Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.66 AVERAGE
3.66 AVERAGE
I solely read this book because of the Gaiman's introduction. It's not a bad story to be honest. The prose is lyrical and you totally understand that Lord Dunsany was a poet.
But you might be wondering, why only two stars then? Well what I strongly feel is that it would have been a very good story had it been at a length of 100 odd pages. It's the case of not knowing when to stop. It's like 'the hounds hunted the unicorn but they missed it, they hunted the unicorn but they missed it and they again hunted the unicorn but they missed it and oh now they got it'. The added blurb is not for character development. Alveric is just always on his quest. What are more details about his character, we know not. Content shouldn't be to describe clip-clop-clips of the horse hooves. They can if they bring something vital to the story to signal the impending danger or war or something like that, but not just for the sake of clip-clop-clips. Like in the case of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell, despite 1000+ pages not one line feels wasted.
Maybe such books were more appreciated when the book was first published, 1924, but now an abridged version fares much better in my honest opinion.
But you might be wondering, why only two stars then? Well what I strongly feel is that it would have been a very good story had it been at a length of 100 odd pages. It's the case of not knowing when to stop. It's like 'the hounds hunted the unicorn but they missed it, they hunted the unicorn but they missed it and they again hunted the unicorn but they missed it and oh now they got it'. The added blurb is not for character development. Alveric is just always on his quest. What are more details about his character, we know not. Content shouldn't be to describe clip-clop-clips of the horse hooves. They can if they bring something vital to the story to signal the impending danger or war or something like that, but not just for the sake of clip-clop-clips. Like in the case of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell, despite 1000+ pages not one line feels wasted.
Maybe such books were more appreciated when the book was first published, 1924, but now an abridged version fares much better in my honest opinion.
adventurous
slow-paced
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Beautifully written (Neil Gaiman's introduction describes Dunsany's prose as like that of "a poet who got drunk on the prose of the King James bible, and who has still not yet become sober," which I think is spot-on), and starts off at a great pace, but flags halfway through, mainly because the author is too interested in hunting and the story ends up dwelling too much on it. Hunting unicorns isn't nearly as interesting as Alveric's quest for his lost love.
There's some really beautiful language that has the feel of old epic poems like Beowulf: the description of thunderbolts as "stormy wanderers" in particular was lovely and arresting and has that feel of something poetically translated from an older language, and a writer who is finding new ways to say things just for the joy of avoiding repetition.
One curious feature of this book is the way the narrator occasionally snaps out of "heroic, mythological" mode and speaks with a voice that's clearly modern: quoting Byron and dropping in a mischievous aside about Benvenuto Cellini that is straight-facedly presented as an effort to prove to readers who might require historical proof that the events in this book - witches, trolls, magic swords and all - did actually happen.
Another thing I loved about this was the way Elfland is framed as an eerie place that is accessible from and adjacent to our world, but which is somehow also outside normal space and time; that's both beautiful and hyper-real, but also uncanny and even unholy. There's a clear stepping stone here between traditional folklore and 20th century sci-fi / horror: it's no surprise that Dunsany was an influence on H.P. Lovecraft, and there are echoes of Jeff Vandemeer's Area X here too, especially in the way Elfland's boundaries expand and contract.
There's some really beautiful language that has the feel of old epic poems like Beowulf: the description of thunderbolts as "stormy wanderers" in particular was lovely and arresting and has that feel of something poetically translated from an older language, and a writer who is finding new ways to say things just for the joy of avoiding repetition.
One curious feature of this book is the way the narrator occasionally snaps out of "heroic, mythological" mode and speaks with a voice that's clearly modern: quoting Byron and dropping in a mischievous aside about Benvenuto Cellini that is straight-facedly presented as an effort to prove to readers who might require historical proof that the events in this book - witches, trolls, magic swords and all - did actually happen.
Another thing I loved about this was the way Elfland is framed as an eerie place that is accessible from and adjacent to our world, but which is somehow also outside normal space and time; that's both beautiful and hyper-real, but also uncanny and even unholy. There's a clear stepping stone here between traditional folklore and 20th century sci-fi / horror: it's no surprise that Dunsany was an influence on H.P. Lovecraft, and there are echoes of Jeff Vandemeer's Area X here too, especially in the way Elfland's boundaries expand and contract.
This one comes down to a matter of personal taste, I think. All the glowing praise this book has gotten and all the accolades about its longstanding impact on the fantasy genre are true. It's gorgeously written, to the point where I had to stop and reread lines because they were so poignant and beautiful. This book reads like poetry.
What keeps this from being a favourite for me is the distance at which the narrative holds its characters. I can't love a story unless I love the characters, and I couldn't love the characters in The King of Elfland's Daughter. I felt some draw to the mysteriousness and magic surrounding Orion, and the moment in which he reunites with his mother is the most emotionally rewarding moment of the novel, but otherwise, I struggled to emotionally connect to the characters. The novel takes on much of the narrative style of a fairytale, in which the narrator is detached and objective, without any psychological access to any of the characters. It suits the tone of the story, but it isn't a narrative style I particularly enjoy or feel engaged by.
If you're invested in fantasy as a genre and want to experience one of its pre-Tolkien classics, then please read this book. It's groundbreaking, and impactful, and beautiful, and it is criminally under-appreciated both as a literary classic and as a foundational text of modern fantasy. I enjoyed my time reading it, but my inability to emotionally access the characters keeps it from being a lasting favourite.
What keeps this from being a favourite for me is the distance at which the narrative holds its characters. I can't love a story unless I love the characters, and I couldn't love the characters in The King of Elfland's Daughter. I felt some draw to the mysteriousness and magic surrounding Orion, and the moment in which he reunites with his mother is the most emotionally rewarding moment of the novel, but otherwise, I struggled to emotionally connect to the characters. The novel takes on much of the narrative style of a fairytale, in which the narrator is detached and objective, without any psychological access to any of the characters. It suits the tone of the story, but it isn't a narrative style I particularly enjoy or feel engaged by.
If you're invested in fantasy as a genre and want to experience one of its pre-Tolkien classics, then please read this book. It's groundbreaking, and impactful, and beautiful, and it is criminally under-appreciated both as a literary classic and as a foundational text of modern fantasy. I enjoyed my time reading it, but my inability to emotionally access the characters keeps it from being a lasting favourite.
Started off so well, in a way that reminded me a lot of Stardust but then just seemed to tail off and lose itself slightly. However, retains a number of stars because of the excellent descriptions and world-building. Just a shame about the plot/largely unlikeable and flat characters.