Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by river24
Katabasis by R.F. Kuang
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
3.75/5
Kuang's intellectual prose and innovative worldbuilding were the two parts of this book that stood out to me. I utterly adored the excerpts of fictional essays on magick, chalk and other such unique magical creations. I think Kuang truly shines when leaning into this denser, academic style of writing. The world itself was very interesting; I loved the logical and mathematical fuel of magick, I loved the shifting paradoxes and the ephemeral nature of magick as an entity. I found all of these factors incredibly compelling, I've never read a magic system quite like it, it was fascinating. And, as a concept, I loved the idea of navigating through the courts of Hell.
Where I think this novel stumbles into problems, for me personally, is in the set up and the character building. As I mentioned, I adore the concept of this book and I truly did enjoy Kuang's take on each circle of Hell and the philosophical bargaining at each point. Yet, as a plot, it was never that exciting. I don't mean that as a complaint of little action, I love a slow-paced, character-driven narrative, however the characters plodding through each court became tedious as their motivations for doing so unravelled.
And here we come to my main issue with the book; I could never wholly connect to the characters. Alice wasn't a particularly likeable character to me, however I can wholeheartedly love an unlikeable character if they're interesting or the story gripping enough—Kuang has proven this before herself—yet I never found Alice to be a character that fascinated me. As more about her was revealed, I could empathise with her and I definitely grew to like her more, but that spark of connection never drew me in. I think this is the main shortcoming that I encountered as I therefore couldn't care about the characters in any significant way.
Peter I liked far better, yet we weren't in his head as we were in Alice's and so I found our time with him a little sparse. I also found it to be lacking in interesting side characters. As we happened upon one I found compelling nearing the end of the book, it only became more apparent to me how much the rest of the book had suffered so for this.
What became increasingly tiresome to me were the characters' motivations, it felt more like we were journeying through Hell because it was what the story needed rather than because of any force actually driving the characters to do so. This dwindling drive is even written plain upon the text, but I don't find discerning it equal to reinvigorating the story. There were also several points of easily resolvable miscommunication and other factors that I couldn't make myself buy into. Of all the possibilities that could have been dreamt up in this world, of all the stories to tell, I simply found this one a little disappointing.
As this book comes out and people recognise the themes of academia swirling about it, they will inevitably compare it to Babel. I think this comparison is justified as it is Kuang's own work and I therefore want to make a few observations. The books share several differences—Katabasis is far more fantastical, far more philosophical, and focuses directly on the exploitation of students—but, I think, more important are their similarities. For I feel (and you are welcome to disagree with me) that Babel already says everything this book sets out to, but with more nuance, whilst also far exceeding the bounds of what Katabasis says. Babel emphasises academia's exploitation as an institution of colonialism, and that is clearly what its thesis focuses on, however I still think as a result of that it shows effortlessly how the people working within it are exploited also—especially when they belong to a group of marginalised people that the institution wants to mine for resources.
This is my long and rambling way of saying that I think Babel already covers these themes far better than Katabasis. That is not to say that this book doesn't hold merit of its own, I definitely found parts of the world and the theology interesting, however I think Kuang made several strange choices in its construction.
I do suppose I am being harsher than I would be for an author I like less, but I have come to adore R.F. Kuang immensely and therefore—fairly or unfairly—do hold her to a higher standard. I'm curious to see how others will feel, especially in comparison to Babel, I'm immensely interested in the conversations that will stem from this book and I do hope others enjoy it more. I do still think there is a lot of artistic merit in this book, but it unfortunately fell quite flat for me. I just never emotionally connected with it and that connection is such an important part of a book for me.
Thank you HarperVoyager for an arc in exchange for an honest review.
Kuang's intellectual prose and innovative worldbuilding were the two parts of this book that stood out to me. I utterly adored the excerpts of fictional essays on magick, chalk and other such unique magical creations. I think Kuang truly shines when leaning into this denser, academic style of writing. The world itself was very interesting; I loved the logical and mathematical fuel of magick, I loved the shifting paradoxes and the ephemeral nature of magick as an entity. I found all of these factors incredibly compelling, I've never read a magic system quite like it, it was fascinating. And, as a concept, I loved the idea of navigating through the courts of Hell.
Where I think this novel stumbles into problems, for me personally, is in the set up and the character building. As I mentioned, I adore the concept of this book and I truly did enjoy Kuang's take on each circle of Hell and the philosophical bargaining at each point. Yet, as a plot, it was never that exciting. I don't mean that as a complaint of little action, I love a slow-paced, character-driven narrative, however the characters plodding through each court became tedious as their motivations for doing so unravelled.
And here we come to my main issue with the book; I could never wholly connect to the characters. Alice wasn't a particularly likeable character to me, however I can wholeheartedly love an unlikeable character if they're interesting or the story gripping enough—Kuang has proven this before herself—yet I never found Alice to be a character that fascinated me. As more about her was revealed, I could empathise with her and I definitely grew to like her more, but that spark of connection never drew me in. I think this is the main shortcoming that I encountered as I therefore couldn't care about the characters in any significant way.
Peter I liked far better, yet we weren't in his head as we were in Alice's and so I found our time with him a little sparse. I also found it to be lacking in interesting side characters. As we happened upon one I found compelling nearing the end of the book, it only became more apparent to me how much the rest of the book had suffered so for this.
What became increasingly tiresome to me were the characters' motivations, it felt more like we were journeying through Hell because it was what the story needed rather than because of any force actually driving the characters to do so. This dwindling drive is even written plain upon the text, but I don't find discerning it equal to reinvigorating the story. There were also several points of easily resolvable miscommunication and other factors that I couldn't make myself buy into. Of all the possibilities that could have been dreamt up in this world, of all the stories to tell, I simply found this one a little disappointing.
As this book comes out and people recognise the themes of academia swirling about it, they will inevitably compare it to Babel. I think this comparison is justified as it is Kuang's own work and I therefore want to make a few observations. The books share several differences—Katabasis is far more fantastical, far more philosophical, and focuses directly on the exploitation of students—but, I think, more important are their similarities. For I feel (and you are welcome to disagree with me) that Babel already says everything this book sets out to, but with more nuance, whilst also far exceeding the bounds of what Katabasis says. Babel emphasises academia's exploitation as an institution of colonialism, and that is clearly what its thesis focuses on, however I still think as a result of that it shows effortlessly how the people working within it are exploited also—especially when they belong to a group of marginalised people that the institution wants to mine for resources.
This is my long and rambling way of saying that I think Babel already covers these themes far better than Katabasis. That is not to say that this book doesn't hold merit of its own, I definitely found parts of the world and the theology interesting, however I think Kuang made several strange choices in its construction.
I do suppose I am being harsher than I would be for an author I like less, but I have come to adore R.F. Kuang immensely and therefore—fairly or unfairly—do hold her to a higher standard. I'm curious to see how others will feel, especially in comparison to Babel, I'm immensely interested in the conversations that will stem from this book and I do hope others enjoy it more. I do still think there is a lot of artistic merit in this book, but it unfortunately fell quite flat for me. I just never emotionally connected with it and that connection is such an important part of a book for me.
Thank you HarperVoyager for an arc in exchange for an honest review.