Customer Reviews

Bronwyn: Silk & Steel (Bronwyn, 2) (Bronwyn, 1)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This book is horrible. The descriptions are incoherent and nonsensical, much of the plot is not explained and quite a bit of it makes absolutely no sense. The good part of that, though, is that this book is SO bad it actually ends up being funny! If you actually want a good fantasy book, don't bother with this. Seriously, you'll regret it. If you just want something awful to laugh at, though, then this is the book for you!

I just read two pages and my brain has broken.

I've read worse fanfiction, but someone paid the author for this drivel? It's worse than Gor. It's worse than Naked Came The Stranger. It's worse than...well, I hope you get the picture. My guess is that Arthur Clarke was having a bad day or they left out the part of the quote that said the author was unfairly advantaged in that he couldn't write if his life depended upon it. "Her pubes was..." is only the start of the horrid grammar lapses. Who proofread this piece of drek?

The descriptions he overuses make absolutely zero sense, as well. Anyone picking this book up deserves what they get.

Did I mention this book is really awful?

This book is A Miasma of Inane Cliches Unrivaled in Western Letters.

Either it NEVER saw an editor, or the editor knew no English.

Appalling.

This book is a treasure mine for metaphors such as "her neck was a bottle of wine covered in dew and otters". Yes. Otters. There are also interesting comparisons between the aforementioned young lady's feet and marmosets (i.e New World monkeys). This book might be a literary Hindenburg, but it has made me laugh like few others before. An excellent gag gift.

I read only six pages of this, and I was completely turned off. The description of Bronwyn during the "seduction" scene was so, so, so horrible that I gagged at the end of it. But it goes on! And on. And oooon. It is utterly ridiculous and should be read only for big honking incredulous laughs.

I found this book as most others had, though various internet discussions. I only ever saw the same two pages passed back and forth. Because it did amuse me (and who WOULDN'T be amused by those two pages) I actually went and purchased (and yes I even read) the book.

It was the best $7.00 (including shipping) I'd spent. This book has become a cherished part of my collection simply because of the absolute drivel the entire thing is. The writing is sub-par, the conversation is confusing, the descriptions are full of hilarity.

When I am feeling particularly down this book is pulled out and I immediately get the giggles. I thought, at first, I would re-gift this book as a gag, but I've found that I simply cannot part with it. Whenever I have guests and literature comes up in conversation I immediately go to pull down Silk & Steel. I've had friends ask to borrow it but I end up turning them down, simply because I'm terrified I'll never see it again.

Miller has managed to land himself on the shelf next to such greats as Vonnegut, Clarke, Heinlein, and Herbert. Unfortunately for Miller it's not because his writing is equal, or even remotely on par, but because he's a fine example of how not to write a novel and a firm reminder of all the things that could go wrong if you skip English 101.

A friend of mine scanned pages 96 & 97 to share (because otherwise we never would have believed how bad it was). This was my response:


I have no words. How high were the publishers when they okayed sugar-coated horse dung?

"a vibrating canopy of green leaves"

This might have been the best phrase in the whole thing and yet, I find vibrating leaves to be highly suspect.

As for the rest? This quack needs to go back to high school and review proper use of metaphor and simile, while his English teacher whacks him on the hand with a ruler for every abuse used on these two pages.

Between her face smelling like the moon ( ??? ) and her eyes sounding like rain ( ??? ) and all the other pointless references, I read two pages and have no clue what this chick looks like. She's clearly the amalgamation of every badly written Mary Sue in history, complete with all the original bad writing. I fell sorry for her.

I feel more sorry for me having read these two pages. I cannot unread them, but I sure wish I could!

Any review that starts by saying, "I didn't read this book, but..." or "I only read two pages a friend scanned and sent to me..." should give one pause for thought. Sadly, such seems to be the case for most of the reviews posted here. Not one of the so-called reviewers claims to have actually read the book in question but, instead, all seem to be basing their comments on a two-page excerpt that had been posted by a blogger (the page has been since shut down due to copyright violation). I think this is a fair conclusion since every review is focussed only on those same two pages---and, in fact, seem to be quoting one another. Not one of the book's remaining 250 or so pages is mentioned. Those who wondered how reviewers such as Arthur C. Clarke and John Grant could have liked the book seem to have overlooked the obvious answer: they read it. In fact, they not only read it, they read all four books in the series. I realize that an author should be above commenting on negative reviews, but it's more than a little sad to not only see people willing to make such vitriolic comments about something they've only read as a two-page excerpt in an email, but willing to make these comments public. It's a degree of ignorance and maliciousness that is considerably disheartening.