The Raven Tower by Anne Leckie
Sep. 14th, 2021 08:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbr posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
transmediaclubThis is an enjoyable standalone fantasy novel about a prince coming home to unexpectedly find his uncle on the throne, which is undermined by being an adaptation of Hamlet. The main character (the prince's aide) is a likeable trans man whose transness comes up as relevant but doesn't define him.
While I had some issues with the book for other reasons, and the depiction of transness didn't blow me away with it's insightfulness or anything, I have no serious problems with the representation of transness and it was nice having it just be there as a relatively minor part of his character. I will note that there are a few moments where it looks like he might be about to experience something distressing (entering a 'woman's space', being seen naked by someone unfriendly) but it quickly ends up working out fine.
The fantasy worldbuilding is interesting, while I didn't connect with the characters as much as with some of her other books the plot is engaging and emotionally and morally complex. Also the framing device is everything being told in second person by an absolutely fascinating character with a lot to say about society, stories, and gods.
But I kept being distracted by how Hamlet-y the book both was and wasn't- like, there's two characters who are obviously Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but their whole personality is Creepy Twin. More significantly, the prince is hampered by his fatal flaw...which is to be hotheadedly decisive?? There's too many other changes for it to work as "what if Hamlet was NOT paralysed with self doubt", it plays things too straight for much of the plot to feel very subversive, and it's not set on Earth so doesn't work as 'the real story Hamlet is based on'.
I spent most of the book irritatedly thinking "WHY IS THIS TRYING TO BE HAMLET?? IT WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER IF IT JUST DID IT'S OWN THING". In the end I think I get what she was going for, and she ends up subverting some aspects of Hamlet in interesting ways, but it didn't totally work for me. Also I'm glad I was warned that the ending is very abrupt. It works for what the story is doing, but is still a bit jarring.
I originally posted this review to my blog and some commenters said they barely even noticed the Hamlet thing, and/or they liked it, so YMMV.
While I had some issues with the book for other reasons, and the depiction of transness didn't blow me away with it's insightfulness or anything, I have no serious problems with the representation of transness and it was nice having it just be there as a relatively minor part of his character. I will note that there are a few moments where it looks like he might be about to experience something distressing (entering a 'woman's space', being seen naked by someone unfriendly) but it quickly ends up working out fine.
The fantasy worldbuilding is interesting, while I didn't connect with the characters as much as with some of her other books the plot is engaging and emotionally and morally complex. Also the framing device is everything being told in second person by an absolutely fascinating character with a lot to say about society, stories, and gods.
But I kept being distracted by how Hamlet-y the book both was and wasn't- like, there's two characters who are obviously Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but their whole personality is Creepy Twin. More significantly, the prince is hampered by his fatal flaw...which is to be hotheadedly decisive?? There's too many other changes for it to work as "what if Hamlet was NOT paralysed with self doubt", it plays things too straight for much of the plot to feel very subversive, and it's not set on Earth so doesn't work as 'the real story Hamlet is based on'.
I spent most of the book irritatedly thinking "WHY IS THIS TRYING TO BE HAMLET?? IT WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER IF IT JUST DID IT'S OWN THING". In the end I think I get what she was going for, and she ends up subverting some aspects of Hamlet in interesting ways, but it didn't totally work for me. Also I'm glad I was warned that the ending is very abrupt. It works for what the story is doing, but is still a bit jarring.
I originally posted this review to my blog and some commenters said they barely even noticed the Hamlet thing, and/or they liked it, so YMMV.
no subject
Date: 2021-09-14 03:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-09-14 04:13 am (UTC)Heh, and there you go. I did find one other person who disliked it!
no subject
Date: 2021-09-17 08:18 pm (UTC)I keep wanting to read this book because I'm very intrigued by what the Death And The King's Horseman's elements might be. (I love datkh)
no subject
Date: 2021-09-20 12:59 pm (UTC)reads summaries of 'Grottasöngr' and 'Death and the King's Horseman'
Oh wow yeah those influences are pretty significant. I have no idea how the relevant parts would work for someone who's a fan of the original works but I loved them. Though she didn't *quite *manage to make it all fit together totally naturally, the Death and the King's Horseman parts worked fine but one of the Grottasöngr plot points felt a bit weird outside the context of myth, it confused me at the time and makes more sense now I know it's a reference I wasn't getting.