Old School
Apr. 23rd, 2006 09:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threemonkeysWhile digesting Yum Char related food overconsumption, I finished reading Time's Eye by Arthur C Clarke and Stephen Baxter. It's one of those stories where a bunch of people from various historical times are contrived to all be together in the same world so that they can come into conflict - Alexander the Great vs Genghis Khan with some modern observers helping on each side. Been done before? Yes it has. It is the first in a series and I detect a formula.
The thing is, not only is the story a bit trite but so is the old fashioned way it is written. That might be a duh moment considering how long ACC has been around but still relevant as it really is his writing style in evidence. You also pick up on Stephen Baxter's tendency to throw in big chunks of exposition. Actually I think most of it was written by Baxter trying to write in Clarke's manner. It all seems a bit clunky. It is an easy read too - you certainly won't have to stop and try to figure out deep meaning or bother with those pesky layers or complex characters.
Nasty? Maybe. Despite the above limitations it is not actually a bad book if you are looking for a bit of light diversion and a little anachronistic battle action. The story is soundly constructed and I couldn't see any holes in the historical research. (Note that my ability to see historical inaccuracy is based on watching History channel documentaries so may not be all that relevant.)
The thing is, not only is the story a bit trite but so is the old fashioned way it is written. That might be a duh moment considering how long ACC has been around but still relevant as it really is his writing style in evidence. You also pick up on Stephen Baxter's tendency to throw in big chunks of exposition. Actually I think most of it was written by Baxter trying to write in Clarke's manner. It all seems a bit clunky. It is an easy read too - you certainly won't have to stop and try to figure out deep meaning or bother with those pesky layers or complex characters.
Nasty? Maybe. Despite the above limitations it is not actually a bad book if you are looking for a bit of light diversion and a little anachronistic battle action. The story is soundly constructed and I couldn't see any holes in the historical research. (Note that my ability to see historical inaccuracy is based on watching History channel documentaries so may not be all that relevant.)