So, just started...

[Rane Longfox]

...the first book, King's Dragon, and I must say I'm enjoying it. Read the first 120ish pages so far, and although I'm enjoying Alain's chapters a lot more than Liath's, they're both pretty decent. Medieval fantasy is generally not the kind I enjoy, with the exception of George Martin, but Kate's writing is good enough to keep me reading, even if I'm not sure exactly what it is about it that I enjoy.

Still, thanks to Alia for nagging me

[GOLLUM]

And don't forget I've been telling you about it for a while too....

Not Erikson but still quite a decent series overall with some nice prose, as I await the final book.

[Dolorous Edd]

Just started king's Dragon too a few days ago, not got far to go before i finish it. All in all it's a very good read, but i have to say the military aspects of it are pretty crap (and as much as i love my political intrigue, religious conspiracies and magical mayhem i do like my fantasy to at some point devolve into an all out brawl. ), very small scale, little detail, the fights are just brushed over wheras martin or erikson would have you right there in the thick of it, feeling every blow. Apart from that i have no complaints, and i will continue reading the series.




BUT does the scraping get any better?

[Rane Longfox]

I've been thinking about it for a while now, and have come to a similar conclusion to Edd. She has the battles, sure, but does mostly ignore them, and the tactics she says each side uses are very implausable, imho, especially in the big battle at the end of the book.

There are two other things that I would critisise about the book, and the first of those is that she doesn't half repeat herself. I would keep getting this deja vu, and think that I'd read that page before, and then realise that she was just writing the same thing about a characters but in slightly different words. this annoyed me quite a bit towards the end.

The final problem I had was the religion, and what that showed about her ability to create an original world of her own. It's easy to change the big parts of a religion, like having the Circle of Light, and the Lord and Lady... but the four gospels were written by Mattias, Martha, Lucius and Johanna, for gawds sake

[Dolorous Edd]

Am half way through child of flame, the fourth book and i'm very glad i stuck with the series. The second book was a big improvement on the first in terms of content and writing, and the third even better. Now that i'm no longer stopping once every few pages to cluck of a a very clumsy bit of dialogue or whatever, it's very compeling. The battle's still aren't brilliantly written but they're a lot less cringeworthy then the first book, so as long as you don't dwell too much on them and day-dream of martin/erikson you get through them just fine. I love the characters, especially Alain and Liath, and i have to aplaud Elliot for, so far, keeping me going without actually revealing very much. I'm halfway through the series and i don't know who to route for, which faction(s) i want to win.

great stuff.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Actually, Kate Elliott researches things like the battles pretty thoroughly (aside from the fact that she wields a pretty mean broadsword herself), so I'm surprised that anyone would find her battle scenes implausible.

[Dolorous Edd]

Originally Posted by Kelpie

Actually, Kate Elliott researches things like the battles pretty thoroughly (aside from the fact that she wields a pretty mean broadsword herself), so I'm surprised that anyone would find her battle scenes implausible.

implausible is not the choice of words i would choose. (Erikson's are implausible (gods, ghosts, magic, more magic, more gods, ghosts, yet more gods, magic.... )) Dull is more what i would use to discribe them, especially in King's Dragon. She may well have researched medievil warfare, but i'm sorry but it didn't come across in her books so far. She made little effort to describe any of the combat scenes in anything more then the barest of terms. She's getting better but i still can't see it tbh.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I was basically responding to Rane, Dolorous Edd, who did use the word implausible. If you find her battles dull because they don't go into great detail as far as the blood and gore, that's another matter entirely -- it's purely a matter of personal taste, and how could I argue with that?

[Rane Longfox]

Well, yeah. Take, for one example, when Sabella's army is rolling an enormous cage up the slope towards Henry's. Henry and his army completely ignore it. Sure, they couldn't have predicted it would be a guivre inside, but what did they think it was, a peace offering after that meeting between Antonia and Villum? If something the opposing army has created is rolling towards you, you're generally gonna want to stop it. Like, shoot the people pulling it, for example. The last thing you're gonna do is leave it uncontested.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox

Sure, they couldn't have predicted it would be a guivre inside, but what did they think it was, a peace offering after that meeting between Antonia and Villum?

A decoy? A diversion? Why would you waste arrows on people pulling what might be an empty cage when you've got a whole army charging in your direction?

[Alia]

If I remember the scene with the wagon, and it's been sometime since I read the first book, the heat of the battle had already started. I could see people fighting and not paying attention to what was going with a wagon and most of the time, wagons meant the train line and were off limits. No one attacked the train line, they would circle it but not attack.

I personally feel that the battles were done in good taste. Just enough was given for us to use our imaginations and yet not too much to make it a bloody scene. All her battles are mostly like that. I think the best one is in The Gathering Storm and how she brings so many battles to one point.

As far as the battles being believeable... I agree with Kelpie on this issue. Kate I know has done a lot of research on the subject... a lot is an understatement by all means. I'm sure she knows more then a few of us on the subject.

[Rane Longfox]

Nah, it was before the battle had started. The two armies were just lined up opposite each other. I don't doubt she;s done her research, I just felt that the final battle felt wrong, particularly that bit with the cage.

[Frozeninja]

Just finished "King's Dragon" and have some mixed feelings. There was only one thing that really annoyed me, and that was the frequent references to Christianity. Though I suppose it may have been to make the reader feel familiar with the religion, it did irritate me a bit. The battles I had no problem with; I think authors show what they deem to be necessary and obviously Elliot didn't really feel that showing the whole battle would benefit the book in any way.
Overall I think it was a well written book, and will definitely be moving on to the "Prince of Dogs" soon ... Or maybe now.

[Alia]

Frozeninja... the references to religion irritated to me at first. And you're right, Kate wants her readers to be familiar with it... but also... there is a struggle about the religion, a major conflict between religion and magic in this story. Both are involved and she goes into great detail about them. What I find interesting is people complain most about the references about religion but never magic when concerning this story.

[Brys]

You know I really want to read this series, but my to read list says otherwise. I will do sometime, when I need another epic fantasy (decent epic fantasies are in scarce supply), but unfortunately I can't seem to find the time at the moment.