Critique: Xenos, Malleus and Hereticus (Eisenhorn) (Dan Abnett)

***SPOILERS***

Whilst there were points which held my interest in Eisenhorn, these were fleeting. There were too many issues in plot/characterisation for me to truly enjoy this series. That said, there were moments which I enjoyed a lot, so I wouldn’t say that reading Eisenhorn was a wasted experience: with the right improvements, it could be a fully thrilling series. How the final enemy was defeated was pure genius and thoroughly enjoyable; even if this was the only good part about the series, it would have been worth it.

It’s a sci-fi trilogy omnibus named after the main character. Sci-fi is never my go-to genre. Technology confuses me at the best of times, so a genre which has one of its essential pillars as tech? It’s easy to see why I avoid it. (Unless it’s about genetics. Then I’m all aboard.) I only read Eisenhorn because one of my new kitchenmates suggested it to me because it was one of his favourite books.

            Eisenhorn is an Inquisitor, someone who deals with enemies of the empire (which are conveniently the names of the books): Xenos (aliens), Malleus (demons) and Hereticus (heretics). These novels are written in first-person. I avoid this entirely. I hate fiction written in first-person. I find it irritating. But that is purely my preference in writing. However, the author made it work fantastically.

            There was the use psychic powers and demons. In a sci-fi series. Pyschic abilities and demons clearly are of a magical bent (fantasy) rather than a technological one (sci-fi). Now, there is stopping these two genres occurring within the same in-book universe (they are put in the same book shop sections, after all). However, if they appear together, it needs to fit logically within the framework of the in-book universe. Eisenhorn is about 99% sci-fi so this is very important. For the demons, this was done successfully (alternative planes of existence, something which works in a magical sense and in sci-fi with multiple universes). There was, though, no linking in the psychic powers into the Eisenhorn universe which was unfortunate, considering psychic powers are central to the plot.

Eisenhorn, the character, was very well done. To see him develop throughout the novels was a great experience. The way of the casual progression of him turning ‘heretical’ was very well done. Eisenhorn was a great example of character development, purpose, speech and consistency done well. As said before, I don’t get along with first-person perspective, and it usually equates to a lack of characterisation in the protagonist, but in Eisenhorn, the omnibus, it blew my mind.

            Medea, who the readers meet in the second novel, was a fun and touching character, always wearing her dad’s coat because she’s never met him. Her character wasn’t fully filled yet the positives made her a good character.

Yet most characters were incredibly weak. I’m not talking about minor characters here but quite important characters. There was little personality, no development, and quite a lot of the time pure inconsistency. Fischig is a good example of this short-coming. Cherubael is perhaps the clearest example of a weak character that lacked a sense of direction which thus weakened the plot in the second novel completely, diluting my sense of direction. New characters tended to be introduced in a random and peculiar manner than felt odd. This was the case with characters that were quite important, too, especially in the second and third novels. So, overall, characterisation was abysmal.

Not wanting to end on a bad note (because this series was not bad), there were several parts that I enjoyed or found to be good plot points. The fact that two of my favourite characters died (Maxilla and Aemos) so close to one another was great for playing with the audience’s emotions. It was simply adorable the great sacrifice Aemos made in service to Eisenhorn. Plus so many characters were killed off in the final chapters of the final novel. They all helped to drive Eisenhorn to the end point of the novel whilst at the same time getting rid of characters that no longer had a role in the plot but would be expected to, were they still alive.

Critique: Sorcerer of the Crown (Zen Cho)

***SPOILERS***

This was, overall, a very strong and enjoyable first novel. I would definitely recommend it to people. It contained many moments that shocked me entirely and places which genuinely surprised me with its ingenuity in a positive way. The biggest threat to its strength, however, was how the main antagonist was taken care of: it felt rather silly and it wasn’t exciting.

Zacherius, the Sorcerer Royal, and Prunela, a small girl, about magic, effectively training her up to be the next Sorcerer Royal; during all this, there is a serious attack on misogyny because, without this, Prunela wouldn’t be able to use ‘higher magic’.

            Speech was certainly a struggle. All characters spoke in a pretentious, long-winded manner which certainly doesn’t reflect the way real people speak. It would have been perfect language if the characters had written it rather than spoken it. Whilst some people do speak in this manner, it wouldn’t have been every single character in the book, especially as everyone had different backgrounds. Further, the language used, if spoken, would have been only for formal occasions in reality rather than all the time.

Cho wrote with several perspectives. This is fine. This is expected in fantasy works. But they jumped from one perspective in one paragraph to a second in the next and the first perspective in the following paragrach. Following who says and thinks what in such quick succession as this can be disorientating for the reader. However, this is a feature common in the first novels of many authors.

It’s concept of magic/fairies was very intriguing. It gave this already-unique story even more uniqueness that certainly deserves praise.

Magic drifts in from FairyLand and familiars (which only sorcerers may have) are fairies who agree to accompany a magic user. To begin with, I did think the ghost Sir Stephen was Zach’s familiar, up until the concept of the familiar was properly and fully explained. Also, on as an aspect of the plot, I disliked the deal Zach made with Leofric. It was baffling until it was revealed it was done to save Stephen’s soul. It really made no sense until this point, to the point of distracting the reader from the actual story.

            There are two familiars in the book which were done injustice in their description. One was initially called a kirin, described as a kirin, then called a unicorn from that point onwards. I have no issue with ‘unicorn’ being used in relation to ‘kirin’, but ‘kirin’ should have been used as the main descriptor because (1) it was called a kirin in the book and (2) it IS a kirin. The second was initially called a garuda, yet it was called a simurgh from that point onwards and even described as a simrgh. So the presence of ‘garuda’ was entirely falsified and unnecessary. The only reason I can think of why ‘garuda’ was used was to keep within the framework, and cement the concept, of eastern familiars for the one character; however, as a reason, I find this particularly weak.

           

Characterisation wasn’t the strongest point in the novel.

            Prunella, one of the main characters, appeared to have two personalities, drifting between the two in the novel. They were significantly different and neither kept in character with the other. It was only at the end where these two aspects merged. Now, we know Prunella doesn’t have multiple personalities because she remembered the thoughts and actions of *both* aspects AND the other characters didn’t react surprised, worried or in any way differently to either side of Prunella. If Prunella did have multiple personalities, they wouldn’t have converged at the end, she wouldn’t remember both aspects, and the other characters definitely would have picked up on the fact that Prunella was a completely different person.

            My favourite character was Gilbert, the intelligent and sassy characters towards the end of the book. He was simply fabulous.

            I disliked Edgeworth. I think we were meant to dislike Edgeworth. But I mainly disliked Edgeworth because he wasn’t a believable character.

New Policies, New Kitchenmates, and New Society

This academic year has already had a year’s worth of drama (good and bad). Of course, it would have made more sense to write about this last solar year when it was actually happening, but I can’t move most days (yay thank you October 2015) so this the best that can be done.

The university has brought in a few changes this year, just to make life more stressful (because it wasn’t stressful enough, apparently).

            Bath Spa University has brought in this new policy called ‘Attendance Matters’. The principle is that if a student isn’t well enough to attend lectures, they’re not well enough to complete their work, thus meaning they’ll fail and that they should be kicked out of uni. I instantly talked myself out of this non-negotiable, universal policy (naturally) because the argument is flawed for me: I have never achieved below a 2:1 in any assessment yet my attendance is abysmal (as I said before, I cannot move most days, so it is impossible for me to attend lectures). Clearly there is no correlation between lack of attendance and lack of achievement.

            Uni has become quite obsessive with attendance. We now have these stands in every lecture hall and seminar room to tap our student cards against to sign ourselves in. Why the lectures can’t just do a register like always in beyond me. Are most of them incompetent? I don’t think so.

            Unrelated to attendance but stressful all the same. The washing machines no longer take change. I can’t wrap my head around it (it involves an app and apps baffle me). So now I take my laundry with me when I visit friends! I’m loving that I don’t have to pay to do laundry anymore. That’s £2.50 I save a week and £10 a month.

There has been another change this year which is more centred on me: my new kitchenmates.

            My kitchenmates have proved to be brilliant people. I was worried for three reasons. 1: I was living with eleven other people, not seven like the past three years. More people = more anxiety/stress. 2: I was expecting to be in a kitchen full of 18-19 year-old freshers. 3: I’d have to fight over appropriate fridge space.

            1: Everyone turned out to be really nice so living with this many people hasn’t been as difficult as I expected. There is one person who is not pleasant, but 10/11 people being great is very lucky. Plus, one person (unfortunately not the Disliked One) has decided over the Christmas holiday to leave uni and their room has become the relief room, meaning I live with less people and have less stress!

            2: There was only one 18 year-old (the one who left) and was only one 19 year-old. So now I am the third youngest. I’ve been here the longest yet I am the second youngest out of eleven people. We have a 27 year-old, a Masters student from China and a second year student who has transferred from another university. So I needn’t worry about having too many young freshers to deal with.

            3: As soon as I came into the kitchen to say hello to everyone properly after moving in, they cleared a big shelf for me in one of the fridges. I didn’t have to even say anything. So they are a nice bunch of individuals.

And now for my new society, the Alternative Faith Society. It was created last year by two of my friends. Now, every society requires a President, a Secretary and a Treasurer on their Committee. This society didn’t have a Treasurer. So I became the Treasurer. Of a society that has membership fee nor deals with money whatsoever. Simple, right?

            Wrong.

            I quickly filled in the role of Secretary (because they weren’t doing anything for the society) so I’m Acting Secretary. I also filled in the role of President so I am basically Acting President. Which means I am every role on the Committee. I am the Committee. I am the Committee-in-Full.

            Like you know in Myanmar how Aung Sun Suu Kyi isn’t the President but is the de facto leader? That’s me.

            The President of the society is meant to lead it, make the decisions, decide what direction they want the society to go in, to think of event ideas. But no. I have to lead us. All the time. I try and engage the President in discussions but they have no ideas of what to do at all. So it becomes me telling him ideas that I thought of only briefly (because 1: he’s the president and should be doing this and 2: I’m busy with a dissertation; I can’t be the entire Committee) expecting feedback but he agrees with them. Just like that. Whilst this proves useful when I have a particular idea I want to happen, it is frustrating that no one else puts in the effort. Our President is excellent at fulfilling the role of support, the role of a Vice-President, but he’s meant to be higher than that.

            All in all it’s an interesting experience. I came on board to provide some input and now I have a society that I have no preparation for. I became Treasurer in late October. Nothing had been done in the society in late Spetember/early October to entice in the freshers, meaning the society has missed its opportunity to get dedicated members. I am hoping that in the New Year with the ‘ReFreshers Fair’ that we can drag in members for a fulfilling and beneficial society.

So personally, this academic year is going great. Yet whilst the university is making life difficult where it doesn’t need to be, I don’t think this academic year will be too difficult.

Questioning David Cameron's decision-making skills (abolishing House of Lords; European Referendum; EU and identity)

Ex-Soviet nations are keen to join the EU. Baring in mind they fought for independence and their own identity from the Soviet Union and then from each other (e.g. Yugoslavia), why would they even consider joining the EU if it put restrictions on their identity? They wouldn’t. So why some British people feel that Brussels restricts their right to be British I cannot fathom. The benefits for their economies, welfare and protection would not be enough incentive to join an identity-repressing state. If these were an incentive, then they wouldn’t have left the Soviet Union in the first place!

The House of Lords vetoed a bill of welfare cuts because it was to be detrimental to the UK. Prime Minister David Cameron got really angry and responded that he would curtail the powers of the House of Lords.

My instant reaction was wondering how the PM could act like a toddler having a tantrum! Labour had it right that the proposed reform was ‘a ‘massive over-reaction’ to the government defeat.

I found it interested that the unelected House is better at representing the public than the elected MPs of the House of Commons. Cameron is meant to represent the national interests yet got angry when something was done for national interests?

Then there was the mess of the reason behind why David Cameron arranged the European Referendum: to appease members of his own party. Why on Earth would anyone risk such massive upheaval based only on the threat that a few MPs would leave the Conservative and Unionist Party? Absolutely insane.

            Though to be fair, Cameron got a lot of stick for him arranging for Britain to have a privileged position in the EU, such as not being part of the ‘ever-closer union’ (which is the whole point of the EU*). Britain already had many privileges, such as 10% of the European Parliament are from Britain! Thus it confused me why people thought he ‘lied’ about what he could achieve: I was surprised he managed anything considering our already privileged place in the European Union.

*An ‘ever-closer union’. The main goal of the EU was to create the United European States’: explaining why Europe encourages the single currency; explaining why welfare benefits can go to outside states; explaining why there is free migration for Europeans (just like you can go between different states of America if you are American); explaining why Brussels holds much control over domestic policy and law (just like Washington, being the head of a centralised state). 

On Book Reviews and Film Reviews

I noticed something about this blog: I have many film reviews but hardly any book reviews. 

I am going to work towards changing this. This doesn’t reflect my choice of activity at all (I prefer reading a billion times more than watching films) though it does highlight something interesting about my personality (and I think, in an extrapolated sense, other people’s, too): the more I enjoy something, the less likely I am to criticise it. (Or, when I’m given writing to critique/edit, I am a coldhearted yet constructive bitch.)

I read mostly fantasy because I enjoy the world-building, I enjoy the magic, and I enjoy the mythical creatures. If I’m captivated by these elements, it means that sub-par plot, speech, characterisation and description isn’t entirely problematic. (If I’m not captivated by these fantasy-genre features, I completely forget about the book.)

With a film, though, it’s different. Films are so short compared to books that either there doesn’t need to be any world building (I am more diverse in my film genres) or world can’t be built to any significant extent (either a lot gets left out and it feels incomplete or everything is shoved in and the film becomes a list). As a consequence, plot, speech and characterisation become the centre-point of focus; without distraction from the world-building, I can become much more critical.

So this, combined with my ability to turn on the critique bitch, means I will be writing book reviews soon!