J
I'm not sure how I'd never heard of this book compared to Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn. (OK, it's because they're standard in a lot of curricula.) This book is amazingly full of satire and commentary on the world of the time, done amazingly well. It starts slow and takes time to shine, but once it starts rolling you see every manner of bullshit artist laid bare. The dialogue captures the "art" of spin perfectly. This book reaches masterpiece status for me.
I'm not sure how I'd never heard of this book compared to Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn. (OK, it's because they're standard in a lot of curricula.) This book is amazingly full of satire and commentary on the world of the time, done amazingly well. It starts slow and takes time to shine, but once it starts rolling you see every manner of bullshit artist laid bare. The dialogue captures the "art" of spin perfectly. This book reaches masterpiece status for me.
I'm not sure what I expected, but it wasn't really this. Picture a 1600s low end noble with schizophrenic delusions that he's one of King Arthur's Knights, and the entire rest of the nobility trolls him, and you're kind of there. It's a weird thing to say when I read a lot of harsh, violent stuff with sadistic characters, but it kind of feels mean? It might be because of the comedy element, which is definitely there, or because of how close it feels to real mental illness, but there's a level of gut reaction discomfort to that for me. It is a product of its time and the lack of knowledge, and it is a pretty convincing portrayal that's reasonably sympathetic, so I can't bash it for it, but it's there.
I don't like the whole "historian" shtick and all the ways it takes you out of the story, but I tend to dislike a lot of framing devices more than most. I do like several of the individual characters and stories we see along the way.
Ultimately, I do like the two main characters, and did enjoy the read. I think, with today's lens, the fact that he made a character that's mentally ill convincing enough to trigger a visceral reaction is impressive.
I'm not sure what I expected, but it wasn't really this. Picture a 1600s low end noble with schizophrenic delusions that he's one of King Arthur's Knights, and the entire rest of the nobility trolls him, and you're kind of there. It's a weird thing to say when I read a lot of harsh, violent stuff with sadistic characters, but it kind of feels mean? It might be because of the comedy element, which is definitely there, or because of how close it feels to real mental illness, but there's a level of gut reaction discomfort to that for me. It is a product of its time and the lack of knowledge, and it is a pretty convincing portrayal that's reasonably sympathetic, so I can't bash it for it, but it's there.
I don't like the whole "historian" shtick and all the ways it takes you out of the story, but I tend to dislike a lot of framing devices more than most. I do like several of the individual characters and stories we see along the way.
Ultimately, I do like the two main characters, and did enjoy the read. I think, with today's lens, the fact that he made a character that's mentally ill convincing enough to trigger a visceral reaction is impressive.
