|
|
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
"Dragon" a disappointment after "Stranger Visitors", October 29, 2002
Having adored the first adult novel in this series, "Strange Visitor" by Roger Stern, I was really looking forward to Grant's "Dragon." I was, unfortunately, very disappointed. "Dragon" is rife with continuity errors that should have been caught during the editorial process, such as Whitney "Ellsworth" showing up a few times (though he was correctly referred to as Fordman for most of the novel), and a number of British-isms that should have been excised long before the book hit shelves (At one point Nell tells everyone to go to the "lounge" rather than "living room", Chloe says "Blast!", etc.). Plot-wise, the A-plot of the novel is a redux of the first season episode "Hourglass". Lana's aunt Nell and two others were in the hit list this time, as they had testified against the Freak of the Week years earlier. There is a Lex B-plot, as Mary Sue Ex-Girlfriend shows up on Lionel's payroll, just because Lionel wants to mess with Lex's head--literally, the explanation of why Lionel is paying this sleazy girl to try and trick Lex into giving her [one] million dollars? "Why not?" Unfortunately, the Lex subplot is just... boring. Renata is a lackluster original character, and her relationship with Lex is a sad rehash of Victoria Hardwick, with none of the spark of Carrie Castle. The Clark/Lana subplot fares even worse, as a sweet little old lady (shades of Cassandra) is using kryptonite-laced mint tea to hypnotise Lana into dumping Whitney and going for Clark, and Clark into believing he's a normal, non-superpowered teen which leads to a pointless re-hash of Clark's anger and confusion regarding his alien heritage which was much better handled in the "Smallville" pilot. As far as the supporting characters are concerned, Chloe and Pete are there as cannon fodder for the final showdown with the Smallville dragon (both end up in the hospital, and the tension of "Will Pete live?" is of course non-existent, as we know he will.). Fan fave Chloe Sullivan has a brief nice little bit of characterisation, regarding her favourite teacher who is killed (which unfortunately seems to simply rehash a first season Buffy episode "Teacher's Pet") and that's about it. Much of the exposition in the novel is inserted clumsily, and Chloe's inner thoughts regarding Clark--and Clark's regarding her--are clumsy and at times ludicrous (the author uses Clark's inner voice to tell the audience that Chloe has a crush on him--which makes no sense, given that Clark on the show never suspected prior to "Ryan") not to mention Pete's crush on Chloe is handled way badly. And Chloe's snark? Not in her "voice" at all. And Whitney? That was the biggest sticking point for me--it was as if he was based entirely on the pilot, and as such, was the least consistent characterisation of them all. And it stuck out like a sore thumb. This sort of sloppy characterisation makes the reader wonder if Alan Grant or the editors had ever seen the show, past the pilot episode, or reading the script of the pilot. For a media tie-in, this is simply unacceptable, not to mention a foolish business decision, since the readers of the novel are almost guaranteed to be fans of the show, and will spot continuity and characterisation errors a mile off. There's a smidge of good Jonathan and Martha stuff, and some lovely Nell, but not enough to justify buying the book. If you're a fan of the series, not only does this not work as a good "Smallville" novel, the disjointed weaving from A plot to B plot to C plot with little to tie the threads together makes it not a particularly satisfying novel either, in terms of structure and pacing.
|
by Roger Stern
by Nancy Holder
by Dean Wesley Smith
by Devin Grayson
by Alan Grant
See all 7 books this book cites
