Alright so we have books:

28 - The Heights of the Depths by Peter David
29 - The Strangled Queen by Maurice Druon
30 - Lancaster and York: The Wars of the Roses by Alison Weir
31 - Republic of Thieves by Scott Lynch

The Heights of the Depths is the second book in PAD's Hidden Earth chronicles. It is a lot of madcap adventure and a web of schemes and intrigue, which I always like. There are a lot of characters and there's a lot going on, but I think PAD juggled it all nicely. A lot of the characters are split up and recombined with other characters (Jepp being with the selkie and the faun and the troll are now hanging separate from the rest of the Bottom Feeders). I also liked the fleshing out of the Serabim, who are basically Abominable Snowmen (I will love him and hug him and I will name him George). There's a good pace to these books, a nice sense of urgency and adventure. Unfortunately though, the story is not done and who knows if it ever will be.

The Strangled Queen is the second book of Maurice Druon's Accursed Kings opus. We learn more about the newly crowned King Louix X (he really has no business ruling), who basically begins to dismantle everything that his father had worked so hard to put into place, as he's being led around by his Uncle of Valois and his cousin, Robert of Artois, who is desperately trying to get his lands back and sees Louis as being much easier to manipulate than his father was. There is a lot of political manuevering in removing some of the previous King's trusted advisors, there is an overture to a new queen, and of course, there is the strangled queen of the title. It's all very sordid and fun and I can so easily see why GRRM says that this series is one of his inspirations for ASoIF. I think the next one is now translated and available in ebook. I'll have to get it. It's a total medieval soap-opera with the added bonus that it has historical basis.

Lancaster and York: The Wars of the Roses is exactly what it says; an examination of the two families who plunged Britain into the 30 year civil war. Weir does a nice job of setting it all up and explaining why poor Henry VI wasn't a very good king. Of course, it's easy to criticize someone who's in power, and once Richard of York got in there, he realized it wasn't easy to rule either. Of course, though, he never called himself King, it was his son who eventually ruled as Edward IV. But anyway, I also really liked this book because Weir really details just how formidable Margaret of Anjou (Henry VI's wife) was in her tenacity to restore her husband to his throne. The Yorks had to truly take everything away from her before she gave up. (I have also realized that my decision to read all these big, dense historical books this year is probably the main contributor to my not reading as many books this year... but I'm learning stuff!)

Republic of Thieves is the long awaited next installment of the Gentlemen Bastards series. As I only discovered this series last year, I didn't have a very long wait. Well, now I do, I guess, but whatever. Anyway. This one picks up where we left off with Locke and Jean being in rather dire straits. Locke has been poisoned and is definitely dying when they are approached by a most unlikely saviour; a Bondsmage. This particular Bondsmage, of course, has a deal for Locke; she'll save him from the poison if he and Jean will immerse themselves in the political elections in the Bondsmage's home city. See, the mages cannot themselves affect the outcome of the vote; but they can hire people to do their dirty work for them. Of course Locke accepts. But that's not the ONLY thing going on in this book... oh no, it's also half flashback from when the Bastards are kids and have traveled to another city to learn how to be actors. Which of course blows up in their faces spectacularly. Oh and in this book, we finally meet the elusive, mysterious Sabetha, the love of Locke's life. She's... ok. But by now, the build up of her character has been such that she'd have to be spectacular to live up to the hype. The amount of just plotting that goes on in this book is pretty huge. And rather noticable. It doesn't have the seamlessness of the first book. But weirdly, I did find it fit together a little better than the second book did. I can understand Lynch wanting to tell us of the backstory of how Sabetha and Locke's relationship came to be, but I don't know if we needed half the book devoted to it. Because the political manueverings of the Five Year Game seemed... not too interesting and just parlour tricks. I was hoping for something grand and intricate, but no, Locke really was more focused on Sabetha being around. Now, there was one thing that I really, really didn't like though, and that was the revelation of what Locke might be (and probably is). Usually I complain when something that we've understood is mystical is taken and given a scientific explanation (midichlorians anyone?). But here, I'm going to complain that someone (Locke) who we've been given as being an exceptional person, mainly through natural brains and charisma and a SHIT load of training, might actually have mystical origins. Weirdly enough I found this really stripped Locke of a lot of his power. It's like someone suddenly telling me that no, Batman isn't the peak of what a human can achieve, he's actually a Jedi. Ho hum. Anyway, despite all this, overall I actually DID enjoy this book for the most part. Lynch's dialogue is pretty hilarious, and capers and heists are difficult to pull off all the time, so I appreciate his continually trying to do so. Oh and the ending was actually pretty scary, so I do look forward to the next book.

For the first time ever, I think I've completely lost track of where I am... I don't know why I'm so horrible at keeping this up this year... (well, August and September were kinda bad for a variety of reasons we won't get into here.)

24, 25, 26, 27

24 is Among Others by Jo Walton - Loved this book. Off beat and magical and a love letter to reading, especially reading 60s and 70s Sci-fi/Fantasy.

25 is Dance of the Happy Shades by Alice Munro - Can't say much other than so much love for her short stories.

26 is Captive Queen by Alison Weir - Eleanor of Aquitaine was pretty cool. Her husband Henry? Not so much.

27 is Darkness of the Light by Peter David - Glad I finally got around to reading this. Bit of a slow start, but once I figured out what was going on, it got quite enjoyable. And I liked how PAD began tying all, what seemed to be disparate, threads together.

On Second Thought, Let's Not Go to Camelot...

Book #4 is The Camelot Papers by Peter David

It was through comic books (of course) that I was first introduced to Peter David. And these days, his X-Factor is one of the few comics I'm still reading. Over the years, I've branched out and read a fair amount of his prose too, most of which I've also reviewed here.

Peter had a stroke at the end of last year. He's recovering nicely (yay!), but of course, his health insurance doesn't cover everything, so when the call went out to buy some of his books in order to help him out, I immediately did so. Which brings us to The Camelot Papers.

Written in the form of a diary (and with a framing device that these are 'authentic' writings that were discovered and are now being studied) authored by Viviana, a name often ascribed to the Lady of the Lake in the Legends. Not so much here.

Viviana is a slave, sold into servitude by her debt-ridden father, she ends up at Camelot, working in the kitchens, until her intelligence is noticed by... pretty much everyone and she becomes a lady-in-waiting to the new Queen, Guinevere.

Peter plays about with the structure and characters of Camelot quite a bit here, and still (mostly) makes it fit the overall Legends. His Arthur is a dimwitted, too tenderhearted, yet extremely likable doofus. Guinevere is a headstrong tomboy. She and Morgan are sisters (and yes, Morgan is still half-sister to Arthur as well. Mordred is an incredibly intelligent (and creepy) albino child. And Lancelot is a big, French jerk (sigh). And Galahad is a completely fabricated knight of Viviana's invention.

In his other Arthurian books, Peter gets very political-allegory like, and he does so again here. He uses the time-honoured attack on Guinevere and Igraine by Meleagrance as a (not at all) veiled allegory for the Iraq war. Which is fine in and of itself, but I'm not entirely sure what the point was. Yes, Arthur (and the kingdom) lose it's innocence over this, but working in a framework of tales where the characters were often and always at war, it's hard to really feel that this was any worse than anything else Arthur has done in the tales (can you say Childslayer?), so for me, the ill-found war against Meleagrance and his WMD's (yes, that acronym is actually employed) didn't really hit home for me.

That said though, I did enjoy the characterizations and seeing things unfold through Vivana's eyes and interpretations. So yes, I liked this book even if this Lancelot was a jerk :)

Number 8 is Tigerheart by Peter David. I've had some ups and downs with Peter over the years (well, ok, really only one down, so nevermind) but overall, I've always enjoyed his stuff, and he is mentioned a few times in this blog due to his Arthurian cycle. So when I saw Tigerheart on sale for a ridiculously cheap price, it had to come home with me.

I loved this damn book. It's been awhile since a book made me tear up, but this sure did. Tigerheart is a pastiche of Peter Pan. It's not a true retelling, perhaps a bit of a sequel, but whatever it is, I thought it beautiful and I enjoyed it much more than the original.

It's not just that the story is familiar of course, but it's also that David's narrative voice so perfectly captured the narrative voice of so much late 19th/early 20th century children's literature, where the narrator is omnicient and very nearly a character in themselves. It's a voice I don't find that's pulled off well very often (I think C.S Lewis did it brilliantly in his Chronicles of Narnia) and so David should be lauded for this alone.

But he should also be lauded for creating an interesting character in Paul Dear, who holds his own with The Boy and Captains Hack and Slash and sweet Gwenny. And he should be lauded for such a beautiful, moving treatise on what it means to be a child, and what it means to be an adult, and how moving from one to the other is difficult but doesn't always mean they have to be mutually exclusive either.

Well done Peter David, really, really well done.

I'm throwing rocks tonight! (basically just meaning I've been reading things quickly again...)

Number 15 is Fall of Knight by Peter David. Fall of Knight is the third in David's Arthurian cycle, and like the others, its enjoyable, is a nice continuation of the myths, and yet feels rather heavy-handed in some places.

I know, from reading various things in comic book circles, that Peter David is a very liberal (with a small 'l' since he's American) person, and this often shows up in his writing. He's had some, overall, goodnatured 'spats' with fellow comic writer (and uber-conservative) Chuck Dixon, and I always found myself more in line with Peter David's views.

So, while Knight Life was mainly just David's view of politics, One Knight Only became more political, and was obviously his reaction to 9-11 and the current administration's reaction to it and terrorism in general. And now, with Fall of Knight, David is tackling the issue of faith.

I like Peter David's Arthur. He is strong-willed, charismatic, charming, smart and yet, often times bull-headed, a little arrogant and pretty used to getting his own way (after all, he was King). I think the personality suits him perfectly, and of course, there are the nice touches such as the simulataneous world-weariness and yet also the niavety he has about the modern world.

Arthur, since awakening from his thousand year slumber, has been mayor of New York City, then President of the United States. Fall of Knight opens with him and Gwen in retirement, on a sailboat in the middle of the Pacific, where he's basically bored out of his skull. The problem is, they cannot go back, because no one is to know that Gwen has recovered from her coma (induced by a terrorist/assassin's bullet to her head) and is in fact fully healed, due to the Holy Grail (as was done in One Knight Only). Gwen is the recipient of a miracle no one would believe in.

But of course, Gwen's recovery is discovered, and Arthur (with Gwen and Percival, the Grail Knight's support) Arthur goes public with who he is and that the Holy Grail is in his possession. Well, as you can imagine, the shit hits the fan. People want to be cured. The Catholic Church wants the Grail. The US Government wants the Grail. And of course, the main badguy, a near-immortal necromancer/alchemist calling himself Paracelsus, also wants the Grail. Of course, the church and the state wish to study the Grail, afirm its divinity, that sort of thing, but Paracelsus wants it because he wishes to use it to wipe humanity from the Earth. And he's pretty close to being able to do so, considering he also has the Spear of Destiny in his posession.

But overall, the theme of faith is what drives this book. Arthur, his faith in a higher power pretty much shattered by his Grail Quest (for he finds out the Grail is much, much older than Christ) and so he shares this with people who find themselves likewise disaffected from modern, organized religion. Of course though, some people see Arthur himself as a new messiah-like figure, and turn to 'worshipping' him. This makes the Church rather upset and they denounce him thoroughly. A lot of Arthur's message can be seen as 'think for yourself' (a message anyone versed in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" will be familiar with), but after awhile, it does seem that even Arthur is believing his own hype as a saviour of humanity.

Arthur, in his efforts to help as many people as he can, launches on a scheme to bottle water that has been poured into the Grail, then diluted, and sell it to as many people around the world as he can. The product, called Grail Ale, sells out immediately and performs all sorts of miraculous cures. Arthur is happy with this, however, lots have misgivings, including the loyal Percival.

Of course, it all goes to shit, the person who came up with the plan to bottle Grail Ale is actually Paracelsus, who, knowing that magic always has a balance (i.e., the more good that is done with the Grail means the more 'bad' energy is also being built up. So you know, Karma) is waiting for the Grail to basically be 'full' of goodness, so he can use its power and that of the Spear to purge humanity off the earth. And of course, its up to Arthur to stop him.

He does, of course, but Percival is lost in the battle, as is Excalibur. Its interesting that, when the chips are down and Arthur doesn't have his remaining Knight and Merlin is trapped (Nimue again of course), he is moved to prayer. I'm not sure if I liked this part, it seemed too pat for someone who was not only questioning faith, but also the divinity of Christ, would then turn back down that path, but perhaps it was David saying that when all else is lost or gone, it is natural for people to hope that there is something/someone out there who will lend a guiding hand, or rainstorm in this case.

I guess overall, I did find it interesting because alot of what Peter David was questioning wasn't exactly faith, but faith in how religion is presented to us in a modern age. He brings up the old standbys - how much blood has been spilt in the name of one who's message was predominately peaceful, how could God so completely turn his back on his creation and let so much evil flourish, if Christ did return today, would he be accepted or simply shut up in an institution somewhere as one of the nameless mentally ill? All excellent questions really. He doesn't really go so far as to portray the Church in a negative light, but they aren't exactly positive either, which is probably the best way to look at them.

Overall, I liked this trilogy. David crafted a likeable bunch of characters and his knowlege of they legends are extensive and his reworkings of them never feel wrong. In fact, one of my favourite scenes in this book was Arthur telling Gwen that, in reality, when she was ordered to burn at the stake for her treason against Arthur (over the affair with Lancelot), there was no intention on Arthur's part of having Gwen rescued by Lancelot. In David's version, Lancelot was under siege in his own home, unable to leave, and so Gwen wasn't rescued, she burned, and Arthur, consumed with vengence for his betrayal, was perfectly fine with this. Arthur tells Gwen that her rescue was tacked on later, by the various writers, to make things more 'romantic', but it was not true. This was a great retelling of that particular moment in the legends, for it reminds one that Arthur came from a brutal time, and perhaps wasn't as 'accepting' of the affair as many of the retellings say, that in fact, he was pissed off, and had more than enough power to make Gwen and Lance pay heavily for it. It was a powerful moment in the book.

Ok, since last post I have indeed finished Bury the Chains. VERY good book. Has made me want to swear off eating sugar for good, but I know that's damned near impossible these days. Funny thing is, while reading the book, the CBC rebroadcast their 'Big Sugar' documentary, which looked at modern day sugar-cane plantations, and all the ways sugar is a very big problem in our world. Those who harvest sugar-cane on modern day plantations are living a life of slavery in all but name. Its like nothing really changed over the past two hundred years, and Bury the Chains have said that many of the Caribbean nations (like Haiti) have never really recovered from the slave rebellions that destroyed much of the island's wealth. The show Big Sugar also heavily referenced Bury the Chains, as they showed the abolitionist movement was very directly tied to sugar. They also mentioned how WHO had been trying to get a bill tabled at the United Nations about sanctioning big sugar, in order to protect children from the growing obesity problem, but the US refused to sign it and threatened to withdraw funding from WHO should anyone mention it again. Guess who is a large contributer to the Republicans? Yeah, sugar companies...

After finishing Bury the Chains, I started Knight Life by Peter David. Not bad at all and a fun little read as a re-awakened Arthur runs for mayor of New York City. I did have a slight panic attack worrying that perhaps this book might be too close to what I've come up with for the plot of my romance novel, but fortunately PAD's Lancelot is a non-factor in the book, and although Gwen might have some characteristics in common with my heroine, I think they're still different enough. The Arthur in this book was pretty good, and came off as very charismatic. Morgan was an ehn villainess, but I loved that Mordred was a top PR man. He was great. So yeah, overall, a nice book, I'll probably end up picking up the sequal, One Knight Only.

I've also been re-reading Byron's Don Juan (don't ask; personal reasons). I read this originally in second-year university, I had to do my Romantics seminar on it. I had an episode of Cheers taped where Diane was doing her psychology thesis on why Sam was a text-book case of Don Juan syndrome. Sam was a compulsive womanizer, and so yes, was a perfect example of the psychological Don Juan. However, as I read through Byron's poem, I realized that his Don Juan was not the compulsive womanizer that Sam was, rather Byron's Don Juan was more of a romantic, and it was usually always the women who pursued him. Byron's Don Juan was almost a niaf, and I found that rather fascinating, given the almost negative connotations being called a 'Don Juan' has in modern society. Byron's Don Juan isn't really what we think of as a stereotypical Don Juan. It is a lovely poem, full of romantic imagery, but also quite humourous as well. I'm having fun re-reading it. Oh, and way back when, I got an A on that Romantics seminar. Thanks Cheers :)