  Great read, 2005-07-26
I've been reading Fantasy for years. From Jordan through Erikson, Marco and a ton others. McKeirnan continues to be one of the BEST story tellers. His skills are amazing and in the Iron Tower Trilogy anybody can see what keeps McKeirnan on the top.
Buy it. Read it. Be happy!
Literally Laughable, 2004-12-07
This book was a discard I picked up at the library. Unfortunately, this was one book that truly deserved to be discarded. I am never critical of Tolkien-esque books solely because they are Tolkien-esque. This book was not only a rip-off, but also badly written to an extreme extent. It takes cliche to a new level, showing why the fantasy genre has had a reputation as "not good literature". This book's wimpy, unrealistic, cliche characters, painful use of fake "Olde English" grammar and sentence structure, and poor writing style in general made it unreadable. Perhaps because I am an actor, I always pay attention to dialogue. This dialogue is so incredibly melodramatic that I literally burst out laughing at several points. Imagine someone actually saying this stuff, or trying to act it! I kept wondering if this was being written seriously- was McKiernan perhaps trying to spoof bad Tolkien copies? Even the descriptions are fantasy cliche. And you can read one paragraph and count at least one stupid made-up name (usually with apostrophe!) per sentence. Ridiculous and unbelievable. Please, please read _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_ by Diana Wynne Jones to find out just how pathetic and unoriginal this book really is.
Like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, 2004-11-20
McKiernan in his foreword tells us that he is paying homage to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Homage? Hmm. According to the American Heritage® Dictionary "homage" is defined as: "Special honor or respect shown or expressed publicly." I fail to see the "honor" to Tolkien in McKiernan's "The Iron Tower" trilogy. While it is true it is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery, McKiernan's books are less like flattery and more like regurgitation. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if a writer is heavily inspired by the work of another. Even Tolkien himself drew much of his thematic elements and ideas from other ancient and mythic sources (Beowulf for example), but he reconstituted those ideas in such a way that they seemed fresh; not copied or reprinted. He was reinventing not simply rewriting.
Unfortunately, such is not the case with McKiernan's work. His ideas are directly lifted from the pages of "The Lord of the Rings" without any attempt at originality.
In McKiernan's story, a Warrow (Hobbit) named Tuck Underbank (Frodo) embarks on a quest to defeat an ultimate evil, Mordu (Sauron) who dwells in the evil land of Gron (Mordor). Along the way he encounters a dwarf called Brega (Gimli), an elf named Gildor(Legolas), a human warrior (Aragorn), etc, etc, etc...The Tolkien plagiarism's go on and on.
He even includes a scene where some of the main characters have to pass through an abandoned Dwarf city called Kraggen-Cor. The city is abandoned because some terrible monster (Ghath) drove all of the dwarfs out long ago. The only way into the subterranean city is through some magical doors that they have some difficulty getting open. While waiting at the doors, a monstrous squid/octopus-like creature attacks them. And yes, there is even a battle with the Ghath in the dwarfin city on a narrow bridge over a bottomless cavern.
I have a one hundred page rule when it comes to books; if the book can't engross me, can't keep my interest by the hundredth page I give it up. In this case, morbid curiosity kept me reading these books; like a horrible car accident, I couldn't tear my eyes away. Page after page I kept telling myself "it can't get any worse" and page after page I was proved wrong.
As bad as the plagiarism is, the writing is even worse.
The epic scope of Tolkien's story is GONE. Tolkien's writing was marked by mystery, grandeur and a poignant sense of loss and realism. All of this is missing from McKiernan's work. The characters in "The Lord of the Rings" (and the "Hobbit" for that matter) were three-dimensional; they seemed almost to have stepped out of the history books and not a novel. Tolkien made us care about his characters and what happened to them. McKiernan is incapable of doing this with the cardboard cutouts that populate his world. For example, Tuck Underbank is written to be a tragic/heroic figure and spends A LOT of time crying and sobbing about this or that. The narrative, time and time again, tries to make us feel sorry for him. After a while, I just started rolling my eyes and hoping someone would put him out of his misery. Throughout the story the dialogue is stilted, completely unnatural and pathetic. This may be one of the only times in history where a story would have been improved if none of the characters spoke.
Rather than "honoring" Tolkien with "The Iron Tower" trilogy, McKiernan dishonors the great writer. For those looking for a well written, enriching story in the style of Tolkien or just a good epic fantasy: Look elsewhere.
The train wreck continues., 2003-05-06
Reading Dennis McKiernan's "Shadows of Doom" is not unlike watching a train wreck as it occurs... in slow motion. The first book of the Iron Tower trilogy, "Dark Tide," was irritating and poorly-written, full of elements lifted straight from "Lord of the Rings." One would expect that it couldn't get worse in "Shadows of Doom." Astonishingly, it does.Picking up where the previous book left of, the Spawn attack the wagons leaving Challerain Keep, killing everyone except Igon (who almost dies) and Laurelin, who is captured and taken to Modru's dungeons. Elsewhere, Patrel and Danner return to the Boskydells, only to find that Modru's Horde has attacked. Galen, Tuck and Gildor set out to find the armies of the late king, teaming up with a very rude dwarf named Brega along the way. Being pursued by Vulgs, they have no choice but to venture into the evil-filled dwarf citadel of Kraggen-Cor. Not only does the pace slow in "Shadows," but the characters become even flatter and duller and the elements become even more blatantly Tolkienesque. The writing is terrible, the dialogue laughable, and the derivative elements aren't helped by poor plotting. A pivotal plot point appears most of the way through the book, utilizing the cliched villain-gloats-and-explains-his-evil-plot tactic; the attack on the Boskydells has no real impact on the plot, except to make Tuck cry. The Warrows are copies of Tolkien's hobbits, but lacking in the enthusiastic charm of those particular "wee folk," which the quality that makes people love them so much; the Warrows lack charm, strength, or courage. Similarly with the derivative Elves, who are immortal, cultured, elegant, and dull as ditchwater. Dwarves are crabby and crusty, lacking in personality; medieval human Men are even duller than Warrows or Elves, and the assorted evil beasties who menace our heroes (copies of orcs, uruk-hai, Nazgul and wargs) are not-so-veiled copies of Tolkien's works. Moria, the Dwarves (or as he calls them, the Chakka), the squid-beast, and the Balrog -- in "Shadows," you can find unexciting copies of all of the above. At a certain point, you stop goggling in horror and just find it all immensely funny. Tuck is still as annoying as he was before, crying and asking stupid questions, although he's somewhat easier to ignore. Still, the idea that McKiernan is setting this little twerp up as an alternate Frodo Baggins is nothing short of hysterical. Galen's sole moment of character development is some very contrived conflict over who to rescue (a real king would not experience any conflict -- he'd do his duty, no dithering). Gildor is still quite dull; Brega is abrasive and bossy; Danner and Patrel lose whatever shreds of personality they might have had. And Modru was a lot more frightening before we actually saw him. The female characters are still passive, boring and lacking in any strength, except McKiernan tries to make us think otherwise. Laurelin stabs a Ghul after lying down and crying through a fight scene, then sits and cries for the rest of the book. Merrilee, at the Boskydells, has to be verbally defended by Danner when she proves unable to speak up for herself and her fighting skills, then starts sobbing into a male shoulder after a battle (the implication is that women cry when there's a fight). You go, girl. McKiernan's writing remains hideously repetitive and weird. As if the readers are incapable of remembering anything more than a page back, he constantly mentions that the Mere is black, Tuck's eyes are "sapphirine" and sparkle, that Brega is gruff, and that Elves are graceful. The characters often act in bizarre ways, such as the escaping Patrel and Danner laughing like a pair of recently escaped mental patients; the fight scenes are absurdly hard to visualize, except for the battle with the Gargon (which is just silly -- how often do heavy footsteps sound like "Doom"?). "Shadows of Doom" o'ertops "Dark Tide" like a wave of Shadowlight. It's a painful experience unless you stop taking it seriously. Derivative, poorly-written, lacking in any interesting qualities at all.
A Great Second book, 2000-05-26
I think all the reviwers who are blasting this book for being a Tolkien rip off are missing the point sure there a lot of similarities espesially the Krakken but this was orginally meant to be a sequal to Lord Of the Rings, also imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If can get past that this may not be the most orginal idea in the world and just enjoy the story.
|
