If I had read this book without previously having seen an excellent production of the play, my rating might be different--probably lower. As it standsIf I had read this book without previously having seen an excellent production of the play, my rating might be different--probably lower. As it stands, I can't easily disentangle the effectiveness of Neil Gaiman's visual imagery from my memories of the play, so I won't try.
Instead, I'll say that I bought the book after seeing the play for two reasons:
(1) I was so enamored with the story that I really wanted to read it through again. It's simplistic and childish in all the ways fantasy stories normally are--archetypal characters, simple motivations, arbitrary journeys--and that makes it delightful. Gaiman very effectively creates a fantastic world that has a particular flavor distinct from any other and that I will remember for a long time.
(2) I was curious if some of the outlandish details and ideas mentioned in the play get further explained. Warning: they don't. Some fantasy authors (LoTR, Harry Potter) try to explain the details of how their world works pretty exhaustively, others emphasize the confusion and strangeness their protagonists experience by explaining nothing. This is certainly the latter type; which would be fine, if not for...
THIRD PERSON OMNISCIENT. This bothered me the whole book through. I understand that Gaiman wants to give a more complete picture than third person limited point of view allows, where we only read the thoughts, emotions, and perspective of a single character. However, rather than switching perspectives every chapter in the GRRM vein, or sticking with Richard most of the time and flipping to other characters for important events that Richard isn't present for, Gaiman goes for broke. Every paragraph is flipping back and forth, giving me adjectives that express each character's thoughts and feelings and knowledge and gah!
In third person limited (Richard) POV, this book would have felt delightfully strange and unexplained for all the right reasons. Other scenes in other limited POVs (the marquis, Croup and Vandymar, etc) could have been intercut to hit the plot points and offer variety. As it stands, instead I felt a bit emotionally confused and like Gaiman missed out on some opportunities for dramatic tension. Plus if I am in an omniscient POV, it's less explicable why the mechanics of the world are so confusing and unexplained.
Anyway, that's a fairly technical complaint--there's nothing so dramatic as a point of view breach, and it still manages to be a very effective story that I enjoyed very much. If you get a chance to see the play instead though, do THAT!...more
Loading...
