Customer Reviews

In the Eye of Heaven

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This story has potential, but unfortunately the writing drags it down considerably. It really needed to be polished. At the moment it reads almost like a first draft, without anything properly fleshed out.

The first problem is that scenes are poorly described, when they are described at all. I felt almost blind as I was reading, because the author gives you nearly no idea of the places or people that the characters find themselves around. When he does describe a place it is with only the barest hint of what is there, or it's in terms that don't have any descriptive value, terms that the author has developed to describe his own world, but have no real meaning to anyone who can't see into his thoughts. For instance, two main characters are called 'Rooks'. They aren't really described much beyond that. I have no idea what they look like or sound like--other than that they dress in black--for the entire book. The characters spend a majority of their time travelling across the landscape; however it's never really described beyond the ground underneath their feet. We are told is they are walking on grass up a hill, for example, but that's it.

When he does describe anything, it's in fits and starts. You'll get a tiny bit of information and then, half a page later, you'll get a little more. So, you've already started to imagine what's going on, filling in the yawning gaps left by the author with your own imagination, and then you have to change it all to fit in some new information. In fact, sometimes this information doesn't just come a page later: it isn't until you read through about 90% of the book that you're told that Durand has black wavy hair. Durand is the main character, by the way.

When things are described they are written in a confusing manner. I know, I've already told you that, but it's not just that the details are few and far between, they sometimes seem to be conflicting. Here's an example:

"During the night he had looked closely at his sword . . . the Eye [sun] shone in a pale, crisp heaven . . . they rode through a night as black as a midnight mine . . . sometime before first twilight . . . "

The gaps mostly contain some brief descriptions about the men in the area. Basically this is all the same scene. Is it day? Is it night? How many days have passed? At first it seems obvious that it was night, then day, then night again, but if you actually read the entire thing in context--which is more than I want to quote here--you'll see that it's only one night and one day. But it doesn't add up.

Another problem. I have with the writing. Is that the sentences. Are structured. Awkwardly. (You get the idea, I'm sure.)

Another thing that I found difficult to digest was--well, let me give an example first, then I'll explain it a bit:

"Table, wall, bench, and food were all scabbed over. A half-finished leg of goose had sunk in on itself, putrid with mold. Maggots teemed . . . a similar broad fan of mildew had bloomed over the plaster. Insects scrabbled down the table. [A] black functionary plucked one of the running things--cat quick--and popped it in his mouth."

Pretty gross, eh? This is at a large group gathering and yet none of the characters really react. Is it real? Is it imagined? Does everyone see it? What the heck is going on? The events in the book are entirely like a hazy dream where everything is indistinct and yet a looming caricature of reality at the same time.

Finally, I hate, hate, hate how the author writes women. Not that you get much of them in this book. In fact there really are only two that get more than a paragraph's mention at all. They are fairly sterotypically described, physically, for women in fantasy books and also they are horrible, weak characters. The main woman is actually quite a selfish person and yet the author brushes off her disasterous actions with sympathy for her and no sense of responsibility at all. I can't say any more without revealing too much of the plot, but suffice it to say that this point alone would reduce this book's review to two starts from me. The only reason I haven't given it one star is because I think that as a whole the story isn't too bad. It's just extremely rough. I'd never have bought it, or even started to read it, had I known what I was in for. However, it's not the worst novel I've read at all. At least I finished it, though I did skim the last several chapters just to get it over with.

Ah well. Maybe the next book by David Keck will be worth reading. This one, for me at least, was not.

Most of the reviews suggest that the book was insufficiently clear, hard to follow, undefined, etc. Maybe so, but for me this was a big part of the attraction. We aren't spoon-fed any information - we have to land on our feet and learn as things unfold.

There's a lot still unexplained by the end of the book, and that clearly bothers some folks, but I'm looking forward to learning more as this continues. If it ends here then I'd agree that, as a stand-alone book, it's a failure, but as the first book of a series I suspect it will end up working out well.

Some have compared the style to Steven Erikson, and I can see that, but I think a better comparison may be to Gene Wolfe's "The Knight." [High praise, indeed]. As in The Knight, there's much about the history, cosmology and even plot that remains foggy at the end of the book, but somehow that only adds to the otherworldly sense of wonder that the book produces.

Give it a shot.

As almost every reviewer has mentioned, the main problem with this book is that some parts just don't make sense. Part of this is the casual treament of supernatural events - a magical undead creature will make an appearance and there's no explanation - like this is something that just happens every day. Another reason it gets confusing is that many of the scenes are like a movie where the camera is zoomed in way too far - you can tell that there's action going on, but you can't tell what's happening because you can't see the overall picture. I think the author is trying to give you a first person perspective of the trials and travails of the hero, but he needs to zoom out and explain the bigger picture once in awhile. I kept thinking while I was reading it that it reminded me of the really old knight tales, like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, because it's a tale of a knight who basically wanders around and just about everywhere he goes some strange monster or occult situation arises for him to deal with. In addition, the main character is always the only person who is aware of what's going on around him. I don't know how many times it mentions that he sees something important and no one else is looking, but then he never tells anyone. Half the time it seems like he's sleepwalking through the adventure.

If it was just the confusion to deal with, the book probably could have still worked - as someone else said, it is kind of similar to Steven Erikson's books, where the reader also often has no idea what's going on. But those work because they have a goal. This book is mostly a series of tournaments and journeys between tournaments. Yes, there is a larger issue of the king possibly being overthrown hanging over it all, but it never really seems like a pressing issue. It's never really clear what stands to be gained in this quest. For example, in the Lord of the Rings, the heroes want to destroy the ring and save the world from Sauron. In this book, what are they trying to do? It's never really clear. The reader needs some reason to care about what happens.

You can read a myriad of reviews explaining how this book is "flawed" and "unclear" and I definitely agree with them. Theis book does remind me a little of Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson. That book also leaves the reader trying to grasp what is going on in the book. But where Erikson eventually leads you to understanding, this book is still very vague. Who are these Banished and Lost and why do they seem to pop up in the strangest of places? Why does the whole world shudder when a royal is killed? There seems to be too much that is ghostly.

Having said that, the action scenes are well definied and developed. Granted, most of the action takes place in these "tournaments", but still the use of a single point of view in the combat (Durand's) is effective.

All in all, I had a bit of a hard time reading this book, but, by the end, I had enjoyed the ride.

At first I was not sure I would complete the book. Mr. Keck's writing is unique and unfamiliar to me.

However, this is a solid story that really gets your imagination involved and working after you get past the "newness" of the writing style.

In some places it is a bit difficult to tell what is going on at first, and it has somewhat of a dreamlike quality to it, but it pans out rather nicely.

You definitely come away with an appreciation and respect for how harsh life was for many people in the days of knights and kings. Even though this may be a fantasy, it appears that the author put a fair amount of effort into the study of those times and it comes through clearly in the story.

If you are looking for something fresh and interesting then you should give this book a try.

This is not your typical sword-and-sorcery fantasy novel.

The world the author creates is full of unique folklore and magic, but at the same time the story remains very realistic. I don't think I've ever read another book that does a better job of depicting the real hardships of a mercenary knight in the dark ages.

The author's writing style is unique as well. Keck's descriptions are brief, almost poetic in places. Very different than the long, ponderous description that is common with so many fantasy novels these days. The story feels almost dreamlike at times, as the main character moves back and forth between the harsh realities of tournament combat and strange dealings with otherworldly powers.

This realistic world and the author's unique descriptive style combine to make a book unlike anything I've ever read before. A book I very much enjoyed and will heartily recommend.

In the Eye of Heaven is high fantasy with a good dose of grit and grime. Set in a mythical medieval Europeanish land, where the oaths of kings and dukes really do tie them to the land, the book recounts the tale of Durand of the Col, a young squire and second son set to inherit a small backwoods holding where he will serve as his father's bannerman. But then that holding's true heir shows up after fifteen years missing, and Durand finds himself without prospects. To make matters worse, he's being stalked by an otherworldly power who seems insistent on offering advice and marking Durand for a different path.

You really can't blame Durand for panicking and riding off without his sword. He soon falls in with a wandering bard and embarks upon a plan to attach himself to some noble as a knight-in-arms and earn his keep with honor. Of course it's never quite that easy.

In the Eye of Heaven reminded me of medieval historical texts such on figures like William Marshall and accounts of the Crusaders while also reminiscent of Bernard Cornwell's historical fiction (the Grail Quest). It's savage and raw, treating the knights and squires like they probably were - hard and desperate men struggling with the rules and bounds of a chivalric code that both defined and restrained them. Durand and his peers are a flawed mercenary lot, one step from glory and fortune, one step from starvation and despair.

The book also has a strong mythic flavor, with magic and portents and hellspawn beasts - all the good stuff. Keck introduces these magical elements in fits and starts, and he never breaks pov or form to explain them in exhaustive detail. And why should he? His protagonist is an illiterate backwoods warrior who knows what he knows of magic, mythology, and history from oral tradition. Sure the bard and occasional priest make appearances to explain some aspects of the otherworld, but mostly it's mysterious and messy. Some readers may not appreciate this, instead preferring the D&D method of magic by which everything can be explained with spreadsheets and spell components. I found it refreshing, and the writer has some skill with weaving the unknowable into the narrative with style. I also appreciated that some wizened old graybeard does not show up at the end of the first act to explain how and why this stuff is all happening.

I particularly enjoyed the lost Dukedom of Hesperand, a Faerie-like land filled with cursed lovers, undead warriors, and other strangeness. I also enjoyed how Keck wove the political intrigue and conflict into the more immediate story of Durand and his companions. My one pet peeve, the hoary old destiny card, does rear its head in this book, but it's neither overpowering nor leaned on as a plot device. It becomes obvious early on that Durand has somehow been marked by the Powers, which only adds to his confusion and difficulties. His perceptions are outside the norm, and his actions have added resonance he cannot fully appreciate. What more can you ask of magic in a fantasy tale? I suppose multiple pov characters would expand this world, and Durand is sort of a plodding knot-head of a warrior, but he's also fairly sympathetic as a lead character.

So if you're looking for something other than boilerplate, something with strong historical chops and unexplained magical overtones, In the Eye of Heaven is worth a look. [...]

I have to admit that I read the reviews before the book; nearly didn't read it, but when I did, it was with a lot of the opinions here in mind. So here's my impression:

In the Eye of Heaven is a readable book, but on further reflection, it's pretty bad. Probably the one thing the author did best was creating a realistic (sometimes meaning gross--flea-ridden beds and so forth) medieval setting. And I found the plot easy enough to follow: sure, unexplained supernatural things happen, but it's reasonable (one would assume) for the supernatural to be a little bizarre.

At any rate, most of the plot involves a young man named Durand attaching himself to lords' retinues in an attempt to make a living after losing his inheritance; a good part of the book is spent traveling with one lord from tournament to tournament, but there is some non-tournament action. Another plus is that this is no Xerox fantasy; even though a lot of the names (Radomor, Ferangore, Alwen, etc.) sound like they came from Tolkien's notes, the plot was not one I'd seen before. I found the physical descriptions adequate; yes, Durand is described within the first couple chapters, as are other characters when they're introduced. Female characters are a little flat, but this seems to be because they play understandably small roles in the men's world of knight-errantry. And the writing is serviceable. Well, the characters. The way they talk. Not in complete sentences. ...But I'm sure this is intentional; some real people talk that way too.

Now for the negatives. I was quite put off by Durand's character... he was a selfish boor. For instance, at one point he burns down a bridge and murders a man simply because the captain of his party wants to one-up an old rival, and Durand thinks this action will help and wants to curry favor. He never even shows remorse. Creating an unlikable protagonist is always risky; making it work requires at the very least the awareness that your character is a jerk and the intention to write him that way, but it doesn't seem that Keck had either. He's far too easy on Durand, letting him commit all sorts of selfish and immoral actions as in the example above, and substituting occasional brief bouts of self-pity for any genuine conscience. This might work if the narrative or the other characters' reactions to Durand indicated that, well, that's the point... but they don't. Apparently we're supposed to view him as a Great Fantasy Hero.

And then, no one in the cast felt three-dimensional to me (maybe that's why I wasn't bothered by the woman thing). Many non-supernatural aspects of the plot were unrealistic--for instance, characters get grave wounds, but somehow (no magic involved) within 24 hours they're up fighting, spending all day on horseback, or doing hard labor. We're talking broken bones and medieval remedies here. Then there's this spooky land that we're told no one ever visits, only for the entire cast (separately) to show up there later. And although Radomor "usurping" the throne through legal proceedings is supposed to be an important part of the book, it's never explained why HE would take over if the king abdicated, seeing as how the king has brothers who would be next in the line of succession. And so forth.

In conclusion: this book is nothing spectacular, but it made for entertaining reading for a couple of days; the pacing was brisk enough to keep me going. And the plot is complete enough in itself that it doesn't demand moving on to the sequel (I don't plan to). If you tend to enjoy medieval fantasy even when it's not at its best, go right ahead; less enthusiastic fans of the genre may be disappointed.

Writing style is the window that we view a story through. In this book, that window is blurry, hazy and has large obscuring splotches on it. Keck has created an intricate mythology, but gives absolutely no explanation of terms or history (not even a glossary). His descriptions of action scenes seem to be missing large chunks so that we don't know what happened until pages later. If he is trying to be poetic and mysterious, he is failing with this reader.

However the characters and plot are intruiging and I find myself wishing Keck had a better vehicle for telling this story.

When I first picked this book up, I found it distressingly uneven. I liked the Dark-Ages aesthetic (here's a book where the protagonist thinks nothing of sleeping on flea-infested mattresses and regularly cowers in terror from threats both human and supernatural), and certain bits definitely left an impression - a rather agonizing description of a medieval trip to the dentist especially has stuck with me. But the main character never grabbed my attention; frankly, he reminded me of a heroine in a romance novel in that he seemed a passive placeholder for the reader rather than a person in his own right. While I admire the author's skill at world-building, I far prefer character-driven stories, and the characters just weren't that interesting - they seemed to be little more than sketched-out archetypes, driven by the whim of their environment.

Having given it some thought, however, it strikes me that this was probably the author's intention; such a style had any number of "classic" literary antecedents (Stephen Crane and his short story "The Open Boat" come to mind, especially). But frankly, I find said style to waver between "tiresomely pretentious" and "just plain annoying", so I think on the whole I'm the wrong person to be judging it.

Taking the above into consideration, I'm giving the book three stars - it didn't grab me, but I think the author did at least a moderately good job achieving what he set out to do.