Fire is Cashore's pseudo-sequel to Graceling, focussing on different characters in a different part of the same world - the Dells. Here, instead of Gracelings possessing innate, unsurpassable talent, there are monsters: versions of everyday creatures that are mesmerisingly beautiful (literally - they have mind powers), carnivorous and savage. Fire - the title character - is a rare human-female-monster, so-named by her mother for the impossibly vibrant reds, pinks and coppers of her hair. She is beautiful, so much so that men lose their heads at the sight of her, succumbing to their basest instincts to possess, rape or destroy. Fire, however "monstrous" her appearance and abilities, understands and feels the difference between right and wrong. She fears her own power, fears the nightmare she could become if she allowed herself the ease of manipulating those around her. But her kingdom, and those she loves are in dire peril, and Fire must face that fear if she wants any chance at protecting her home.

Once again, I'm reviewing a book where I've not read the preceding novel. In this case, it's less important - though Fire has a passing acquaintance with Graceling, it is very much its own story, and doesn't require foreknowledge of the concept of Gracelings, or any characters from that novel.

Cashore's voice is immediately compelling - this was a book I stayed up past the time I should have been sleeping, on more than one occasion, to read 'just one more chapter'. Though the name of the title character irritated me no end (it seems too much like a melodramatic teenage name like "Star", or "Midnight", or "Storm". Unless all your characters are named after natural objects, it's awkward.) the writing more than made up for it.

Cashore's characterisation was patchy - I could, at least, recognise characters, tell them apart and remember who they were (with the exception of enemies, which is always difficult when you rarely if ever meet them, and there's more than two.) But they didn't live for me. I finished the book without a mental shape for Fire, or Archer, or Brocker. At times, character's reactions - particularly Archer's - took me by surprise. Which was an odd sensation, because he seemed highly predictable, and yet I always felt like I didn't really know him.

The real problem area is the plot structure, however. The first half of the book seems well-constructed: the foreshadowing works (actually, she has some brilliantly subtle foreshadowing) the pacing is very finely judged, and the story unfolds itself as if there was no other path it could take. In the second half of the book, though, odd things start to reveal themselves.

Warning: Very Mild and Vague Spoilers

The character Leck - the only connection to the Graceling book (and one, in my opinion, the book would have been better without) - is introduced at length, in the prologue. Now, if you introduce a character in the prologue, and then promptly forget about them for the rest of the book, the indication is that this character is crucial to the story later on. He's the Grand Vizier masterminding everything, or the long lost cousin who can save the world. The reader is given the impression that they're building to a great 'ah-HA!' moment when the curtain falls to reveal the intricacy of this character's involvement.

That... didn't happen here.

2/3 of the way through, I was really wondering where on earth Leck could possibly fit into the story. At the 3/4 mark, when he finally showed, his connection to the main plot was... entirely coincidental. They were two separate stories that just happened to both involve Fire, and be occurring at the same time. They were vaguely thematically related, but Leck's plot was a shallow, limping shadow of the main storyline, handling an aspect that had already been well-covered by another character.

It just didn't work - it was distracting from the main plot, rather than supporting it. It didn't add anything to Fire's journey that she hadn't already achieved, apart from a heartbreak that I'm not certain was particularly necessary (nor was it particularly effective, thanks to the characterisation). The conclusion of the Leck story was extremely unsatisfying, leaving very little of consequence changed in the story. (This is partly due to the plot itself, and partly due to the character-reactions and characterisation).

Don't get me wrong - it is, overall, a book I enjoyed reading and would recommend, particularly to those who love lavish, descriptive prose - this is an example of description done extremely well. But the characterisations and plotting issues rob that secured satisfaction you get from a great book.

• Add New
• Search
• RSS

Comments (0)

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Website:

Comment:

Title:

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2