Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Great review. In the same spirit: in "like some huge nun in a particularly cold-weather habit", "particularly" intensifies "cold-weather", i.e. it says that the habit has the property of being for cold weather to a high degree. I assume he means "particularly-cold-weather", i.e. the habit has the property of being for particularly cold weather.

Thank you for your comments on the use of "almost" in sub-par writing! Oh my goodness what a terrible tic. It is ALMOST as irritating as the fantasy or romance writers who have every one of the heroes in a perpetual state of eyebrow raising. How much wise cracking and bad-guy beating can you really do when you have to put that much effort into permanent face contortion and fighting what I imagine to be the resultant headaches? Try another facial expression! ...any other expression. (Well, ALMOST any other one. :))

Also thanks for helping me to remove this from the to-read. It came highly recommended over the years but I was never quite excited enough to dive in. Thanks for giving me some good reasons to trust me instincts.

"His cloak flapping behind him in the wind like the wing-case of some gigantic insect"

Used in the right context this one might make some sense, maybe a place where the the cloak is not flapping at all because there is no wind.

Centipede Press recently advertised a deluxe, illustrated, limited printing of this novel. The publisher considers this a cult classic - and he seems to know his stuff. I had heard of the book and the author before, so I was beginning to think that Anubis Gates might be a "must-read."

Now Keely drops this bombshell!!!

Keely's review raises an interesting question: to what extent should we be willing to forgive stylistic ineptitude in order to enjoy what is (apparently, in this case) an exciting, creative, and first-rate plot?

A couple years ago, I tried to read "Boneshaker," by Cherie Priest. The plot seemed fine, but the writing was so execrable that I chucked the book less than halfway through. One of the worst offenses was a sentence that read something like this: "Her panic was amazing."

Simon said: "the habit has the property of being for cold weather to a high degree"

Oh, those compound-modifiers certainly do get us writers in trouble, don't they?

Kelly said: "ALMOST as irritating as the fantasy or romance writers who have every one of the heroes in a perpetual state of eyebrow raising."

Yes! What Ren & Stimpy creator John K calls 'tude face'--eyebrow raised, half smirk--and which appears on .

"Also thanks for helping me to remove this from the to-read. It came highly recommended over the years but I was never quite excited enough to dive in."

Yeah, me too. I was all excited to get my fun story on, and instead I get this.

Akash said: "Used in the right context this one might make some sense, maybe a place where the the cloak is not flapping at all because there is no wind."

Yeah, maybe if the cloak was sort of billowing out to either side instead of flapping.

Tim said: "I don't think that you've given this book a fair crack of the whip. All of the text that you referenced and dissected is at the beginning of the book."

Yeah, though that's precisely the problem: if I'm running into this many fundamental issues before I've even finished the first chapter, that doesn't say much for the quality of the book.

"your fixation with the syntax is causing you to miss out on a very clever and imaginative story"

This isn't just syntax, it's structure, exposition, and figurative language. I mean, I can deal with an awkward phrase now and again, but three and four per page? That's a lot of slog to go through in order to get at the story.

I mean, with straight exposition like that, at what point am I just reading a plot outline full of unworkable metaphors?

Williwaw said: "to what extent should we be willing to forgive stylistic ineptitude in order to enjoy what is (apparently, in this case) an exciting, creative, and first-rate plot?"

Yeah, it's hard to say. I mean, in a case like this, I start to feel that the writing puts me off so much that I start having trouble believing there really is a good story behind it.

In regards to using "As though," or even "Almost as though": would you say that the implementation of the phrases should always be seen as a negative?

Or, does a problem arise only when the usage becomes repetitive?

Hah, being someone who diligently attempts to clomp out coherent sentences when writing a story, I'd like to get as much information on the subject as possible.

You see, I've noticed that nearly every author uses the term "As though," from time to time. Even some of my favorites, such as Peake, uses it every now and then.
So, I'm guessing the problem is held in over-usage, rather than the seldom use of it?

How many pages have you read before you give up? I was hoping for ideas dissecting, but turns out the problem that this book have is much more on fundamental level. Is it really that bad?

Krist Chin said: "In regards to using "As though," or even "Almost as though": would you say that the implementation of the phrases should always be seen as a negative?"

I tend to think there needs to be a good reason to have that doubt in there--why 'almost' instead of just saying it outright? The problem becomes using it thoughtlessly, without really thinking about how it affects the voice and the meaning. It's certainly something we can use effectively, if we're careful.

Subhan said: "How many pages have you read before you give up?"

Not enough to be able to discuss the ideas of the work.

"Is it really that bad?"

I think the quotes I gave speak for themselves--I certainly didn't feel like reading any more.

Keely wrote: "I think the quotes I gave speak for themselves--I certainly didn't feel like reading any more. "
I still don't see the particular things that makes them bad. Maybe this is because I'm not a native english speaker. But the last part, long narrative exposition in dialogue is really bad, I know it.

After reading this, I went back to something I was writing, did a control+F search for the word "almost" and…oh dear. Thanks for calling attention to this.

Finished this yesterday. It could have been so much more. Needed a strong edit, by about 100 pages and a huge re-think. A very uneven book, the writing in places was hugely picturesque against a plotline that meandered and got confusing. Easy to lose interest. However, when the imagination caught flight.... It flew. Was torn between 2 and 3 stars..

Read some Orwell to remind me what exceptional writing is like today...

How far did you get through it?

Josh said: "After reading this, I went back to something I was writing, did a control+F search for the word "almost" and…oh dear. Thanks for calling attention to this."

It's funny the little things that pop up in our writing again and again that we're not even aware we're doing--but that's what a good editor is for.

Steve said: "Needed a strong edit, by about 100 pages and a huge re-think."

Yeah, it's too bad we didn't get that version.

"How far did you get through it?"

Only about a chapter--it didn't take very long before it became too frustrating for me to want to go on.

From the first page of Titus Groan:

"Standing immobile throughout the day, these vivid objects, with their fantastic shadows on the wall behind them shifting and elongating hour by hour with the sun's rotation, exuded a kind of darkness for all their colour."

Why write "exuded a kind of darkness" when you are not going to elaborate what kind? What do you think?

A few pages later:

"..for his siesta was broken sharply by a rattling of the door handle which was apparently performed in lieu of the more popular practice of knocking at the panels."

What purpose does "apparently" serve here, narrators describes things as they appear to him or to the characters, apparently adds nothing to the narrative.

In the same paragraph after some lines:

"...yet here apparently on this stifling summer afternoon was the eye of Mr. Flay.."

The opening sentence of the next paragraph:

"Mr. Flay appeared to clutter up the doorway as he stood revealed, surveying the smaller man before him in an expressionless way."

How does "in an expressionless way" work better than "expressionlessly"?

A little further:

"Rottcodd, feeling presumably that there was little need to answer such a question, shrugged his shoulders and gave his eyes the run of the ceiling."

Why is presumably used here, when at other places the narrator knows what Rottcodd is feeling? Why does he need to presume here?

On the same page:

In a voice almost inaudible Flay repeated 'The eighth day of the eighth month.' His eyes were almost transparent as though...

The master can lapse several times too, but I guess he is the master because I enjoyed reading what he had written even while searching for imperfections.

Akash said: "Why write "exuded a kind of darkness" when you are not going to elaborate what kind?"

In that instance, I'd say he does elaborate which kind: a kind of darkness that yet possesses some color, not simply a black or monochromatic darkness, as often occurs in low light, but the kind that exists when bright light is laid next to shadow, in a hazy room, where color is not lost.

"What purpose does "apparently" serve here, narrators describes things as they appear to him or to the characters, apparently adds nothing to the narrative."

Well, in some instances, narration can also be playful, developing a voice which comments on the action. In this case, you could look at it as a sort of sly condemnation of rudely rattling the door handle instead of properly knocking.

"How does "in an expressionless way" work better than "expressionlessly"?"

Well, it does bounce a bit more, in terms of rhythm--I also wouldn't say it's necessarily a worse way of putting it, since it is just a restatement, not a modification of what's actually being said, like 'almost'.

"Why is presumably used here, when at other places the narrator knows what Rottcodd is feeling? Why does he need to presume here?"

Well, it could be another case of the narrator inserting a little playful commentary, or it could be a nudge in the narration toward the perspective of the person watching, allowing some uncertainty in the interaction.

"His eyes were almost transparent as though . . ."

I'm more alright with 'almost transparent', because it isn't hard to picture something that's close to transparent, but not quite. It's not like saying 'he almost looked like a French crusader', because it's hard to imagine something that almost, but doesn't actually resemble that.

I'm not saying all of Peake's uses are necessarily beyond reproach, just suggesting that there are some arguments that can be made in support of his choices.

I haven't read this Keely, and I do sympathise with what you've uncovered, but I wonder if the 1 star rating might be harsh. It's great when a writer is able to achieve it all, and there's nothing wrong with noting where or what's fallen short, but if his story is imaginative and/or original and has some other things going for it, that's pretty good, I think. On the other hand, I think Powers teaches writing somewhere. Funny he'd screw up something at the sentence level.

Well, the definition of one star is that I didn't like it, and I certainly didn't. But yeah, I get what you're saying. There may be a better story under there, somewhere, but I wasn't willing to dig for it.

I wanted to read this book before I saw Keely's review. Now I can't wait to get my hands on it! I want to find out whether I agree with Keely or the critics, or whether I fall somewhere in between.

I hope that I like the book, but hope doesn't seem to count for much when rubber hits the road.

Keely wrote: "Well, the definition of one star is that I didn't like it, and I certainly didn't. But yeah, I get what you're saying. There may be a better story under there, somewhere, but I wasn't willing to dig for it. "

And with so many books on my to-read list, I completely understand.

I am less then one page in this book and am here because I wanted to check how old was he when he wrote it; it looked to me like someone very young, without formed style tried to sound impressive. I was not impressed.

I am happy I found this review. After all, I am not a native speaker, but this shows I am not crazy either.

Ps, it is hard outer wing, or wing cover, or elytra. It can't really be a case, it is one sided...? Sorry, biologist here.

"His cloak flapping behind him in the wind like the wing-case of some gigantic insect"

While I enjoyed The Anubis Gates immensely, I loved this review and found it very educational. Most of the criticisms spoke to me and made a lot of sense in retrospect.

I submit, however, that there IS a purpose in making the above insect be "gigantic". Large things move differently from otherwise identical small things. In my mind the flapping is insect-like but slower, heavier, deeper-sounding. (I can't defend Powers' use of the rigid "wing case" in the first place, though.)

I see what you are saying. I am loving this book so far and wish I had read your review AFTER I finished. I know the filler words are going to irritate me now. I do think the story exciting and I am having trouble putting it down.

Great review, thanks for steering me away from this book. Could you recommend an alternative in this genre by an author with a stronger prose style? I'd like to read more fantasy, but the prose turns me off.

For me the use of "almost" and "presumably" and "apparently" fit the verbose, academic tone of the protagonist. Being concise is commendable, but you shouldn't judge every book by the its adherence to the lessons of writing 101.

Charlie said: "For me the use of "almost" and "presumably" and "apparently" fit the verbose, academic tone of the protagonist."

Except I'm not talking about the protagonist's voice, I'm talking about the omniscient narration. I'm also not sure how unsurety promotes a verbose, academic tone.

"Being concise is commendable, but you shouldn't judge every book by the its adherence to the lessons of writing 101."

I never suggested that lack of conciseness was the problem--it's perfectly fine for a book to be long-winded, if the long-windedness works. My problem is that the figurative language is unsure, which causes it to lack power. The point of metaphor is to present a strong image for the reader, so if the description then descends into hemming and hawing, that's making the force of the image weaker, and for no good reason.

Wow this book was awesome.... The plot is wholly original. The prose was great.... Honestly are you all trolling here?

Will said: "Wow this book was awesome.... The plot is wholly original. The prose was great.... Honestly are you all trolling here?"

You don't seem to understand what 'trolling' means--it does not mean a group of people sitting around conversing about the ways in which a book's prose didn't work for them. I mean, I go through pretty basically and explain my problems with the book, so I'm not sure how that would mark me as incendiary or provoking.

I certainly couldn't speak to the originality of the plot--I couldn't get past the bland exposition and ungainly metaphors to see what kind of plot was there. However, I would be curious to hear how you define 'great prose', and how this book matches that, particularly if you have any counterpoints to the examples I lay out in my review.

Damn. You almost hung this book out to dry like wet laundry that hasn't dried yet!

Josh said: "Damn. You almost hung this book out to dry like wet laundry that hasn't dried yet!"

Almost.

Excellent choice not to carry on. Unfortunately, I made it to the end.

I haven't read the book, but I really enjoyed reading your review. It's very funny and educational.

I wanted to give up after 15% or so finding the language clunky and story slow. However on finishing I feel it is one of the craziest entertaining novels I have read and worth sticking through the clunky start to get into it.

What a bunch of self congratulatory nonsense (the first several posts here). Why any of you would trust or believe in what the joyless Keely writes is beyond me.

I agree that the descriptive prose you quote sounds a bit awkward; but I read a book for the story, the ideas, and the characters, which you're silent about, because you didn't read far enough to assess them. The Keely car review: "I got into the car and realized that the ashtray was inconveniently positioned, so I got out of the car without starting it and gave it a one-star rating." You're entitled to do this, if the ashtray is that important to you; but your review may be of little help to other readers, especially if they don't smoke.

Jonathan wrote: "I agree that the descriptive prose you quote sounds a bit awkward; but I read a book for the story, the ideas, and the characters, which you're silent about, because you didn't read far enough to a..."

It is more like "its tires were made out of butter" thing. Ashtray in a car is marginal, language in a book is not.

I'm a fast reader, and I automatically skim over descriptive prose, taking it in subconsciously if at all; so it is marginal as far as I'm concerned. If I come across a writer who's really good at description, I sometimes feel I should slow down to take it in properly, but it's hard for me to do, because I've been reading like this all my life (and I'm 63 now).

The slight awkwardness of prose that so irritates JG Keely, I probably wouldn't even notice on reading the book in my normal way.

Well, fortunately there are many other reviews of this and other books, so we can take our choice of reviewers.

I almost always seem to ignore particularly pretentious reviews such as this one.

Steampunk? Got to love pompous critics who don’t even know what genre they are talking about.

Terrible review. Great book.

Out of the books I've read, this is the one I recommend to people.

I think you shouldn't have put this example in your review:

"His cloak flapping behind him in the wind like the wing-case of some gigantic insect"

The other sentences you cited really were awful and worth teasing, but this one, and the paragraph following it in which you describe what you don't like about it, definitely don't belong here.

First of all, using "like ... some" in descriptive language is definitely not some kind of cardinal sin of literature, no matter how many online critics say so with their chests puffed out. If we accept the (frankly bizarre) assertion that literally any words in any piece of writing that can be removed must be removed, you still have a sentence that is no shorter than it already is. What would we replace "like" with here, without changing the entire sentence around? What would we replace "some" with?

Again, I agree that the sentence is bad. The solution is probably to put the period after the word "wind," and move on, but unfortunately the author decided to add some pizzazz, and here we are.

It's one thing to personally dislike this book's style of description, and the overall prose of those who use it, but it's another to try to argue that it's somehow wrong, and that its use is a typical rookie error. Every time a critic says a writing technique is objectively bad, a book by a legendary author who uses that same technique falls off of a library shelf somewhere in this cold, cold world.

In fact, I'd like to use the same stick I'm poking at your "like ... some" complaint with to poke at the "almost," "seemed," and "almost seemed" thing you mentioned. After the other example sentences you quoted, I'm sure this author was using those words in the worst, most embarrassing ways possible, but I think it's unfair when a person reviewing a book seems to talk as if either A.) A particular author's improper use of certain words is the only possible use, and therefore those words are banned, or B.) The words themselves are banned for other reasons, and these are things that even a rookie author both knows and agrees with, the way a mathematician knows not to divide by 0.

"Almost," and "Seemed" can be used when the narrator wants to indicate exactly what those words imply: Uncertainty. Take a passage from a book that reads, "She smiled at him, and though her big grin was surely lighthearted and happy, the corners of her mouth were pulled up so high that her expression almost seemed sinister." Here, "almost seemed" is intentionally used to evoke a sense of uncertainty, so that the narrator can say indirectly that the character observing these things is uncertain, or that the reader himself should be uncertain. It raises a question without directly asking it. It's spooky. It may not be laconic enough for the sociopaths who pump their fists in the air and say things like, "I rephrased my sentence and saved 4 words!" but it doesn't have to be.

Of course, that's not how this author used "almost seemed." In fact, I feel like the example I just gave isn't something you'd consider a misuse of "almost seemed," and yet I still see people in the comments cheering you on without any apparent recognition of this discrepancy. Someone even mentioned pressing ctrl+f and finding the word "almost" in a lot of places... oh boy.

Is it so surprising that we have so many gutless authors who write Harry-Potter-level prose in service of coherent, easily-followed, but unambitious stories? One day spent reading reviews like this could've turned a 30 year old Cormac McCarthy into another Creative Writing 101 student doing his best impression of Hemingway or Vonnegut.

No thank you.

I enjoyed the rest of your review, but nothing is more baffling than a critic speaking from a position of authority on writing like this. No offense, but... if you were a good enough writer to tell other writers exactly what to do, you wouldn't be spending that energy writing about other people's books, my friend.

Incredibly unfortunate that this is the first review since it clearly is intended to scare anyone looking at this book from actually finding a copy and reading it. It does the book no justice, and the author of the “critique� hasn’t even bothered to read past the first few pages. It’s so sad that this review is featured so prominently since they never bothered to finish the book and therefore are unable to speak with any actual authority.

Thanks for the review, the writing is atrocious at points, but the plot is similar enough to another book I've read recently that I'll continue to see what he does with it.
The Rise and Fall of DODO is a much better executed work on magic-meets-physics time travel, and the format is innovative.

"Romany intoned, his voice becoming deeper as though trying to wring an echo out of the surrounding carpets"

Carpets dampen sound preventing echoes. This metaphor is not that difficult to understand.

"His cloak flapping behind him in the wind like the wing-case of some gigantic insect"

I am not an entomologist and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. A quick google search, though, will tell you that not all wing cases are completely hard. I am not sure what bug Powers was specifically referring to, and you can't be sure either, if he was talking about a scarab I'm sure he would have said so. I am inclined to believe it was just insects in a general sense.

But, it is not your pretensions about being the judge of what makes a proper metaphor. It is the fact that you didn't even read the book. When I start a book and can't get past the first few pages for whatever reason, it happens from time to time, I leave the reviewing to people who have actually finished the book.

After having read your 'Sister, Mother, Sea' I can see that you are not just pretentious with your assessment of metaphors, It flows all through your writing as well. You seem like one of those people who after getting turned down by publisher after publisher, instead of taking another look at your writing, will explain to everyone who will listen that "they just don't understand good writing,"

Anyways, good luck on your writing career.

What an insipid "review". Next you'll be giving Mozart one star for using too many notes.

I enjoyed this review because it taught me things about written prose that I probably should have known but hadn't realised before it was pointed out to me. It made me wonder about all those emails and letters I have written using a plethora of "almost"'s. It was instructive and appreciated for that alone.

However is "almost" always wrong? How often in a day do we observe something that we think or perceive "could" mean something, but we are not 100% sure? Then we would describe it as "almost" insulting, almost sinister, almost telling, almost insufferable. In describing something as almost but not quite, you are being descriptive. Like anything it could be over used, but it should not be banned outright.

I have one major problem with your review though. That is simply that most steampunk novels are intended to inspire and entertain, not be an outstanding example of higher English. I haven't read this particular book, but I have read books by authors whose grammar is lacking, and whose metaphors have tried too hard to be different. If the story was good and entertaining, then I still enjoyed those books and raved about them to others. I have also read books with exacting grammar, intellectual words not commonly used, and a sense of superiority flowing from the author that hints of contempt for the ignorant or less educated reader who might have to look up some of the obscure words chosen by the author. Quite often those stories have been stale, or rigid, or due to obscure words stunted. You either do not know what the author means or have to pause the narrative to look them up in a dictionary breaking the flow of the story. A book can be a master piece with bad metaphors, it can also be boring and trite whilst a glowing example of perfect written English.

As the book has not been submitted at degree level for English literature/language I do not believe it needs to be held up to such exacting standards. All that should matter is the story, the characters, and the level of enjoyment and entertainment. Something you failed to comment on entirely.

Wow. People always take bad reviews so personally. This kind of writing bothered this reviewer. He gave numerous examples of explanations. This is exceedingly helpful to other people. I read it and think “I get where he is coming from but it doesn’t bother me personally.� That is better then just the vague reviews other people get. You don’t have to agree with what he says. But the personal attacks on him are truly indicative of people’s maturity level.

Chandra wrote: "Wow. People always take bad reviews so personally. This kind of writing bothered this reviewer. He gave numerous examples of explanations. This is exceedingly helpful to other people. I read it and..."


To quote S.R. above, "It's one thing to personally dislike this book's style of description, and the overall prose of those who use it, but it's another to try to argue that it's somehow wrong, and that its use is a typical rookie error. Every time a critic says a writing technique is objectively bad, a book by a legendary author who uses that same technique falls off of a library shelf somewhere in this cold, cold world."

This is the problem people have had with this review. Not that he didn't like it, not that he cited examples of writing he thought was bad, but because he decided to try and be the final authority on how writers should write.

He also, by his own admission, only read about a chapter. A chapter is certainly enough to tell if you aren't going to like a book, it is not enough leave a one star review and tell others why the book is terrible.

I will also say, that my initial comment on this review was, regrettably, unnecessarily hostile at points.

I commented cautiously on this review about three years ago, at which time I was only thinking about reading the book. Later I actually read the book, and gave it 4 stars. I think J.G. Keely was suffering from an obsession with minor details when he wrote his review; I read the book and didn't even notice the things he was complaining about, because I don't study every sentence with a magnifying glass when reading a book.

I agree with Russell's comments above.

Incidentally, I see that two Jonathans have commented on this review, only one of which was me.

How do you turn off notifications? I would like to mute this conversation.