Being historical fiction, there does seem to be an implicit assumption that readers are familiar with historical characters and events talked about in the books which can be frustrating when the stories and historical figures discussed aren't part of my daily heritage.
I think GoK is also similar to "The Thief" in that it was DD's first work, and she is definitely a younger, more enthusiastic writer in GoK. I've read that she spent a massive amount of time in libraries researching and gathering all of these literary references that fill the pages of GoK, resulting in the need for a companion guide. It is certainly a book I'll only reach for when I'm in the mood for a heavy, 'meaty' book requiring a lot of mental engagement and stopping to look up references or read up on Margaret Lennox for example. The rest of the series is much lighter in terms of classical and literary references - where in GoK I want to look references up just about every time Lymond opens his mouth, I might only turn to the companion guide a couple times per book through the rest of the series, and then only if I feel I want to stop and take the time to really get at the heart of what's being said or what's going on under the surface.
One thing that helped in my perception of GoK is when I realized that GoK can be read without the companion guide at all, because DD very deliberately uses the classical references and quotes offensively to put the reader in the same position as many of Lymond's peers - not always understanding what he's on about, not having been privileged to have (or interested in having) the same classical education, or understanding what he's saying but still thinking he's a high-strung little jerk (which is certainly part of his nature sometimes).
For the rest of the series, DD hones in on some key underlying threads in GoK and weaves them into a much larger tapestry, taking her characters to multiple major powers in the world at the time, and while each story is interesting in itself, the books all tend toward some major overarching themes and character progression/resolution, so it's hard to read one without committing to the rest of the books.
MWT is much nicer to her characters and to her readers, which is one reason why her books are still favorite. DD likes to explore themes that fascinate her, like the psychological and emotional effects of trauma and how different characters might respond to or overcome it, etc. which can make for some darker story lines, not to mention the story is set in actual history, and things like Turkish torture after defeating an enemy is not light reading. Some of what draws me to MWT's work is the allusions to favorite authors, periods of history, and the many hidden 'double entendres' she loves to play with. There are strong similar elements in DD's work, and rereading her series I enjoy the work of deciphering character motivation or finding foreshadowing phrases, so the work is rewarding to me when the mood strikes. I wasn't sure I liked the series either the first time I read it, but it has grown on me a good deal since then. That being said, DD isn't for everyone, so I think it really depends on what draws you to your favorite authors - if you find extremely complex and not your standard hero characters appealing, or layered meaning within a scene or sentence, or rich historical fiction, or exploring deep lows for an even more satisfying, compelling high, etc. give the rest of the series a try, or at least the next book. Thady Boy is a delightfully obnoxious rogue and you get a lot of heady, zany plans.
TL/DR: MWT is still my favorite, I wasn't sure if I liked the Lymond Chronicles my first time through, DD doesn't pull punches with her readers or her characters, history is fascinating but can be nasty and these are historical fiction books, and the remaining books contain much fewer classical references to wade through but are still set in literal historical events which still requires a certain level of knowledge to appreciate.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/7/17 05:04 am (UTC)I think GoK is also similar to "The Thief" in that it was DD's first work, and she is definitely a younger, more enthusiastic writer in GoK. I've read that she spent a massive amount of time in libraries researching and gathering all of these literary references that fill the pages of GoK, resulting in the need for a companion guide. It is certainly a book I'll only reach for when I'm in the mood for a heavy, 'meaty' book requiring a lot of mental engagement and stopping to look up references or read up on Margaret Lennox for example. The rest of the series is much lighter in terms of classical and literary references - where in GoK I want to look references up just about every time Lymond opens his mouth, I might only turn to the companion guide a couple times per book through the rest of the series, and then only if I feel I want to stop and take the time to really get at the heart of what's being said or what's going on under the surface.
One thing that helped in my perception of GoK is when I realized that GoK can be read without the companion guide at all, because DD very deliberately uses the classical references and quotes offensively to put the reader in the same position as many of Lymond's peers - not always understanding what he's on about, not having been privileged to have (or interested in having) the same classical education, or understanding what he's saying but still thinking he's a high-strung little jerk (which is certainly part of his nature sometimes).
For the rest of the series, DD hones in on some key underlying threads in GoK and weaves them into a much larger tapestry, taking her characters to multiple major powers in the world at the time, and while each story is interesting in itself, the books all tend toward some major overarching themes and character progression/resolution, so it's hard to read one without committing to the rest of the books.
MWT is much nicer to her characters and to her readers, which is one reason why her books are still favorite. DD likes to explore themes that fascinate her, like the psychological and emotional effects of trauma and how different characters might respond to or overcome it, etc. which can make for some darker story lines, not to mention the story is set in actual history, and things like Turkish torture after defeating an enemy is not light reading. Some of what draws me to MWT's work is the allusions to favorite authors, periods of history, and the many hidden 'double entendres' she loves to play with. There are strong similar elements in DD's work, and rereading her series I enjoy the work of deciphering character motivation or finding foreshadowing phrases, so the work is rewarding to me when the mood strikes. I wasn't sure I liked the series either the first time I read it, but it has grown on me a good deal since then. That being said, DD isn't for everyone, so I think it really depends on what draws you to your favorite authors - if you find extremely complex and not your standard hero characters appealing, or layered meaning within a scene or sentence, or rich historical fiction, or exploring deep lows for an even more satisfying, compelling high, etc. give the rest of the series a try, or at least the next book. Thady Boy is a delightfully obnoxious rogue and you get a lot of heady, zany plans.
TL/DR: MWT is still my favorite, I wasn't sure if I liked the Lymond Chronicles my first time through, DD doesn't pull punches with her readers or her characters, history is fascinating but can be nasty and these are historical fiction books, and the remaining books contain much fewer classical references to wade through but are still set in literal historical events which still requires a certain level of knowledge to appreciate.