The year of our War by Steph Swainston.

Susan Boulton

Susan Boulton

Edited for submission
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
4,445
It has been a long time since a book/story has affected me this way.

This book is unbelievable. It has if the writer has dumped all the so called "rules" concerning writing fantasy in the waste bin, along with a lot of the dos and don'ts of writing. I don't mean grammar, I mean POV and the looked for standard presentation. For all other 1st person POV stories I have read seem to follow a sort of standard pattern i.e. Mary Gentle and Robin Hobb This book does not. It rambles all over the place. It is as if you are sitting talking to the character and your conversation is wandering all over the place. Yet underneath that the writer is leading you, the reader on a journey that is so cleverly crafted, so different, you are shouting in disbelief.

It is amazing, powerful, complex and near impossible to put down. It creates a world that uses "our world" words and items. It layers things we know onto this incredible world the writer has created. She blends them; using the English language in a way that makes me green with envy. This is a writer that has skill, power and the gift to make a reader's imagination explode!

I don't want to put any spoilers up as this story has to be picked up and read with out any preconceived ideas. I just want folks to give it a try. To be honest it was in my book club and I needed to choose my book of the month and it looked different. I am so glad I picked it...
 
I was thinking of starting a topic about this book as I'm reading it currently.

It creates a world that uses "our world" words and items
Click to expand...
Early in the book I was a bit puzzled, when, in what seemed a typical medieval setting, we had a character talking about jeans and sunglasses.
There's definitely a lot of innovation in this novel. I can't think of any other book coming close to having a protagonist close I'd describe as a drug addicted flying immortal.

My only real problem with the book so far is that early on I had a problem sorting out characters with the whole title/name/nickname being used interchangeably.

I can't say I'm as impressed as you are however. I feel that there are better New Weird writers out there, and Swainston shouldn't get the crown of Queen of the New Weird (as she's referred to on the back of my copy) yet. I'd give K.J Bishop that title at the moment.

BTW - I love how Mist talks when using cliches - Horse. Water.
 
Eventine: I am not one for titles, I find they put me off more than make me want to read, listen or watch anything that is over acclaimed. In fact I honestly didn't notice that. It was just a book to make up my choice. One that came as a total surprise and delight.

As to the nickname, title, etc... Don't we each have a number of names? Aren't they used by the same people at different times and even in the same conversation? Confusing, perhaps, it did take me a bit to get into that, but in a way it makes you think and take a bit more notice.
 
I read this back in April and was not impressed. Very light reading and not nearly as original or unique as I was hoping. If this is one of the shining lights of fantasy's future, things are looking quite grim. Then again, Mieville is leading the pack on that slant and I take very little of his prattling to heart. His writing is severely overrated, so why shouldn't his reviews?
 
I liked the use of such an unusual narrator of the story. She did him very well, it was about the only thing done well IMO.

The dialog was often very bad, lots of non sequiters. The name/title thing was a mish mash. Most of the characters were one dimensional.

There was no reason for the magicland (whatever it was called) in the story other than to host the bridge at the end. Of course its purpose was so she could be cutesy and artsy, and then she added the bridge as an explanation for the insects. It had to have been an afterthought it was so large it would have been visible from the first page in the first chapter if it was in fact the way the insects moved from here to there.

I thought her writing was not very good overall. The whole thing reminded me of a half-baked cake taken out of the oven when you have very little cake and lots of raw batter. I think she has talent, but very little skill, and in the rush to copy the next new thing (new weird) they rushed the book to print when she should have taken a crack at a total rewrite.

I can't even remember the last book I finished and felt nothing, not even like I had wasted my time, just a total non-event.
 
There was no reason for the magicland (whatever it was called) in the story other than to host the bridge at the end. Of course its purpose was so she could be cutesy and artsy, and then she added the bridge as an explanation for the insects.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a comment on the effects of Comet's addiction, but that's reading into it a bit.

I finished it up last night. It was interesting in the way it ended.

It had my favourite quote so far this year:
"He's been impailed"
"What? On a spike?"
"No. In a bucket"
 
Thanks for the various thoughts on this book. Been interesting reading.

Just one thing though, perhaps it was a conscious decision by the publisher and author to put it out in the form it is.(I personally like the style) A lot of investment goes into putting a book on a book shop’s shelves and though I am just a scribbling wannbe, I know how much effort I put into my “serious” submissions. I think on every word, the construction of each sentence, the flow and pace of the story. (Even if it turns out to be rejected rubbish)

Somehow I can’t see another writer not doing the same. If they have gotten to the point of the manuscript being accepted and destined to be published. I would assume that they would do their best to produce a book/story in the form they intended too from the get go. If they didn’t then that is food for thought and a bit disappointing.
 
Last edited:
I read it and liked it quite a lot too. I think its the most exciting release of the year so far. I'm surprised to see so many negative reactions. I think Ficus is right in one way to say the strongest part of Swainston's writing is her use of Jet as narrator. The great thing about using him as the narrator is that because of his natural advantage he can cover great distances in little time, making this a very experientially-based novel. But really, I found a lot more on offer in this book than the average cookie-cutter fantasy. Well-crafted characters which carry and compel a tense plot blooming with triumphant scenes of action, and which bring to life not one, but two complex and carefully created alien landscapes. And it's funny too.
 
Eventine said:
I thought it was a comment on the effects of Comet's addiction, but that's reading into it a bit.

I finished it up last night. It was interesting in the way it ended.

It had my favourite quote so far this year:
"He's been impailed"
"What? On a spike?"
"No. In a bucket"
Click to expand...

I agree the shift (?) could be seen as a comment and product of his drug addicition, but then she started to make it a secondary plot thread - but with very little to support it. For me there was too much in it for it to be a blurry, drug-induced fantasy, but not enough to support an actual story thread.

Then there was the tacky cutseypoo stuff in the first visit: 'Leopards with square spots who only move in straight lines and have to be fished out of the fountain'. I felt like I had wandered into daily TV for small children on PBS. :eek: Ick.
 
FicusFan said:
Then there was the tacky cutseypoo stuff in the first visit: 'Leopards with square spots who only move in straight lines and have to be fished out of the fountain'. I felt like I had wandered into daily TV for small children on PBS. :eek: Ick.
Click to expand...

Gee Ficus, where's your sense of humour?
 
I've got mixed feelings about this book.

I think that I like the ideas more than the way they are explored and implemented in the novel.

Interesting, flawed characters? Check.
A healthy disregard for fantasy cliches? Check.
"New Weird" sensibilities? Check.
A captivating read? Sadly not.

I really wanted to like this but, disappointingly, I was underwhelmed and unimpressed.
 
FicusFan said:
Smothered by the sticky smarmyness of the writing.
Click to expand...

LOL!

It reminded me of something out of Kipling's Just So Stories.
 
All I could think of was Shirley Temple and the Good Ship Lollipop !
 
FicusFan said:
All I could think of was Shirley Temple and the Good Ship Lollipop !
Click to expand...

Well, I tought it was a funny description. It's interesting that you draw saccharine-sweet connections from such a gritty fantasy novel. After all, these scenes are the result of the main character overdosing on a hypodermically injected drug!!

I found the comparisons with Mieville interesting. Obviously there are similarities, but I found Swainston to be more of a punk stylist that Mieville. They're both purposefully anachronistic in order to create that contradictory sense of familiarity and alienability, but Mieville has much more of a real world mechanics to his writing, whereas Swainston's is more surreal (and increasingly surreal as we step through each world she creates). I think one reviewer described this book as Burroughs meets Dante, which I think is a pretty accurate description. What do other's think?
 
Monosylabik said:
Well, I tought it was a funny description. It's interesting that you draw saccharine-sweet connections from such a gritty fantasy novel. After all, these scenes are the result of the main character overdosing on a hypodermically injected drug!!

I found the comparisons with Mieville interesting. Obviously there are similarities, but I found Swainston to be more of a punk stylist that Mieville. They're both purposefully anachronistic in order to create that contradictory sense of familiarity and alienability, but Mieville has much more of a real world mechanics to his writing, whereas Swainston's is more surreal (and increasingly surreal as we step through each world she creates). I think one reviewer described this book as Burroughs meets Dante, which I think is a pretty accurate description. What do other's think?
Click to expand...

What I was talking about specifically was her prose when she first describes the shift. She was too cute and trowelled it on too thick.

"Then there was the tacky cutseypoo stuff in the first visit: 'Leopards with square spots who only move in straight lines and have to be fished out of the fountain'. I felt like I had wandered into daily TV for small children on PBS. Ick ."

Not the whole novel. It was something she toned down later on, but as a first impression it stuck with me. Maybe not Shirley Temple, I just flashed on HR Puffen Stuff. :D

I agree there was grittiness in the novel.
 
Well, I just snagged a copy of this book. I'll probably get to it once I'm done with Iron Council and another book I'm currently reading. Comments will ensue thereafter.
 
Any word on a US publishing date for this book? Been seeing good rumblings about this book for some time now.
 
Publication rights in the US have been sold, but can't remember to who off the top of my head. Late this year or early half of next year is my guess. Steph left a comment on the blog at s1ngularity but it would be hard finding it again.
 
Thanks Mono, I'll have to hit the site later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top