Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Worth the Effort, August 7, 2006
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.
|
|
|
17 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Good for a first draft, May 6, 2007
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.
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Historical and Mythic Resonance, June 2, 2009
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. [...]
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|