems were raised in the first place.
It's all so unsatisfactory.
The author Vincent Pratchett notes in his bio that he is a blood relation of Terry Pratchett, but don't expect similar writing. The only thing in common really is a strange fondness for lots (and lots) of very short chapters.
_The Raven's Warrior_ frustrates me because there are so many *good* ideas in the book. The author clearly has a passion and knowledge for the core material (martial arts and China) and the notion of combining this background with Arthurian legend is certainly an interesting one.
But as a reading experience the whole thing is just incredibly... passive.
There are maybe five characters in the book who get a name. Most are just referred to as "the rebel" or "the beggar". That sort of verbal distancing makes it hard to really connect with a character.
We dot around to many different view points, but one thing remains consistent. Everything is presented in a passive fashion. Things are happening, but we view them as we might history. There's no element of emotion here. We're not given a reason to care about anyone.
And while the Arthurian connections are made painfully obvious at the beginning, I'm left at the end not knowing what the point was.
Yes, stuff happened. Some characters may have been at least somewhat changed by it. But, there's really no clear character progression or development. Stuff happens and then... well we leave the characters but the implication is that more stuff will happen at some point.
Nothing is decided. Nothing is resolved. But then no clear questions or problems were raised in the first place.
It's all so unsatisfactory.
ajlenertz's review
3.0
I loved some of it, and other bits irritated me. Merlin (Mah Lin) as a Chinese monk was an interesting new twist.
breereadsbooks's review
2.0
This just wasn't the book for me. It's a retelling of King Arthur (usually a safe bet), but the narration dragged, the dialogue was pretty much the same in tone and voice as the narration, and some of the characters didn't seem to make sense. On top of this, the plot jumps from one character to another without any way to really distinguish who was being talked about. The characters would often be referred to by pronoun without first making sure the reader knew who was being followed at the moment. The plot also didn't string together well (largely because of the character switches.
The characters were strange. Not in an ill-formed way, but for an unexplained reason the near eastern characters were supposed to speak Gaelic and though they almost invariably fluent (i.e. able to speak and philosophize without missing a beat) they would occasionally not know the word for "chains" or some equally mundane and simple noun.
The characters were strange. Not in an ill-formed way, but for an unexplained reason the near eastern characters were supposed to speak Gaelic and though they almost invariably fluent (i.e. able to speak and philosophize without missing a beat) they would occasionally not know the word for "chains" or some equally mundane and simple noun.
More...