Comments on: A Confusion of Princes (or, Khemri’s Clearly Excellent Adventure)

By: Miriam

Miriam — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:36:53 +0000

I found this a fascinating read, but rather slow–I wish there had been a way to establish the character and all his limitations and flaws without the terribly dragging boring-life stuff leading up to his first death.

And I did find it overall a bit pat and simplistic. Great worldbuilding, great character, but light on plot and just… light.

By: Maureen E

Maureen E — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:36:10 +0000

I really like your point and I guess I just had trouble buying it. Almost like I wish it were true? But maybe I should re-read–often first reads are problematic for me.

By: Karyn Silverman

Karyn Silverman — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:07:14 +0000

@Maureen, I thought it was made not cliche because of the world: in a world where emotional connection is almost entirely absent, by design, because it’s how the entire bureaucracy and hierarchy of the world works, of COURSE it’s love that changes Khemri. It’s almost telegraphed from the beginning as the inevitable; why else are relationships based in emotion so explicitly forbidden?

By: Maureen E

Maureen E — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:15:00 +0000

I loved the set up for this one but really had issues with the end–the sudden change of heart due to Khemri’s Great Love tipped the line for me from familiar tropes to cliched. But the world was great and I’d really enjoy another book set in it.

By: Miss Print

Miss Print — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:58:58 +0000

I really enjoyed this one. It reads very differently from Nix’s fantasy series Sabriel–a definite indication of his range and talent as a writer.

This was, however, such a fast read that I agree it was difficult to stop and really appreciate the literary merits of the book.

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:41:59 +0000

Love this one!

By: Mark Flowers

Mark Flowers — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:29:50 +0000

It’s definitely not hard SF, since Nix doesn’t really try to explain the science of very much. Maybe we can coin the phrase “High SF” meaning it is SF through and through but not technical enough to be “hard”?

In any case, I loved this book. My brother, a devoted Nix fan, and a devoted hater of books that get too carried away with their own world-building loved it (his comments here: http://crossreferencing.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/garth-nix/).

Over on Heavy Medal right now, they’re talking about “boy books” v. “girl books” and I think what makes this prototypical “boy book” stand out so well is that it never ever compromises on the “boy” elements of plot and SF, but still finds time to create a deeply interesting, morally complex main character, and a set of morally ambiguous themes about empire, exploitation, human nature, and more.

I would love to see this one honored in January.

By: Lisa Jenn Bigelow

Lisa Jenn Bigelow — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:00:53 +0000

My first inclination was “hard science fiction,” too, but Miriam’s right — this still doesn’t have the scientific/technical focus that true hard SF would have. There’s gotta be some term for science fiction that deals with aliens and robots, as opposed to dystopian girls in fancy dresses. Hmm.

By: Miriam

Miriam — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:19:11 +0000

…I think I need to bloody get around to reading this one already.

Usually the term is “hard SF,” though that sometimes gets into level-of-science in a way we’re not dealing with here.