Scan barcode
A review by stefhyena
1610: A Sundial in a Grave by Mary Gentle
2.0
Even though I did not like a lot of things about this book I am glad I persisted and read it all. I found the first 300 pages particularly difficult to keep reading and even once I realised I could get into aspects of the story, some parts were too drawn out. 600 is a lot of pages!!!
The story is a historical (possibly alternative history) look at some assassinations of kings (successful and otherwise) and on the surface level is a swashbuckling adventure. Then it also has a lot of introspective meandering, a love-story that moves very slowly and both sides of it are frustratingly stupid. There are duels, escapes, disguises, voyages- all you would want in a swashbuckling adventure but also for me far too many torture and punishment scenes as well as a rape that may have been crucial to the plot (although I question this in any case) but was shown in far too much detail. Cliche and horrible!
The sexuality in the book could be described as "kink" but even then as I try to like the fact that a rarely seen sexuality is portrayed, I think it is extremely problematical that it starts in non-consent. Both "lovers" try to humiliate each other or enjoy the humiliation of each other, which turns into a harmless sex-game for them eventually and we are meant to forget the real danger and violence it began with. The book is very forgiving of violence, even the killing of friends "these things happen" but very unforgiving of disobedience/disloyalty to a "superior". I tried to integrate that as simply a historical view, but I couldn't help seeing it as a hyper-masculine aspect of the book that somehow passes unexamined in a book that gives us so much good deconstruction of femininity, and also at least opens masculinity up to whatever woman is bold enough to grab some for herself. I guess the "individuality" of the women who managed to overcome their femininity was sort of in a liberal feminist framework, although there was some tacit acknowlegement of patriarchy this was portrayed as men simply being too dumb to realise what women experience (partly true no doubt but portrayed as humorous rather than sinister). Gender bending in the book was wonderful, except in so far as at times it seemed played for laughs (still even then there were some good observations). Why on earth having spent almost 600 pages finding the available female role/s too constrictive does Arcadie raise her daughter only to be a wife and mother??
The queerness and gender-fluidity of the main love story was the best feature of the narrative (the occasional criticisms by the Japanese character of white European culture also a great feature). It was unfortunate though that Arcadie's summing up of the "romance" looking backward finished off what I had felt was a tendency in the text to take all this kink and gender fluidity and turn it monogamous heterosexual after all- very slightly on the boundaries but....I would have preferred the characters to retain some polyamorous tendencies at the very least. The misogyny inherent in some types of male homoerotic behaviour was portrayed effectively. Female characters tended to be somewhat tragic but were portrayed well.
Some historical details were quite nice (such as the description of the colour of Rochefort's shirt as "goose-turd") and yet the characters in the main talked in a very modern (therefore anachronistic) way.
The violence in the book is not only unrelenting and portrayed somewhat positively or casually at times but overly graphic. If I had a dollar every time someone's brains, guts or blood splattered everywhere I would at least be able to buy a nice bottle of wine. I found that excessive if historically accurate. It took me over 300 pages to build any sort of relationship with the two main characters, they were extremely unlikeable to begin with and I think the change in them (Dariole in particular) was not fully believable. It's a romance, I could cope with larger than life happenings and doings if the characters pulled me in a bit earlier and if it wasn't for all the violence and rape scenes.
I am still of the opinion that a book this long is almost always too long.
The story is a historical (possibly alternative history) look at some assassinations of kings (successful and otherwise) and on the surface level is a swashbuckling adventure. Then it also has a lot of introspective meandering, a love-story that moves very slowly and both sides of it are frustratingly stupid. There are duels, escapes, disguises, voyages- all you would want in a swashbuckling adventure but also for me far too many torture and punishment scenes as well as a rape that may have been crucial to the plot (although I question this in any case) but was shown in far too much detail. Cliche and horrible!
The sexuality in the book could be described as "kink" but even then as I try to like the fact that a rarely seen sexuality is portrayed, I think it is extremely problematical that it starts in non-consent. Both "lovers" try to humiliate each other or enjoy the humiliation of each other, which turns into a harmless sex-game for them eventually and we are meant to forget the real danger and violence it began with. The book is very forgiving of violence, even the killing of friends "these things happen" but very unforgiving of disobedience/disloyalty to a "superior". I tried to integrate that as simply a historical view, but I couldn't help seeing it as a hyper-masculine aspect of the book that somehow passes unexamined in a book that gives us so much good deconstruction of femininity, and also at least opens masculinity up to whatever woman is bold enough to grab some for herself. I guess the "individuality" of the women who managed to overcome their femininity was sort of in a liberal feminist framework, although there was some tacit acknowlegement of patriarchy this was portrayed as men simply being too dumb to realise what women experience (partly true no doubt but portrayed as humorous rather than sinister). Gender bending in the book was wonderful, except in so far as at times it seemed played for laughs (still even then there were some good observations). Why on earth having spent almost 600 pages finding the available female role/s too constrictive does Arcadie raise her daughter only to be a wife and mother??
The queerness and gender-fluidity of the main love story was the best feature of the narrative (the occasional criticisms by the Japanese character of white European culture also a great feature). It was unfortunate though that Arcadie's summing up of the "romance" looking backward finished off what I had felt was a tendency in the text to take all this kink and gender fluidity and turn it monogamous heterosexual after all- very slightly on the boundaries but....I would have preferred the characters to retain some polyamorous tendencies at the very least. The misogyny inherent in some types of male homoerotic behaviour was portrayed effectively. Female characters tended to be somewhat tragic but were portrayed well.
Some historical details were quite nice (such as the description of the colour of Rochefort's shirt as "goose-turd") and yet the characters in the main talked in a very modern (therefore anachronistic) way.
The violence in the book is not only unrelenting and portrayed somewhat positively or casually at times but overly graphic. If I had a dollar every time someone's brains, guts or blood splattered everywhere I would at least be able to buy a nice bottle of wine. I found that excessive if historically accurate. It took me over 300 pages to build any sort of relationship with the two main characters, they were extremely unlikeable to begin with and I think the change in them (Dariole in particular) was not fully believable. It's a romance, I could cope with larger than life happenings and doings if the characters pulled me in a bit earlier and if it wasn't for all the violence and rape scenes.
I am still of the opinion that a book this long is almost always too long.