Customer Reviews

Banewreaker: Volume I of The Sundering

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

I just finished this novel, and I'll say this to those who are drawing comparisons to Tolkien and gibing Carey for her lack of originality: yes, the plot may not be too terribly original. But have you no sensitivity to the point of view? That is what truly sets the novel apart, along with some fantastic characterizations. I'll elaborate...

Here is a novel much more along the typical fantasy line than Carey's last series (Kushiel's Dart, et al), which I enjoyed, and which had a vague hint of epistemological depth in its exploration of angelic and celestial themes. For me, someone who adores the "typical fantasy line" - I mean, if you are tired of gods and dragons, why did you even pick it up? - it's great stuff. The world of this novel was created by the Seven Shapers, who are demi-gods. Here again is Carey's fascination with the human characterization of divinity, and with human interaction with the celestial, definitely one of the strongest factors of interest in her writing.

There is definitely interest in the concept and even some ties to Hindu philosophy in the way that Carey ties each of her Shapers to a particular human attribute; the Eldest is the Lord of Thought, the Second the Bestower of Love, the Third is the Sower - who bestows the urge to procreate. This is an interesting mythology, and certainly one that I find thought-provoking and original. The war of the Shapers, and how it plays out between the races of Ellylon, Men, Were, Fjell, Dwarfs (all created by the Shapers), is the premise of the book. What is even more interesting is the point of view of the novel.

Satoris Third-Born, the Sower and the "Sunderer of the World", the dark lord that others compare to Sauron of Middle Earth, centers the main storyline. He is a sympathetic character, and those surrounding him are the main protagonists of this novel. Here is a philosophical demi-god unto whom was made an unreasonable request - to withdraw his gift - the urge to procreate - from the race of Mankind - and who denied, at the cost of his Gift itself, all the regard of all the races, and the wrath of his siblings. I suspect that there are strong metaphysical reasons, only hinted at in the beginning of this series, for his actions.

There are many other tragic storylines that create sympathy for the other main "evil" characters, and very little characterization of those who fight for "Good", personified by "the Lord of Thought". Carey's subtext is not only a metaphysical hint to the mastery of the other senses over thought itself, it is a subtle commentary on any who identify with a majority unthinkingly. There is also a strong cyclical nature to the mythology of this book, as identified by the deep and abiding knowledge of the dragons, who maintain that though Satoris has sundered the world, only in sundering can it be made whole again. The mystical nature of this cycle is, again, very metaphysical.

And, oh! The dragons! This characterization of dragons may just be the most moving I have read in many years, bestowing on them such tremendous wisdom, terrible beauty, and wonderful capriciousness. The dragons alone may just be worth the read.

In short, I think it's a fascinating read, with many levels on which it can be enjoyed, and I favor it over Carey's other work. I look forward to reading the next installment!

I've read many reviews bitching about cliches in fantasy and Tolkien clones and hey, I hate those too! Superficially Banewreaker is one of the worst, you constantly have the feeling: Yeah, I've read that before. But is it only me or did Carey imitate the magnificos of the genre on purpose to heighten the impact of strangeness? Everything seems to be as usual -Haomane and his elves fair and graceful, Satoris and his followers brutal and twisted. Yet the more you delve into the story the more you realize that Satoris is a victim of circumstances and desperately clings to the last shreds of his honour while Haomane is a master of manipulation (he is the Lord of Thought after all). The similarities to Lord of the Rings and Belgarion make those differences much more intense and disturbing - a grandiose feat of style (if it was intended).
With BANEWREAKER Carey has created a masterpiece of subjective views, of double moral standards and of the loss of innocence and honour. It is great in its own way and I hope the sequel GODSLAYER will fulfill my high expectations.

The author of the acclaimed Kushiel trilogy breaks out into new territory: a classic high fantasy which riffs off of Tolkien's Middle Earth and the Blessed Lands. This is not, however, just another stereotypical high fantasy with elaborate made-up names, featureless countryside, and magical objects to be won by young heroes rising out of obscurity. Carey describes Banewreaker and its forthcoming second part Godslayer as tragedies; they are the story of a War between Good and Evil told from the perspective of the losing (evil) side.

Carey uses certain elements recognizably borrowed from Tolkien: differing races of Elves (called Ellyl, the Welsh word for elf), Men, Dwarfs, Fjeltroll, and shapeshifting, predatory Were; a world in which mortals and immortals inhabit different continents, separated by a Sundering Sea; a dark lord brooding in his mountain fastness; a band of representatives of the different races toiling together on a quest. She combines these elements, however, with a cosmology that seems to be influenced by Zoroastrian and Indo-Iranian mythology, in which Uru-Alat the World God gives birth, in his death, to Seven Shapers, one of whom, Satoris the Sower, the giver of sexual desire and generation, falls at odds with the others. As in the Kushiel books, she borrows existing languages for her peoples; the trolls seem to speak Norwegian, the Ellylon (Elves) Welsh.

It is typical of Carey that sexuality plays an important role in the story--it is the giver of sexual desire who is demonized and exiled from the angelic ranks, and Satoris has an unhealing wound in his thigh which brings to mind the wounded Fisher King of Grail mythology. I hope that she will bring this theme more to the fore in the second half of the story and use it as her tool for exploring the root question, Are you evil if everyone says you are evil? And by extension, is sexuality evil because everyone condemns it?

I feared I would not like this book, precisely because I loved the Kushiel trilogy so very much, but I hated to finish it and can't wait until its sequel Godslayer comes out in August.

Most people who read this immediately notice its similarity to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Well good for you! It's obvious! That is done with a purpose. This is a grand retelling of the same old good vs. evil story. But here - who is good and who is evil? In this book, you feel for Satoris. His only "crime" was an unwillingness to foraske his own gifts at the behest of his elder brother, Haomane. He befriends and loves the lumpy misshapen Fjeltroll, the abused and cast out among the humans, and the prideful men who worship money. These people had no place in Urulat, according to Haomane. This is the story of two sides destined to fight to the death in a classic good vs. evil, right vs. wrong tale. Only in this one, Carey artfull spins you into wanting the side of darkness to win; the reader finds herself unable to side with those on the side of "good." Excellently written, this book is a good read. Admittedly, the prose is not as artfully done as the Kushiel's series, but still is a cut above the norm.

Like most of the reviewers, I loved the Kushiel series, and leaped eagerly on a new Jacqueline Carey book. Also like most of the reviewers, I was more than a bit taken aback at what I found.

After getting 50 pages in and letting the book sit for several weeks (shocking enough by itself, for me) I finally finished it today. It took longer than it should have to draw me in, but it finally did so, although never completely.

The main problem, I think, is that she elected to work out her ideas about the polarization of good and evil in a mishmash of every High Fantasy world that's been created in the last 100 years. You'd have to be stone blind to miss the Tolkienisms, and another reader noted the significant similarity to Eddings' books. She admits in her own website blog that she did this deliberately, which mollified some of my pique - she wasn't just being oblivious or stupid. However, the fact that she used this *very* heavily-traveled structure is the thing that seems to irritate us the most. Her ideas are great, and I'm particularly drawn to the idea that "evil" is often a necessary reaction against the velvet tyranny of "good". However, she could have worked this out in a number of different models that all would have met with less resistance from readers.

The number of characters complaint surprised me - every single Kushiel book throws new people at you by the dozen. I think the difference is that she paints her people less vividly in this world - her whole style, including the third-person perspective, is much more stark and clipped than the lush vividness of Terre d'Ange through Phedre's eyes. The characters take longer to come to life, and therefore it's much harder to keep track of who everyone is and why they're important. Tanaros is the only one who came alive for me immediately; even Satoris is more absent than present, for all that it's really his story!

When all is said and done, though, Carey writes better than most and her work is still solidly enjoyable. I admire her greatly for doing what she's done here - she could have cranked out a dozen Terre d'Ange books to the same roaring acclaim that the first three produced before attempting to explore a different direction. It took a lot of courage to follow her own ideas, in a direction I'm sure she knew would not be as well-received, so soon after her initial triumph.

The first book in the Imriel trilogy is done, and we'll get that one in early 2006, according to her website. I know they will have a different flavor, but I have little doubt that they will be just as spectacular as the Phedre books - she has set up a whole host of interesting and thorny issues to play out, and Imriel is already a magnificent character. For all of us Terre d'Ange junkies, that will keep us going. In the meantime, I'll look forward to Godslayer so I can at least see what happens in this story, and I'll continue to look forward to any of Jacqueline Carey's work.

Look, I'm sorry, it's just not working for me anymore. It's not you, it's m... Well, OK, it really is you. I mean, what happened? It was good between us! We had a great thing going for a while there. You were sexy and funny and beautiful, baby! You were amazing! I told all my friends how lucky I was to have found you!

Then... This. I'm sorry, but the magic's gone. It's gone stale. It's just not the same. Where's the love?

Really, did the world need yet another Tolkien clone? I mean, come on, at times it was just embarrassing. A King of Men named Aracus/Aragorn, a group of Elves called Rivenlost/Rivendell, a leader of the Elves named Elterrion/Elrond... What, did you write this while watching "The Two Towers" DVD?

And let's not mention how much of the plot seemed to be lifted straight from David Edding's "Belgarion". A dark god in rebellion against his six siblings takes up a stone of power, which wounds and disfigures him. Then the world is split into two continents, and the dark god flees to a city that he shields in permanent darkness, where makes takes three humans his immortal disciples. Mortals take up the war of the gods, and there's a prophecy that only when the dark god is defeated by the Godslayer will the world be made whole again. A motley crew of plucky mortals from every corner of the world gathers together to form a company on a quest to fulfill the prophecy. I love you, Jacqueline Carey, but I wouldn't come to your defense in a copyright lawsuit.

Now, granted, the book does get better further in, but unfortunately that's canceled out by the below-average prologue and the depressingly average first third of the book. Compared to most of the schlock out there, the writing is pretty good, but compared to Carey's earlier work, it's like "See Spot Run."

My advice to Carey fans who buy this book? Forget that Carey wrote it. Sad but true, you can only be disappointed if have any high hopes for "Banewreaker." At least if you don't have any expectations, you can't feel cheated by the book's mediocrity.

It's an interesting conceit to re-tell The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion from a point of view that's sympathetic to Sauron/Morgoth. And it's more philosophically interesting yet to map that sympathetic evil god to Lucifer, suffering because he gave the gift of sex to humans, but still the only god who will answer a human's prayers.

Interesting conceits do not a novel make, however. Carey seems to having taken a lesson from Robert Jordan, and written 500 pages wherein Nothing Happens.

That may be part of her philosophical study also, mirroring the textual assertion that no matter what people do, fate is pre-ordained. I don't care; it makes for a pointless read. If she'd written this as Lit Crit of Tolkein, or as a writing exercise clearly reversing Tolkein, or as a thought piece about predeterminism, I'd forgive. But it's supposed to be a novel, which means it's supposed to have things like character development and a denouement.

I understand this book and the second, Godslayer, were supposed to be published as one. Perhaps if Carey had edited out several hundred pages of Nothing Happening they could've been, and this would have worked as a novel.

"Dark side" stories don't seem to take well. The last trilogy of Star Wars movies was supposed to chronicle Anakin's growth (or lack thereof). They failed miserably. Perhaps this story can't be written well.

I had a difficult time getting into this book, and, in fact, almost tossed it. But I hate not finishing books, so I decided to tread forward. Also, it's rare to read a story written from all perspectives (good and bad), especially when the purported bad guys get the most "air time". I wanted to see what she would do with it.

One thing that I didn't think would bother me, but did, was how much this world represented the mythologies of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. I'd read the reviews here on this very product page that denounced the similarities. However, George R. R. Martin spoke highly of these books, and the similarities didn't bother him. He seemed to enjoy them. I think highly of Martin, so who am I to argue?

Well, I am. The similarities were too much. I mean, three "stones", called Soumanië, are essentially Tolkien's Silmarils. Her elves are Tolkien's elves; her dwarves are Tolkien's dwarves; her "men" are Tolkien's "men". There's even a diminutive figure that has to choose whether to bear an item of great power that, if dropped into just the right place in Mordor (er, Darkhaven) will spell the end for Satoris, the Sauron of this story.

The similarities don't stop there, though I will.

As I made my way further through the book, I asked myself why would the author create a story so similar to Tolkien's (and others), instead of creating her own? The best answer I could come up with is that she chose to do this so that it would represent a reversal of any archetypal high fantasy. Since Tolkien is at the top of that heap, she chose to mirror his work the most. If this is the case, it's a valid one.

With that in mind, I was able to make it through the book, and I even ordered the second, Godslayer.

There is the question of the motivation of Satoris's "Three", his servants who approximate Tolkien's Ringwraiths or Donaldson's Ravers. It's very hard to imagine that a man, given immortality and a thousand years to digest a tragedy that occurred in his life, would still be seething over that tragedy. Then again, these were men that succumbed to the "dark side", so perhaps there was something in them already that made them amenable to Satoris's offers. If so, we didn't hear of it.

I don't think Carey was trying to disguise the fact that Banewreaker has very strong overtones from other fantasy works, particularly Tolkien. In fact those strong fantasy overtones are integral to what she's trying to say. Anyone who has read any fantasy, EVER, will recognize the stereotypical elves, dwarves, men, etc. What Carey brings to the table is her portrayal of events; she writes the book from the losing "bad guys" point of view. If this were the Lord of the Rings, she would be writing it through Sauron's eyes. The fact that she takes one manner of thinking that we're used to never questioning and turns it on its head rather than making up a new world is part of what makes her statement on good and evil so effective.

The books center on a set of Gods who quarreled among themselves long ago and rent the world in half. Carey focuses on the servants of the Dark Lord Satoris, the exiled god responsible for the rending. This book covers the first half of the conflict between those who want to end Satoris's existence and those who want him to continue living unopposed in his fortress of Darkhaven. In particular it focuses on Tanaros Kingslayer, one of Satoris's generals, who is trying to prevent the fulfilment of the prophecy that will end Satoris's reign.

While fantasy is a fun genre to read, in my opinion one of its weak points is its black-and-white vision of good and evil. In fantasy bad guys are depicted as bad because they are insane, or under a spell, or simply "just because". Carey's attention to portraying both sides is the strength of this duology; it is not just a story in and of itself, but a commentary on fantasy in general. When the time came for the final battle I was genuinely depressed that somebody had to lose. As far as the actual writing quality goes, I felt that she has written better. While I think it's still a solid performance, the characters felt a bit more stilted and the writing a bit clunkier than in her previous works. If you're looking for the best Carey has to offer try her excellent Terre d'Ange books(Kushiel's Dart, etc.).

I will preface this by saying that I have read and thoroughly enjoyed Carey's Kushiel trilogy. It was an excellent series and I have devoured it over and over again. If you're a fan of her previous work though, you may or may not enjoy this novel.

In Banewreaker Carey examines the "what ifs" of the classic fantasy battle between good and evil. It is an obvious Tolkein parrallel, for anyone even presuming to imply that she is ripping him off. She explores a world where Satoris (Sauron) is a god termed evil for trying to protect his people and ensuring their legacy. Fjel-trolls are good natured, albeit slow, and elves, humans, and the classic "good" characters are hell bent on acheiving a prophecy for a misguided and absent deity. In this world love between humans and elves produces deformed offspring and the lines between right and wrong are definately blurred. Loyalties change often and characters on both sides find what they knew as just and right may be the furthest from the truth, bringing to mind constantly-which side is right if both have good intentions?

This book was like a breath of fresh air and I have to admire Carey. The Kushiels Dart series was great fantasy, and so is this, but in a completely different way. I dislike reading numerous works form the same author and getting bored because it all sounds the same; characters and plots are more than obviously familiar. In Banewreaker the writing is more bleak, masculine and meaty, whereas in Kushiel, the writing often waxed poetic. Just like before though, Carey provides a solid stage for the characters and a background of history to anchor everything down.

My few criticisms are that the book gets redundant, although it was probably the only way I was able to remember names and places by the end of the book. The same legends are retold and the same painful memories repeated again and again past the sake of informational value. Although, without it I think I might have been lost. Also, on the same token, the background and history was not as rich as I knew Carey carable of, and it felt like the book could have been more interesting if provided with a little more of the storytelling that I remember from Kushiel.

Overall though, this is an interesting read. If nothing else, one can read this and appreciate the possibilities Carey explores and the characters she creates. While fantasy authors have been ripping Tolkeins ideas from him for their books to the point of agony, Carey only examines his novels and tells everyone: "You don't know the whole story, try reading this."