Andy Graham Author

Author of dark fiction and fantasy, dystopia, horror.

Reviews

I Am Legend by Richard Matheson

by Leave a Comment

My review in a nutshell: a slow classic that didn’t always work for me.

Want that with more feeling?

Here we go…

  • It’s a great take on the vampire story, I particularly liked the cause of vampirism and the ponderous steps Robert Neville makes to working that out.
  • It’s clever.
  • It’s descriptive. (Too much so in some places.)
  • I liked the contrast between hunter and hunted – a much more acute problem than many vampire books because Neville is alone.
  • Ben Cortman is a nice touch.
  • The scene where Neville realises his watch has stopped really got me going.
  • The dog! Did you have to do that? That was brutal.

But apart from those moments, much of the first part of the book just seemed to pootle along.

Then Ruth arrives.

I don’t want to give anything away so won’t say much about her. But from this point on, the book picks up considerably. And that was what was lacking for me for much of the story: a second character.

Neville’s wife and daughter and a huge part of his life but only in memory. Ben Cortman doesn’t really count as a companion. I was missing the dynamics of more than one person on the page. Ruth gives the book, and Neville, what they needed.

Her presence also sets up nicely for the end – the new reason for Neville being hunted and what happens to him. It was a great twist that I didn’t see coming and leads up nicely to the last sentence of the story.

All in all, I Am Legend is a good, measured read but I feel it could have done with Ruth appearing earlier to balance out Neville’s solitary existence. I realise that evoking a feeling of loneliness was probably one of the aims of the book, but the lack of a companion, and some of the overly precise descriptions of what he was doing, took the warmth out of the novel

I’d still recommend it. After all, it’s a classic.

Camelot by Giles Kristian

by Leave a Comment

After reading Lancelot, I had high hopes for Camelot. But did it live up to the high standards of its father?

Short answer – yes, just.

Long answer below.

The book is set about a decade after the final battle that ends Lancelot/ Lancelot. It features many of the same people, has the same prose that is just the right side of purple, and has the same biting action sequences. It chronicles the life of Lancelot’s son as he is ripped from the sanctuary of a secluded monastery and thrust into a world full of blood, rage and love.*

There is a depth and colour to the world which is vivid and meticulous but occasionally overwhelming. (In Lancelot there were too many trees; in Camelot, birds. They were everywhere. Stands to reason given a lot of action was in a marsh but even so…)

There are parallels to its predecessor: a love interest, a quest (a cauldron this time, not a sword), a boy coming of age.

There is tragedy, senseless loss, depictions of the brutal life of those times, moments of loyalty and devious trickery (Take a bow, Merlin.)

There is the same vast array of characters and places with unsayable names.

(Another shout out to the proofreaders who must have been put through the red-line wringer by their spellcheck machinery.)

All in all, it is a worthy follow up to its predecessor. (In his Author’s Notes, Giles Kristian calls it a companion novel rather than a sequel.)

But, it falls just short of the high standards of Lancelot. This doesn’t make it a bad book. Not by any means. It is worth reading, preferably directly after Lancelot so the events of that book which are referenced in Camelot are still fresh. If there are so many parallels between the two, why is there a discrepancy?

At first, I thought it was the action sequences. They are good, but are a shade slower, not quite as bright. I wondered if that was deliberately done to reflect the age of many of the warriors. But ultimately, they are not the reason this book is not quite the equal of its father.

It’s the protagonist.

Another stunning cover.

Lancelot burned. You could feel it in him from the moment he stepped onto the page. Though his devotion to his hawk, his adoration of Pelleas and his rivalry with Melwas. To his love for Arthur and, of course, Guinevere, who consumed his dreams and days and, ultimately, his life and death. Lancelot’s ferocious personality drove the book forwards to its bloody conclusion. He was a lord of war and a lord of the page.

Galahad was forever in his father’s shadow. Arguably, he makes a longer, harder journey that his father: from his time as a monk to his role as a fearsome warrior on the vulnerable right-hand side of the shield-wall. But he didn’t have the passionate depths of his father and that, I think, is where the book doesn’t shine as much.

That said, I’ll repeat myself:

Camelot. Is. Not. A. Bad. Book.

But Lancelot is better.

Buy both. Read both. You’ll enjoy them.

*I don’t see the point of giving you a blow by blow account of the plot. Read the book if you want that. Mr Kristian tells the story much better than I do…

Lancelot by Giles Kristian

by Leave a Comment

A great book and a novel twist on the Arthurian legend.

The story stretches from Lancelot’s torrid early childhood, through the relative safety of his early teens and a blossoming love that will shape his life, to his role as ‘lord of war’ and his part in both Arthur’s and Briton’s fate. Underlying the whole book is the unchanging devotion of a young boy.

There’s no need to summarise the plot more than that, you can read the book for that. So, what did I think?

• The prose is beautiful.
• The battles and duels are excruciatingly good.
• The ‘training montage’ of his childhood and his relationship with his mentor are very well done. (In particular what Lancelot does for the man at the end of Pelleas’s life.)
• The background, myths, history and omens are woven into the text exceedingly well.
• Similarly, the technical elements of the world are present but don’t dominate.
• There is a huge cast of well-rounded characters to love, hate and mourn.
• There is frustrated love and impotent rage; vengeance, sacrifice and betrayal.
• Some people get their comeuppance, others, maddeningly, do not. Still more remain devious and obtuse throughout.

All in all, I liked it a lot.

A stunning cover.

That said, there are a few minor issues.

The first is the pace. It ranges from blindingly fast in some sections to slow in others. Some ebb and flow is good, but the contrast is occasionally too much.

One reason for this is the prose – as stunning as it is, it can take up too much space e.g. when describing nature. Up to a point, a tree is a tree. Move on.

Also relating to the pace is the sentence structure. On the whole, it is used well and varies considerably. From punchy fragments. To longer sentences that have minimum punctuation and stretch on and on and on but are difficult to follow until the next full stop heaves into sight.

One last gripe – the section just past the halfway mark. It felt as if people were being moved around for the final, relentless push to the last battle. Lancelot’s childhood is a little guilty of this prolonged scene setting, too. I didn’t mind this as much. Why? Because, it seethes with the bubbling emotions between the teenagers on an island which I’m not even going to attempt to spell.

(Shout out to the proofreader, by the way. Keeping track of the spellings of the names in the book cannot have been easy.)

I want to stress, though, that these gripes are minor. Once all the characters have been built and shuffled into place, when Lancelot’s old enemies unite with his new ones, and Guinevere reenters his life, the book builds relentlessly to one inescapable conclusion: ruin.

All in all, Lancelot is dauntingly good.

I’ve already pre-ordered the next in the series and have an eye on the rest of the author’s novels.

Not to mention all the books mentioned in the back matter…

*sigh*

Too many books, too little time.

#thestruggleisreal

The Whisper Man by Alex North

by Leave a Comment

I don’t generally read crime fiction but I took a chance on The Whisper Man because it came highly recommended. Without giving away too much, it combines elements of The Sixth Sense and The Silence of the Lambs, throws in a young boy and his father, and then puts them dead centre of every parent’s worst nightmare.

Did I enjoy it?

Essentially, yes. The opening 25% (Yes, I read ebooks) was genuinely chilling, to the point that I wondered if I’d be better reading it at day rather than last thing at night.

The last 15% or so is also an incredibly quick read as everything comes to a head.

But the middle section felt flat. Maybe it was because the opening and ending were so good, but the story seemed to lose its way. There were too many points-of-view and one co-incidence too many. All of a sudden there were a host of characters and revelations. The big reveals about the parents (and grandparent) I found a little hard to accept e.g. who they are and where they lived. The identity of the son’s imaginary friend was a nice touch and his supernatural abilities were explained at the end. But, initially, I couldn’t work out if this book was a creepy crime thriller or whether there was something more unreal to it.

That said, the author gets a lot into a relatively short space and does it well. (Bear in mind I’m not a regular reader of this genre so am not aware of the tropes and cliches.) There are copycat killings, complex family relationships that have a myriad of consequences (both good and evil), regret and hopes, and some implied moments of horror that happen ‘off-screen’ that are gruesome to imagine. All in all – worth it.

Just make sure you lock your doors and windows at night while you read it. Especially if you have kids.

It’s a stunning cover, especially when you look at it close up.

A Ring to Rule Them All by Luke Scull

by Leave a Comment

A short review of a short book. In short, I liked it.

Here’s a slightly longer version.

Luke Scull achieves a lot in a short space of time. A Ring to Rule Them All contains hard-bitten warriors and moral dilemmas. The latter can be seen as treachery or honour depending on whose side you are. There’s humour to balance out a horrific event. The story has violence. There is a sense of history and depth to the world of the Grim Company, which is impressive in a such a short work. I never got the sense I was being overwhelmed with information or names that have more punctuation in them than letters. And there’s a resolution to the story that sets it up nicely for more.

In short (there’s that word again), I was impressed. I’ll be reading more by this author.

Just look at that cover!

*swoon*

The Witcher (Netflix Season One)

by Leave a Comment

OK. Now the dust has settled from the tsunami of words I hit you with in my last post*, I thought I’d follow up The World’ Shortest Film review with a slightly longer one.

The Witcher.

I haven’t read the books so was coming at this cold.**

Short version: I’m glad I stuck with it.

Long version:

It started badly. I was prepared to quit after the first episode. The dialogue was clunky. There were too many manly grunts. Too many sections of ‘and now I will tell you my back story’. There were jumps in the plot that made no sense. More cliches than you could shake a magic stick at. I had the feeling I was being asked to care about people I knew nothing about. The scenery felt cheap. And the eyes! Seriously, what was going on with all those random eye colours?

The highlight of the episode was a great tweet about the episode by Joe Abercrombie: ‘the incel mage and his garden of boobies’. But otherwise, apart from the fight at the end (and I got the feeling that we were building up to that for almost an hour), I didn’t enjoy it.

I didn’t enjoy episodes 2 or 3, either.

I was encouraged to stick with it, so I did. (I didn’t need much encouragement, to be fair. It’s an affliction of mine, I rarely don’t finish books, either.) And, part-way through episode 4, things seemed to click.

The time lines converged. The people I felt I was being asked to care about in episode one I now cared about. Some of the monsters were suitably horrible. Some of the choices facing the protagonists also. The fight scenes were enjoyable. There were still moments when I found myself thinking: ‘what just happened?’ or ‘why did he/she/it do that?’ or ‘that makes no sense’. But, by then, I could roll with it.

Why the change? Mark Lawrence may explain it better. He made a good point in that The Witcher is almost like a fairy tale and in fairy tales somethings ‘just are’. If you can accept that the reason behind an action is ‘because’, then it makes sense. It took me a while to get there with this series.

As for those Hunting for a New Game of Thrones. This is not the show you’re looking for.

To paraphrase Mark Lawrence again – the shows are different beasts. GoT is essentially dirty politics (Would sir like a side-serving of cynicism to go with his tautology?) with some magic and dragons thrown in to spice it up, The Witcher reverses it. Maybe this will change in future series, but so far one is fantastical, the other fantastic. (At least until the last season, but that’s another post)

I’ll get round to reading the books at some point but for now I’ll stick with the show. And after a slow start, I’m actually looking forwards to seeing where it goes.

 

*That was ironical.**

**If you are one of the people who thinks not having read the books invalidates an opinion of the show, why? Shouldn’t the Netflix series stand on its own? Or do you believe that you can only have an opinion on something if you have read/ watched/ encountered the source material? Not read the James Bond books? Can’t comment on the films. Same applies for The Godfather, Jason Bourne series, Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, Trainspotting, Harry Potter, Twilight, LOTR etc etc I’m not looking for a fight, this is a genuine question.

***So was that. 🙂