LightPhoenix
First Post
I just finished up the SST (by Weis and Hickman) today, after checking the second and third books out from the library Monday. The first I had read a while ago, and my memories of that are a little sketchy, so if I over-generalize with the first book I apologize.
My initial impressions after finishing the first book were fairly simple. The book was a fairly simple read (compared to what I have been reading recently - college textbooks, Martin, Williams, Tolkein, and so on). There were some interesting ideas in the book, but ultimately not enough to make me do anything more than shrug after reading it. That's why I hadn't picked up the second book until now, and that only because I saw the third on the New Releases shelf.
Ultimately, after reading all three, I'm left with the same feelings. Some interesting ideas, but ultimately the nature of the books (which I will discuss in more detail below) just left me shrugging after I finished. I don't feel that I've wasted my time reading them, or that I wasn't entertained. It's just that the books were easy, quick reads. The best analogy I can come up with is watching an episode or two of Friends, as opposed to watching an episode or two of Angel or Babylon 5.
Alright, so onto the books themselves.
I'm going to start with what I think the biggest flaw of the trilogy was. The "trilogy" isn't really a trilogy at all - it's a prequel and a two-parter (bilogy... dilogy? duology?
). The first book was definitely interesting in context with the "sequels", as it basically gave a detailed history of what happened. However, as a result, the first book is very detached from the second and third, and the latter books suffer because of this. The end of the third book especially seemed very rushed, and easily could have been expanded to three books, in my opinion. Even so, both the second and third suffered from the detracted space to tell the real story. It's almost as if the authors wanted to specifically avoid the book format of The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings, when really the "prequel and trilogy" format is what the series needed... at least based on the way Weis and Hickman chose to write it.
Another big problem I had with the books was the constant need for the authors to reiterate setting information. Specifically I'm thinking of every time they mention how the Stone was shattered; presumably people reading the third book read the first one. That means you don't need to tell me about history again - you already spend a whole book on it. As a consequence, with all the time they spend talking about it, you really didn't need to read the first book at all to understand the main story. Which means either the whole first book was wasted, or quite a few paragraphs throughout the second and third books were. It's a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it.
While that was the most glaring example, the repetition occurs often enough to be not just noticeable, which is bad enough, but also annoying. In fact, it not only happens between books, but also within books as well. I understand the thought process behind it - especially at the beginning of the third book, you want to remind the reader about what happened. Again though, if you're reading the third book, presumably you were absorbed enough by the first and second to retain some knowledge of what happened. Let alone all the different times I had to read about how the Taan ate humans and loved warfare, or what the Vrykyl were and how they communicated. The extra space would have been better spent fleshing out the parts of the story that were weaker.
On a final literary note, anothing thing that was particularly glaring to me was how... simplistic the writing was. Perhaps I'm just used to authors like Robin Hobb, who are extremely talented at the most basic literary techniques, such as foreshadowing. Several plot points simply come out of the blue, when even a throwaway sentence or two would have been appreciated. Specifically, Wolfram being a Dominion Lord seemingly came out of nowhere - Gustav recognizes him, and I assume it's because he's a Dominion Lord rather than what we're led to believe (he works for the monks). More foreshadowing would have gone a long way towards making that more palatable. The Void Dragon carrying Dagnarus to Old Vinnengael was another element that just came straight out of left field.
Onto the story itself.
There were a lot of interesting ideas throughout the book. The pecwae in particular I liked as an interpretation of Gnomes. I liked the idea that Dagnarus actually would have made a good king, if he wasn't corrupted by the Void. The Children of Dunner were a great little plot element, and helped explain Wolfgar's motivations in the beginning of the second book. Dragon reproduction was pretty inventive too, I thought. And for whatever reason I really liked Shadamehr, Alise, and Rigiswald.
The story itself shaped well in the second book, and then fell apart in the third. More definitely could have been done with the end of the third book especially - it needed to be fleshed out big time. Again, it echoes my biggest problem with the story, in that it just didn't seem developed at all, and easily could have been expanded into three books (discounting the first book as more akin to The Hobbit).
Raven's storyline I kept expecting to tie into the main story, and never really did. I'm confused why this even got as much attention as it did, as it seems this could have easily been relegated to maybe a chapter of exposition. It wasn't even that good - the standard "Spartacus" storyline coupled with a dose of racial tolerance.
Wolfram and Shadamehr's acquisition of Dominion Lord-dom was too brief and glossed over for what seemed to me as a major character defining moment. Especially with regards to Shadamehr. Nothing seemed to change in the character to warrant it, and nothing really changed after he got it either. At least with Wolfram, we got a decent build-up to him accepting his power.
Finally, the whole ending was a total cop-out, in my opinion. I'm really not sure why any of the characters believed there were only four pieces - it was made very blatantly clear that there were five, and that the Dagger of Vrykyl was the fifth. The battle against Dagnarus (versus both the Dominion Lords and K'let) was extremely anti-climatic, and just left me feeling empty and cheated. The epilogue came off, to me at least, as an attempt to be clever and... mature, as in experienced... by not wrapping things up neatly. Unfortunately not only did this feel hollow in large part due to the completely anti-climatic ending, but it also extraneous. Had the epilogue not been written, I would have figured the futures of most of the characters anyway. In this instance I think a more upbeat, restful ending would have worked better than the ending given.
In short, while the story was a relatively entertaining diversion, numerous problems in storytelling prevented it from being really notable. The rushed feeling of the series definitely hurt my appreciation of it, as did the large amount of extraneous setting explanation and the complete lack of a climax toward the end of the book. What kept this book interesting to read was numerous interesting takes on the standard D&D world, as well as many interesting, if under-developed characters. Ultimately though, this series will end up being just another fantasy trilogy I've read and barely remember. As I've said, all I can do is shrug.
My initial impressions after finishing the first book were fairly simple. The book was a fairly simple read (compared to what I have been reading recently - college textbooks, Martin, Williams, Tolkein, and so on). There were some interesting ideas in the book, but ultimately not enough to make me do anything more than shrug after reading it. That's why I hadn't picked up the second book until now, and that only because I saw the third on the New Releases shelf.
Ultimately, after reading all three, I'm left with the same feelings. Some interesting ideas, but ultimately the nature of the books (which I will discuss in more detail below) just left me shrugging after I finished. I don't feel that I've wasted my time reading them, or that I wasn't entertained. It's just that the books were easy, quick reads. The best analogy I can come up with is watching an episode or two of Friends, as opposed to watching an episode or two of Angel or Babylon 5.
Alright, so onto the books themselves.
I'm going to start with what I think the biggest flaw of the trilogy was. The "trilogy" isn't really a trilogy at all - it's a prequel and a two-parter (bilogy... dilogy? duology?
). The first book was definitely interesting in context with the "sequels", as it basically gave a detailed history of what happened. However, as a result, the first book is very detached from the second and third, and the latter books suffer because of this. The end of the third book especially seemed very rushed, and easily could have been expanded to three books, in my opinion. Even so, both the second and third suffered from the detracted space to tell the real story. It's almost as if the authors wanted to specifically avoid the book format of The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings, when really the "prequel and trilogy" format is what the series needed... at least based on the way Weis and Hickman chose to write it.Another big problem I had with the books was the constant need for the authors to reiterate setting information. Specifically I'm thinking of every time they mention how the Stone was shattered; presumably people reading the third book read the first one. That means you don't need to tell me about history again - you already spend a whole book on it. As a consequence, with all the time they spend talking about it, you really didn't need to read the first book at all to understand the main story. Which means either the whole first book was wasted, or quite a few paragraphs throughout the second and third books were. It's a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it.
While that was the most glaring example, the repetition occurs often enough to be not just noticeable, which is bad enough, but also annoying. In fact, it not only happens between books, but also within books as well. I understand the thought process behind it - especially at the beginning of the third book, you want to remind the reader about what happened. Again though, if you're reading the third book, presumably you were absorbed enough by the first and second to retain some knowledge of what happened. Let alone all the different times I had to read about how the Taan ate humans and loved warfare, or what the Vrykyl were and how they communicated. The extra space would have been better spent fleshing out the parts of the story that were weaker.
On a final literary note, anothing thing that was particularly glaring to me was how... simplistic the writing was. Perhaps I'm just used to authors like Robin Hobb, who are extremely talented at the most basic literary techniques, such as foreshadowing. Several plot points simply come out of the blue, when even a throwaway sentence or two would have been appreciated. Specifically, Wolfram being a Dominion Lord seemingly came out of nowhere - Gustav recognizes him, and I assume it's because he's a Dominion Lord rather than what we're led to believe (he works for the monks). More foreshadowing would have gone a long way towards making that more palatable. The Void Dragon carrying Dagnarus to Old Vinnengael was another element that just came straight out of left field.
Onto the story itself.
There were a lot of interesting ideas throughout the book. The pecwae in particular I liked as an interpretation of Gnomes. I liked the idea that Dagnarus actually would have made a good king, if he wasn't corrupted by the Void. The Children of Dunner were a great little plot element, and helped explain Wolfgar's motivations in the beginning of the second book. Dragon reproduction was pretty inventive too, I thought. And for whatever reason I really liked Shadamehr, Alise, and Rigiswald.
The story itself shaped well in the second book, and then fell apart in the third. More definitely could have been done with the end of the third book especially - it needed to be fleshed out big time. Again, it echoes my biggest problem with the story, in that it just didn't seem developed at all, and easily could have been expanded into three books (discounting the first book as more akin to The Hobbit).
Raven's storyline I kept expecting to tie into the main story, and never really did. I'm confused why this even got as much attention as it did, as it seems this could have easily been relegated to maybe a chapter of exposition. It wasn't even that good - the standard "Spartacus" storyline coupled with a dose of racial tolerance.
Wolfram and Shadamehr's acquisition of Dominion Lord-dom was too brief and glossed over for what seemed to me as a major character defining moment. Especially with regards to Shadamehr. Nothing seemed to change in the character to warrant it, and nothing really changed after he got it either. At least with Wolfram, we got a decent build-up to him accepting his power.
Finally, the whole ending was a total cop-out, in my opinion. I'm really not sure why any of the characters believed there were only four pieces - it was made very blatantly clear that there were five, and that the Dagger of Vrykyl was the fifth. The battle against Dagnarus (versus both the Dominion Lords and K'let) was extremely anti-climatic, and just left me feeling empty and cheated. The epilogue came off, to me at least, as an attempt to be clever and... mature, as in experienced... by not wrapping things up neatly. Unfortunately not only did this feel hollow in large part due to the completely anti-climatic ending, but it also extraneous. Had the epilogue not been written, I would have figured the futures of most of the characters anyway. In this instance I think a more upbeat, restful ending would have worked better than the ending given.
In short, while the story was a relatively entertaining diversion, numerous problems in storytelling prevented it from being really notable. The rushed feeling of the series definitely hurt my appreciation of it, as did the large amount of extraneous setting explanation and the complete lack of a climax toward the end of the book. What kept this book interesting to read was numerous interesting takes on the standard D&D world, as well as many interesting, if under-developed characters. Ultimately though, this series will end up being just another fantasy trilogy I've read and barely remember. As I've said, all I can do is shrug.
