Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by raelovestoread
The Dark Volume by Gordon Dahlquist
3.0
UPDATE: Aug 2023
3 stars?? What was 2016-Rae thinking?
Holy unnecessary sequel, Batman!
Was 2016-Rae so distracted by the thought of Xonck's blue glass schlong that she let go of her inner literary critic??
Was she so desperate to love this that she was willing to overlook all its glaring flaws?
This was so long-winded and confusing that by the end I just didn't want to pick it up. Which is sad because Glass Books is one of my favourite books of all time.
I'm not going to change the rating, because 2016-Rae enjoyed it. 2023-Rae is an easily-addled, over-exhausted curmudgeon.
It'll take more than some swirly purple glass ornamental genitals to impress 2023-Rae!
Please let the 3rd instalment be better... I'm going to read it this time. Promise.
ORIGINAL 2016 REVIEW BELOW
I loved the glass books of the dream eaters. It didn't need a sequel. I knew it didn't need a sequel. I was expecting this to be tosh.
Halfway in, I was re-immersed in the world and enjoying it, despite some rather atrocious similes, sloppy sentences and the sense that this was more of the same.
I find it very difficult to dislike the way Dahlquist writes. Being generally quite picky in my prose, there is lots to complain about. I love words though. I love over-the-top metaphors, words plucked from the thesaurus and lots of detail. I'm not saying it's clever, but it has appeal.
By the end, the scenery blurred, it became easy to lose track of who was poisoned by what, who was shooting who, who was still alive... Although Dahlquist does a good job of recapping, it's easy to get lost in the layers and layers of superfluously detailed plotting.
It's a shame because for the first part, it seemed like the narrative had been somewhat streamlined. The info-dumping showdown at the end caused more stress than excitement though and for the final third, it dragged. For some reason some of the later settings were a lot trickier to visualise than the pseudo-Victorian city, the warped cathedral, the rustic outposts and majestically gothic Harschmort. Perhaps a bit of trimming and tinkering could have licked it into shape, but I'm not left with the same feeling of pure literary pleasure that I got with the first one.
There just wasn't enough here to keep it fresh. The first instalment was a stonking 800+ pages. IT DIDN'T WARRANT A SEQUEL. You can only drag a single story so far without it stagnating.
Am I going to read the third one? Hell yeah, I am. Will it be a cracking disappointment? I'm going to guess yes.
The three star rating reflects my frustrations. I still love he steampunk-esque world, the colourful characters and the sense of adventure and intrigue - it resonates with me a lot more than some other books I've rated three stars. I am feeling very crabby with it, however and it wouldn't be fair for me to give it any more. Even if I did like the idea of a naked man made of fluid blue glass.
3 stars?? What was 2016-Rae thinking?
Holy unnecessary sequel, Batman!
Was 2016-Rae so distracted by the thought of Xonck's blue glass schlong that she let go of her inner literary critic??
Was she so desperate to love this that she was willing to overlook all its glaring flaws?
This was so long-winded and confusing that by the end I just didn't want to pick it up. Which is sad because Glass Books is one of my favourite books of all time.
I'm not going to change the rating, because 2016-Rae enjoyed it. 2023-Rae is an easily-addled, over-exhausted curmudgeon.
It'll take more than some swirly purple glass ornamental genitals to impress 2023-Rae!
Please let the 3rd instalment be better... I'm going to read it this time. Promise.
ORIGINAL 2016 REVIEW BELOW
I loved the glass books of the dream eaters. It didn't need a sequel. I knew it didn't need a sequel. I was expecting this to be tosh.
Halfway in, I was re-immersed in the world and enjoying it, despite some rather atrocious similes, sloppy sentences and the sense that this was more of the same.
I find it very difficult to dislike the way Dahlquist writes. Being generally quite picky in my prose, there is lots to complain about. I love words though. I love over-the-top metaphors, words plucked from the thesaurus and lots of detail. I'm not saying it's clever, but it has appeal.
By the end, the scenery blurred, it became easy to lose track of who was poisoned by what, who was shooting who, who was still alive... Although Dahlquist does a good job of recapping, it's easy to get lost in the layers and layers of superfluously detailed plotting.
It's a shame because for the first part, it seemed like the narrative had been somewhat streamlined. The info-dumping showdown at the end caused more stress than excitement though and for the final third, it dragged. For some reason some of the later settings were a lot trickier to visualise than the pseudo-Victorian city, the warped cathedral, the rustic outposts and majestically gothic Harschmort. Perhaps a bit of trimming and tinkering could have licked it into shape, but I'm not left with the same feeling of pure literary pleasure that I got with the first one.
There just wasn't enough here to keep it fresh. The first instalment was a stonking 800+ pages. IT DIDN'T WARRANT A SEQUEL. You can only drag a single story so far without it stagnating.
Am I going to read the third one? Hell yeah, I am. Will it be a cracking disappointment? I'm going to guess yes.
The three star rating reflects my frustrations. I still love he steampunk-esque world, the colourful characters and the sense of adventure and intrigue - it resonates with me a lot more than some other books I've rated three stars. I am feeling very crabby with it, however and it wouldn't be fair for me to give it any more. Even if I did like the idea of a naked man made of fluid blue glass.