Rating:  -
This is the first Jonathan Stroud book I've read, and I've got to say, having read it, I feel reluctant to risk slogging through any more of his books. People rave about his other books, so maybe I'll give him a second chance. But I'm dubious, because I REALLY disliked this one.
The story was slow and dull, or at least for the first two hundred pages it was, and after that, although the pace picked up somewhat, I still wouldn't have called it a page turner. The characters in it are mostly flat, dull and unlikeable. The two main characters, brothers Michael and Stephen, are so boringly alike that they're practically interchangeable - the only real difference is in a choice they make from halfway through the book onwards. And weirdly, they don't seem to have any hobbies or friends or a social life like normal teens - falling asleep on the hill seems to be the highlight of their social calendar. Their sister Sarah is not given any real substance, either - she should have been a much stronger, more interesting character, with a real part in the plot, not some weak piece of background scenery existing solely to be used by the male characters. If you're looking for ANY decent female characters, don't bother reading this book. There are women in it, sure, but none of them really plays much of a role in the story, except as cameo appearances, helpless hostages and voices in the crowd. If they achieve anything in the end, it's mostly by accident, not by design or skill. I would almost venture to say that this is a testosterone-oriented book, but I won't, because if I said that, I might give the mistaken impression that it's a bit exciting, when it's not. There are no car chases or thrills and spills or flirting with pretty girls, a la James Bond, and there's hardly any action either, except a bit of fighting, or the final scene. Actually, I think the male characters resort to fighting and hurting each other somewhat more often than is necessary, which certainly isn't endearing in a book that kids will read. I don't dislike fight scenes - actually, I find them very exciting when done well - but I dislike pointless ones, or ones that aren't done well. But worst of all, no one in the story, not even the narrator, seems to have a sense of humour. I didn't smile even once while reading this. In real life, it would be very unlikely to find a whole village full of people where no one had a sense of humour...and if such a place did exist, I certainly wouldn't want to read a book about it, unless the point of the book was to ridicule people who don't know how to laugh! I mean, I don't expect every English village to be as funny and interesting as the one in 'The Vicar of Dibley', but the English DO generally have a lovely sense of humour, and their villages have character and life and charm, and in this book I just didn't see that.
Also, I didn't like the writing style. It's ambiguous, stilted, and the POV is too often not made clear, so you sometimes have to reread bits of the book that you've just read, to see which 'he' has done what in a paragraph. And then there are sentences like these, which I just didn't like...
'Sarah spotted the huddled rooftops of the Hardraker buildings appear from behind the hill at last.'
(Maybe I'm being picky, but that just doesn't flow right, not to my mind.)
'Michael struggled manfully, but Stephen's years told.'
(Okay, there's nothing wrong there grammatically. But I HATE the use of the word 'manfully' when used in this context, in a fight scene. It implies that men are strong and good at fighting - unlike women. It's a very sexist word. Perhaps what the writer meant was that Michael fought like a grown man, instead of the teenage boy he was. But given the fact that the women in the story were portrayed as so weak and useless, the use of 'manfully' in a fight scene unsettled me, and made me wonder if the writer particularly likes women, or thinks them weak and physically inferior and unable to defend themselves. I personally would have written the sentence a different way. But then again, maybe that's just me.)
Those are but two examples of bits of the book I didn't particularly like. There are many more, and there are probably more flawed ones than those two. But I'm not going to reread the book to find them all. Reading it once was more than enough for me, thankyou very much!
Books should be fun, or at least they should be worth reading, with something to say that is interesting or enlightening. They should bring something to your life that wasn't there before. This book, in my opinion, failed on all counts. It wasn't entirely bad, but it was mediocre, and I felt like it stole my time rather than enriching my life. I do wonder if it got published solely because the writer's other books were successful, not because this book was actually good.
Rating:  -
This book turned out to be about average. I found myself quite interested in the subject matter, and interested to learn about the mystery behind the "special powers" given to the main character. However, I felt like much of the story was never fully developed.
I like all of Stroud's original concepts and ideas, but the book falls short because there just isn't enough depth to it. It's 330 pages, and the text seems large. I am not a fast reader, yet I got through the book in a few days.
Overall, it was good enough to hold my interest and not make me feel like I had wasted the time or money. It's a decent read, but it doesn't come close to the Bartimaeus Trilogy. If you've just read that and your foaming at the mouth for more, unfortunately this isn't quite it, but it will at least keep you entertained for a little while.
Rating:  -
Before this book, I read the Bartimaeus trilogy, which was an AMAZING group of books. I was excited, and found this- another book by my currently favorite author! How bad could it be?!
Answer: AWFUL.
I'm a person who loves almost all books. But this one has hardly a redeeming quality... the plot is frivolous and unorgiginal, the writing doesn't have Stroud's normal spark of humor and excitement, and the characters are flat and stereotypical. I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS BOOK. Unless it's a gift for your least favorite uncle. If it is, make him suffer through it by all means. But don't wish this awful book on yourself or a loved one.
Rating: -
The premise for this book was pretty good. I had recently read the Bartimaeus Trilogy. Those three books were very good, but Buried Fire wasn't so good. Like I said, the premise was good, but the plot seemed to be rushed. He should have taken more time to develop the plot. He had some really great ideas, but they needed to be expounded upon. Also, the end was very abrupt. Overall, the book was pretty good. It held my attention until the end.
Rating:  -
Michael, Stephen and Sarah live in a small English village. Sarah is the responsible older sister and the other two are her younger teenage brothers. The story opens with Michael out in a beautiful summer day, on a hollow on a hilltop, when a power sweeps through him and envelops him, setting fire to the book beside him. He's not sure what it is, but as he comes down the hill he finds himself seeing strange things, so his first thought is sun-stroke.
But it isn't, it's the power of a trapped dragon bubbling up and trying to find a way to help him escape the trap he was put in. The Dragon is helped by the fact that a stone has been unearthed and broken, a stone with runes and an intertwining dragon on it.
It's not up to the level of his Bartimaeus trilogy, but it's not a bad story of the meeting of the ordinary and magic. The ending feels a bit rushed and there would be space for a sequel here. These boys have been touched by the extra-ordinary and I'm not sure that the ordinary will ever really satisfy them.
|
