[intensityxx]

I could be misunderstanding this (or missed some info), but the first book was available in hardback and I'd imagine the latter books will be out in PB in the future.D'oh. I was thinking PoR debuted in paperback.

[Julian]

D'oh. I was thinking PoR debuted in paperback.

You can get the hardcover edition of "Princess" from BookCloseOuts for $ 5.99:

http://www.bookcloseouts.com/default.asp?Ntk1=Default&Ntt1=paul+park&Ntx1=matchall&Nsl=0&Ix=1&R=9780765310965B&Rt=17&Nty1=1

I've ordered from them before (but only once).

________

P.S. I'm a geek, too.

[Archren]

Really interesting review, Archren. It sounds like I may not like the chaotic approach, as I usually hate movies and books that make you struggle to figure out the basics.

That's not really the case here: the reader knows pretty much exactly what's going on, because we get to follow the "bad guys" who are driving the action. My biggest frustration was that Miranda, the "heroine," was not allowed to discover what was going on, despite having several opportunities to find out. It basically seemed like the author was just messing with her. It's great in a "sub-verting genre tropes and avoiding infodumps" kind of way, but it got frustrating for me.

[Julian]

It basically seemed like the author was just messing with her.

I actually think he's trying his best not to mess with her. See the quote from Park's interview in my earlier post. In fact, I feel he's being so even-handed with her that regular readers of fantasy might become almost impatient. After all, she's the heir apparent, isn't she? So why doesn't she get that? But I also think that's the point...

Just a thought...

Besides that - I don't think the bad guys are in control, let alone driving the tale, Archren... That's a litle too simple. They're in the castles and the keeps for now, but that's about it - and they're aware of it. They're every bit as unsure of what will transpire next as everyone else. Do you really think the Baroness is in control (even in her own opinion)? You must have read another story than I did...

[Archren]

Besides that - I don't think the bad guys are in control, let alone driving the tale, Archren... That's a litle too simple. They're in the castles and the keeps for now, but that's about it - and they're aware of it. They're every bit as unsure of what will transpire next as everyone else. Do you really think the Baroness is in control (even in her own opinion)? You must have read another story than I did...

I agree that the "bad guys" aren't in control, that's pretty obvious. However, I think it is undeniable that through the whole first book the Baroness is driving the action; that is to say that it is her actions that set off the entire plot, and everyone else has to react to them. She's the one that brought Miranda out of our world, she's the one that killed the aunt, she's the one who sent the soldiers.

To say that a character drives the action is not to say they're "in control." The two concepts have entirely different meanings.

[JohnH]

Actually I think one of the chief flaws in the series is that the characters don't drive the action. It seems very much a "things happen" approach. A reason I found that as heavy handed as Park is with the attempt at subverting certain themes, the books are incredibly, if not ruinously bland indeed. I also find that Park's almost determined "detachment" on certain approaches really detracts from the good things he manages to do.

The first book had rather unconvincing character portrayals in the transition points of the storyline. Perhaps that too was deliberate on the author's part. But he never balanced it with a true sense of the world that he employs. It is one of the worst "alternative" world efforts ever. Park gets better as the series progresses in that area, but sadly, his characterization weakens considerably.

It is not bad writing. Three books in and the flaws, whether deliberately affected or just the author's inability to carry out what seems like an otherwise clear vision of a story, keep this from coming even close to a great work. At times I'm not sure it even brushes "good" (but I keep finding that not good does not necessarily equal bad -- and I don't think it is bad; but Park as a long way to go to writing a good story with this one).

[Julian]

A reason I found that as heavy handed as Park is with the attempt at subverting certain themes, the books are incredibly, if not ruinously bland indeed.


This is the third time - I think - that the books are directly or indirectly described as "bland", even though they're also considered "subversive". So obviously the "bland" thing is an issue of sorts with some of you.

But what do you guys mean? Dull, perhaps? Not engaging?

Or is it connected to Park's "determined detachment", as JohnH puts it? I can understand that part, by the way, and it's a valid point. Personally, I don't feel Park is "detached" at all, but I can well imagine that the way he writes would detach quite a few readers. You have to struggle a bit - it's almost as if Park allows you into his world, but only grudgingly. Park is, perhaps, not so much detached as obtuse (if mildly so). This is why I find it hard to describe his writing as "transparent" (as LeGuin seems to have put it).

[Mithfânion]

Julian

Yes, bland as dull. Unengaging. Featureless and quite uninteresting.

[Julian]

Thanks, Mith! I'd been wondering.