Take a photo of a barcode or cover
bryce_is_a_librarian 's review for:
The Black Cauldron
by Lloyd Alexander
Old Shit I'm Revisiting: The Prequel: Part 2
Aw this is more like it. As I said I was a bit disappointed reading The Book Of Three this is more like The Prydain I remember. There are still flaws, writing at times can be a bit flat, and the exposition a bit heavy. But the moral universe of the characters has grown nicely adding shades of grey to what was starkly black and white before, there's room for some apt and surprisingly lovely metaphor (The broach that causes everything to look different is as good a metaphor for loss of innocence as I can think of) and the characters have deepened, though I can still see a bit of the stockness. (blah blah blah classic archetypes yada yada yada collective unconscious, what I can I say I calls them like I see them).
Once again though the heart of the book comes from Alexander's fertile and surprisingly dark imagination. He plays for keeps and he can play mean, the Cauldron Born themselves are a skin crawlingly creepy concept (It's always bothered me how they don't even bleed), The Huntsmen blew my God Damned mind when I was twelve, and the Cauldron itself is creepy as hell. It's a clever idea really, Tolkien always did the thing with the ring where it would purposely hinder transportation or put itself in someone's hand. Well that all well and good, but Alexander does the same thing here with a several hundred pound cauldron, which believe me can do some damage when it doesn't want to be moved. Even the allies are creepy as hell, the three sisters who control the cauldron have the same strange elliptical menace as Gaiman's Kindly Ones from Sandman. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that this was a major influence on Gaiman's portrayal. (blah blah blah classic archetypes yada yada yada collective unconscious, what I can I say I calls them like I see them).
Anyway it was a significant step up from The Book Of Three. I might see some cracks a bit more clearly now, but I can still appreciate a ripping good yarn.
Aw this is more like it. As I said I was a bit disappointed reading The Book Of Three this is more like The Prydain I remember. There are still flaws, writing at times can be a bit flat, and the exposition a bit heavy. But the moral universe of the characters has grown nicely adding shades of grey to what was starkly black and white before, there's room for some apt and surprisingly lovely metaphor (The broach that causes everything to look different is as good a metaphor for loss of innocence as I can think of) and the characters have deepened, though I can still see a bit of the stockness. (blah blah blah classic archetypes yada yada yada collective unconscious, what I can I say I calls them like I see them).
Once again though the heart of the book comes from Alexander's fertile and surprisingly dark imagination. He plays for keeps and he can play mean, the Cauldron Born themselves are a skin crawlingly creepy concept (It's always bothered me how they don't even bleed), The Huntsmen blew my God Damned mind when I was twelve, and the Cauldron itself is creepy as hell. It's a clever idea really, Tolkien always did the thing with the ring where it would purposely hinder transportation or put itself in someone's hand. Well that all well and good, but Alexander does the same thing here with a several hundred pound cauldron, which believe me can do some damage when it doesn't want to be moved. Even the allies are creepy as hell, the three sisters who control the cauldron have the same strange elliptical menace as Gaiman's Kindly Ones from Sandman. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that this was a major influence on Gaiman's portrayal. (blah blah blah classic archetypes yada yada yada collective unconscious, what I can I say I calls them like I see them).
Anyway it was a significant step up from The Book Of Three. I might see some cracks a bit more clearly now, but I can still appreciate a ripping good yarn.