Scan barcode
ribeirofrio's review against another edition
3.0
That's a tough one. Uh, let's start with a fact: despite my immense enjoyment for Sapkoswi's first saga The Witcher, the last book, The lady of the lake, baffled due to its peculiar narrative structure. The same happened with The tower of Fools, where basically the plot is simplified to the point where it simply consists in connecting the first scene with the last.
As usual, Sapkowski's stile is pure magic. I deeply love the way in which he describes the worldbuilding, here drawn of course from historical sources. But you do feel the 15th century; even the prose is enriched with archaic terms, Latin (from both giuridical and religious books), Italian rhymes (Dante Alighieri!!!) and German lied. In fact, it's majestic, and I savored every page.
But, there is a but. I think that Sapkowski picked the wrong protagonist.
Reinmar of Bielawa is a young physician, who studied in Prague and experimented also with magic. So, after his unlucky affair with noble Adele of Stercza, he is forced to flee from the wrath of the wealthy husband, and in sum all he does is running away, first from this guy, and then from other characters who try to imprison him/turn him in/save him and then ask for a reward. In doing so, he is helped by a former penitent and also excellent warrior Scharley, and a former monk, Samson.
I didn't resist and compared this trio with The Witcher's characters, and in fact, Samson resembled Regis, Scharley is a merry version of a drunk Geralt of Rivia and Reinmar, undoubtedly, is the Dandelion of the book. However, Reinmar is not fascinating and interesting enough to carry the entire book on his back, it's more the accidental focus of the narration, without any particular characteristics.
This is why, after a couple of chapters, I felt rather bored to read all the ways in which Reinmar fled and Scharley and Samson found him short after. Reinmar is a flat character, barely switching his love interest from the beginning to the end, but primarily he doesn't listen to anyone, he doesn't learn anything new and offers little diversion in this waterfall of names that is every chapter (you thought Game of Thrones had too many characters to remember? Try to memorize castle names, family names, mountains, woods, town, cities, old Kingdoms, kings, princes, then monks, popes, antipopes, authors, saints, inquisitors, heretics, knights, pages, dames, dogs, ...).
The real deal was the supernatural subplot, which was criminally undersized: only a handful of scenes, when honestly it deserved the whole book. In this version of Europe, magic exists and there are special creature benefitting from it. One kind is the wallcreeper, a shapeshifter that assume the form of a man, and one of them is lurking in towns where people die in horrible ways. Another kind are magicians, ordinary people capable of doing magic, and witches, a bit trope-y but nevertheless valid characters.
And they are the true heirs of Sapkowski's usually bitter reflections on society: they are hunted by inquisitors, yet they stay true to their nature. They are genuinely The Other, in communion with nature and its seasons, failing to keep their place in a world that is slowly becoming inherently modern, where the incoming Renaissance is banishing the popular superstitions. In spite of their doomed fate, the witches are extremely generous and wise, and provide stunning paragraphs, one of which echoed the mesmerizing Walpurgis night of Faustus.
One example of the greatness of Sapkowski's witches:
"I'm very grateful to you. We don't even know each other. But you're helping me..."
"We're accustomed to helping each other" [...] "Few of us are left. If we don't help each other, we'll utterly die out"
"Thank you"
"But I wasn't thinking about you at all", drawled Quince.
I wish Sapkowski dedicated more pages to this topic, but alas, as it happened with non-human creatures in The Witcher, they exist at the margins of human societies, providing hopeless insights on the violent nature of men, but they are not bound to be protagonist of their own narratives: their time is almost up.
As usual, Sapkowski's stile is pure magic. I deeply love the way in which he describes the worldbuilding, here drawn of course from historical sources. But you do feel the 15th century; even the prose is enriched with archaic terms, Latin (from both giuridical and religious books), Italian rhymes (Dante Alighieri!!!) and German lied. In fact, it's majestic, and I savored every page.
But, there is a but. I think that Sapkowski picked the wrong protagonist.
Reinmar of Bielawa is a young physician, who studied in Prague and experimented also with magic. So, after his unlucky affair with noble Adele of Stercza, he is forced to flee from the wrath of the wealthy husband, and in sum all he does is running away, first from this guy, and then from other characters who try to imprison him/turn him in/save him and then ask for a reward. In doing so, he is helped by a former penitent and also excellent warrior Scharley, and a former monk, Samson.
I didn't resist and compared this trio with The Witcher's characters, and in fact, Samson resembled Regis, Scharley is a merry version of a drunk Geralt of Rivia and Reinmar, undoubtedly, is the Dandelion of the book. However, Reinmar is not fascinating and interesting enough to carry the entire book on his back, it's more the accidental focus of the narration, without any particular characteristics.
This is why, after a couple of chapters, I felt rather bored to read all the ways in which Reinmar fled and Scharley and Samson found him short after. Reinmar is a flat character, barely switching his love interest from the beginning to the end, but primarily he doesn't listen to anyone, he doesn't learn anything new and offers little diversion in this waterfall of names that is every chapter (you thought Game of Thrones had too many characters to remember? Try to memorize castle names, family names, mountains, woods, town, cities, old Kingdoms, kings, princes, then monks, popes, antipopes, authors, saints, inquisitors, heretics, knights, pages, dames, dogs, ...).
The real deal was the supernatural subplot, which was criminally undersized: only a handful of scenes, when honestly it deserved the whole book. In this version of Europe, magic exists and there are special creature benefitting from it. One kind is the wallcreeper, a shapeshifter that assume the form of a man, and one of them is lurking in towns where people die in horrible ways. Another kind are magicians, ordinary people capable of doing magic, and witches, a bit trope-y but nevertheless valid characters.
And they are the true heirs of Sapkowski's usually bitter reflections on society: they are hunted by inquisitors, yet they stay true to their nature. They are genuinely The Other, in communion with nature and its seasons, failing to keep their place in a world that is slowly becoming inherently modern, where the incoming Renaissance is banishing the popular superstitions. In spite of their doomed fate, the witches are extremely generous and wise, and provide stunning paragraphs, one of which echoed the mesmerizing Walpurgis night of Faustus.
One example of the greatness of Sapkowski's witches:
"I'm very grateful to you. We don't even know each other. But you're helping me..."
"We're accustomed to helping each other" [...] "Few of us are left. If we don't help each other, we'll utterly die out"
"Thank you"
"But I wasn't thinking about you at all", drawled Quince.
I wish Sapkowski dedicated more pages to this topic, but alas, as it happened with non-human creatures in The Witcher, they exist at the margins of human societies, providing hopeless insights on the violent nature of men, but they are not bound to be protagonist of their own narratives: their time is almost up.
aga_acrobat's review against another edition
4.0
Schönes historisches Tableau mit etwas flachen Figuren und einem Plot ohne große Höhepunkte.
bokko's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
thesupermassive's review against another edition
adventurous
slow-paced
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
xanthedenning's review against another edition
1.0
Almost dnf multiple times. So sad because I loved the Witcher series and couldn’t put that down. I think this was too historical for me, and it felt like not a lot actually happened. There were some parts that made me laugh, and I always enjoy the way he writes, but this particular book was not for me.
dvri's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
jenninennn's review against another edition
5.0
Having read all books in the Witcher series, I knew going in that I'd be in for an entertaining experience regardless of the topic due to Sapkowski's writing style. Narrenturm did not disappoint me. Looking forward to reading the second part of the series!
uros_djuric's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
emilybryk's review against another edition
2.0
Do you want a big-ass picaresque that's light on characterization and heavy on Anabaptists? Great. (Me, I don't.)