Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Darkest Night (First edition) in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Once prosperous, your kingdom has fallen victim to a powerful Necromancer who has shrouded the realm in darkness. His minions traverse the land doing his bidding, and his army, as well as his powers, continue to grow. All hope is lost….or is it? Four heroes band together in a final attempt to defeat this evil being. Each brings unique powers and strategies to the table, and success will come in one of two ways – by defeating the Necromancer in direct combat, or by gathering Holy Relics and performing a ritual to undo his powers. But be warned: the Necromancer grows stronger with every passing moment, so be sure your chosen strategy is the right one. Otherwise you too will fall victim to the Necromancer’s might.
Darkest Night is a cooperative game where players take on the role of the heroes attempting to defeat the Necromancer. Each turn has 4 steps – Perform any start-of-turn actions, draw/resolve an Event card, perform one action, and defend against Blights (monsters). Each equipped with a unique set of powers, the heroes must work together to search the land for Holy Relics and destroy Blights before the kingdom is overrun. Once all of the heroes have had their turn, the Necromancer gets his turn, which entails advancing the Darkness track, moving towards the closest detected hero, and creating more Blights. Victory comes in two forms – ritual or combat. If the heroes collectively uncover three Holy Relics, they can use them in a ritual to break the Necromancer’s powers. Or if a hero gets strong enough, they could directly fight the Necromancer. If, at any point, the Monastery is overrun by Blights, the game ends in failure and the kingdom has fallen into darkness.
DISCLAIMER – This review is for the Darkest Night (First Edition) base game. There is a second edition, and several expansions, but I have not had experience with any of those, so my thoughts are solely based on the First Edition base game. -L
I’m just going to be up-front and let you know that I am not a huge fan of this game solo. The main reason is that this game is for four heroes, regardless of actual player count. So playing solo means that I have to control all four heroes. Controlling one hero, I can do. Controlling two heroes takes more focus, but is usually manageable. But controlling four heroes at once? Madness! At least for me it is. There is so much more for a single person to keep track of, and it can be pretty overwhelming. There are so many variables to keep track of, I often end up making mistakes – forgetting to draw Event cards, accidentally using one hero’s ability when it is a different hero’s turn, forgetting to give one hero a turn in a round because I thought they already had one, etc. If I am lucky, I will catch a mistake in-progress, or one turn later, and can rectify it. But to be honest, of all the mistakes I make while playing Darkest Night, I probably won’t catch 25% of them. Which can either make a game super easy, or super brutal. You might tell me, “Focus!” or “Pay better attention!” but believe me, I’m trying! I just feel like four heroes for one person is too much.
Patience is a virtue, but apparently I have none when it comes to this game. And by that, I mean that I feel like it takes an eternity to accomplish anything in this game. On your turn, you only get one single action. And movement is an action. Picture this – I am trying to move my hero to the opposite end of the kingdom (at least 2 spaces away). I am going to have to spend 2 complete rounds (active hero turn, other hero turns, Necromancer turn, x2) just to get there. And then once I finally get there, I have to wait for the 3rd round to even do anything in that location! I just get frustrated at the fact that something as simple as moving a few spaces takes multiple rounds to accomplish. Since everything takes so long to do, you have to be thinking so far into the future with every turn. That makes it difficult for me to strategize, and the game just feels so inefficient, especially in solo play, when you have to control all of the heroes. It can be tricky enough planning a few turns in advance for a single hero, but being in charge of all heroes just makes the job more complicated. And maybe I’m just not patient enough for this game, but I think that if every hero got two actions per turn, the game would be a lot more manageable.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I enjoy this game more in a group rather than solo. This game is cooperative, and I like being able to talk strategy with my fellow gamers, rather than trying to figure everything out for each of the four heroes by myself. Group play also allows me to focus my attention on one single hero instead of multiple, which makes the game feel less overwhelming to me. And perhaps the second edition or expansions address some of the issues I have with the game, but for the time being, Darkest Night is low on my list of solo games.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/solo-chronicles-darkest-night/
Once prosperous, your kingdom has fallen victim to a powerful Necromancer who has shrouded the realm in darkness. His minions traverse the land doing his bidding, and his army, as well as his powers, continue to grow. All hope is lost….or is it? Four heroes band together in a final attempt to defeat this evil being. Each brings unique powers and strategies to the table, and success will come in one of two ways – by defeating the Necromancer in direct combat, or by gathering Holy Relics and performing a ritual to undo his powers. But be warned: the Necromancer grows stronger with every passing moment, so be sure your chosen strategy is the right one. Otherwise you too will fall victim to the Necromancer’s might.
Darkest Night is a cooperative game where players take on the role of the heroes attempting to defeat the Necromancer. Each turn has 4 steps – Perform any start-of-turn actions, draw/resolve an Event card, perform one action, and defend against Blights (monsters). Each equipped with a unique set of powers, the heroes must work together to search the land for Holy Relics and destroy Blights before the kingdom is overrun. Once all of the heroes have had their turn, the Necromancer gets his turn, which entails advancing the Darkness track, moving towards the closest detected hero, and creating more Blights. Victory comes in two forms – ritual or combat. If the heroes collectively uncover three Holy Relics, they can use them in a ritual to break the Necromancer’s powers. Or if a hero gets strong enough, they could directly fight the Necromancer. If, at any point, the Monastery is overrun by Blights, the game ends in failure and the kingdom has fallen into darkness.
DISCLAIMER – This review is for the Darkest Night (First Edition) base game. There is a second edition, and several expansions, but I have not had experience with any of those, so my thoughts are solely based on the First Edition base game. -L
I’m just going to be up-front and let you know that I am not a huge fan of this game solo. The main reason is that this game is for four heroes, regardless of actual player count. So playing solo means that I have to control all four heroes. Controlling one hero, I can do. Controlling two heroes takes more focus, but is usually manageable. But controlling four heroes at once? Madness! At least for me it is. There is so much more for a single person to keep track of, and it can be pretty overwhelming. There are so many variables to keep track of, I often end up making mistakes – forgetting to draw Event cards, accidentally using one hero’s ability when it is a different hero’s turn, forgetting to give one hero a turn in a round because I thought they already had one, etc. If I am lucky, I will catch a mistake in-progress, or one turn later, and can rectify it. But to be honest, of all the mistakes I make while playing Darkest Night, I probably won’t catch 25% of them. Which can either make a game super easy, or super brutal. You might tell me, “Focus!” or “Pay better attention!” but believe me, I’m trying! I just feel like four heroes for one person is too much.
Patience is a virtue, but apparently I have none when it comes to this game. And by that, I mean that I feel like it takes an eternity to accomplish anything in this game. On your turn, you only get one single action. And movement is an action. Picture this – I am trying to move my hero to the opposite end of the kingdom (at least 2 spaces away). I am going to have to spend 2 complete rounds (active hero turn, other hero turns, Necromancer turn, x2) just to get there. And then once I finally get there, I have to wait for the 3rd round to even do anything in that location! I just get frustrated at the fact that something as simple as moving a few spaces takes multiple rounds to accomplish. Since everything takes so long to do, you have to be thinking so far into the future with every turn. That makes it difficult for me to strategize, and the game just feels so inefficient, especially in solo play, when you have to control all of the heroes. It can be tricky enough planning a few turns in advance for a single hero, but being in charge of all heroes just makes the job more complicated. And maybe I’m just not patient enough for this game, but I think that if every hero got two actions per turn, the game would be a lot more manageable.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I enjoy this game more in a group rather than solo. This game is cooperative, and I like being able to talk strategy with my fellow gamers, rather than trying to figure everything out for each of the four heroes by myself. Group play also allows me to focus my attention on one single hero instead of multiple, which makes the game feel less overwhelming to me. And perhaps the second edition or expansions address some of the issues I have with the game, but for the time being, Darkest Night is low on my list of solo games.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/solo-chronicles-darkest-night/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated When Patty Went Away in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href=http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
The blurb intrigued me a lot. This was a book I really wanted to read. However, I was a bit disappointed when I finally got a chance to read it.
The title definitely fits the book for at least the second half. (I'll go into more detail about that later). The title reminds me of someone who checks out of reality though.
I like the serene look of the cover. I don't really know how it ties into the book though. The cover made me think more of a holiday romance type.
I can't really fault the world building. I thought it was done rather well and very believable. From a historic viewpoint, the facts and events were all correct. It was interesting that Ms. Burt chose to narrate through the point of view of a man. She did a great job of making it work though. There was one or two times I felt a bit confused, but I put it down to just a personal thing like maybe I wasn't paying as much attention as I should've been. The only thing that bothered me was when the narrator of the book would suddenly start talking about a memory. It was too sudden, and I didn't know if it was happening in present time or if it was indeed a memory. I felt as if a memory could've had a better introduction so the audience was aware that it happened at another time in the book.
I felt that the pacing was too slow for about the first two-thirds of the book. It seemed to drone on and on about a topic I wasn't that interested in (farming). I realize that Ms. Burt was setting up a back story, but there was too much focus on the whole farming aspect of the book and not about Patty disappearing as the title and the blurb would suggest. Once the main character goes to Montreal, the pacing picks up decently, and it becomes a book that I had a hard time putting down.
The whole story line was a bit weak, I felt. First off, it reads like two books. The first two-thirds of the book is about a family who has lost their farm due to a bad storm. The reader then takes a journey into finding out how this family struggles to survive without their means of income. I found it a bit tedious because I don't really care about farming, and this book used a lot of farming terminology. The last third of the book is when Jack goes to Montreal to look for Patty. This explores the seedy side of Montreal (which could be just about anywhere) and prostitution involving runaways. I thought the story line was strong during this bit.
I felt that Jack was a well developed character and very likable. It was easy to feel what he was feeling and to feel sorry for him with all that he was going through. Molly is a strict God fearing woman. However, I felt that there was too much focus on her being overweight which was uncalled for. I didn't really like how Christianity was portrayed when it came to Molly. I'm sure there are people in the world like her, but there were times when I just felt a bit offended. I would've loved to know more about Patty and Edie as individuals. I just felt like they didn't get enough time throughout the book, Patty especially. I found it a bit hard to care about Edie and Patty especially as I felt like I didn't have enough information on them to care.
The dialogue fit this book very well. However, I think a lot of people will struggle with the farming terminology and have a hard time relating to the whole farm scenario. As I've said before, this book reads like two books in one. To further prove my point, even the dialogue is different. During the whole family losing their farm scenario, the language isn't vulgar nor is there any swearing (that I could remember). Once Jack gets to Montreal, the language turns a bit vulgar, and there is some swearing.
Overall, When Patty Went Away is just an alright read. The plot could've been better and the merging of ideas could've been smoother. Saying that, the main character is very likable and the world building was good.
I'd recommend this book to those 18+ who know something about farming or those who want a book that will last awhile.
<b>I'd give When Patty Went Away by Jeannie Burt a 2.5 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free paperback of this book from LibraryThing for free in exchange for a fair and honest review).
The blurb intrigued me a lot. This was a book I really wanted to read. However, I was a bit disappointed when I finally got a chance to read it.
The title definitely fits the book for at least the second half. (I'll go into more detail about that later). The title reminds me of someone who checks out of reality though.
I like the serene look of the cover. I don't really know how it ties into the book though. The cover made me think more of a holiday romance type.
I can't really fault the world building. I thought it was done rather well and very believable. From a historic viewpoint, the facts and events were all correct. It was interesting that Ms. Burt chose to narrate through the point of view of a man. She did a great job of making it work though. There was one or two times I felt a bit confused, but I put it down to just a personal thing like maybe I wasn't paying as much attention as I should've been. The only thing that bothered me was when the narrator of the book would suddenly start talking about a memory. It was too sudden, and I didn't know if it was happening in present time or if it was indeed a memory. I felt as if a memory could've had a better introduction so the audience was aware that it happened at another time in the book.
I felt that the pacing was too slow for about the first two-thirds of the book. It seemed to drone on and on about a topic I wasn't that interested in (farming). I realize that Ms. Burt was setting up a back story, but there was too much focus on the whole farming aspect of the book and not about Patty disappearing as the title and the blurb would suggest. Once the main character goes to Montreal, the pacing picks up decently, and it becomes a book that I had a hard time putting down.
The whole story line was a bit weak, I felt. First off, it reads like two books. The first two-thirds of the book is about a family who has lost their farm due to a bad storm. The reader then takes a journey into finding out how this family struggles to survive without their means of income. I found it a bit tedious because I don't really care about farming, and this book used a lot of farming terminology. The last third of the book is when Jack goes to Montreal to look for Patty. This explores the seedy side of Montreal (which could be just about anywhere) and prostitution involving runaways. I thought the story line was strong during this bit.
I felt that Jack was a well developed character and very likable. It was easy to feel what he was feeling and to feel sorry for him with all that he was going through. Molly is a strict God fearing woman. However, I felt that there was too much focus on her being overweight which was uncalled for. I didn't really like how Christianity was portrayed when it came to Molly. I'm sure there are people in the world like her, but there were times when I just felt a bit offended. I would've loved to know more about Patty and Edie as individuals. I just felt like they didn't get enough time throughout the book, Patty especially. I found it a bit hard to care about Edie and Patty especially as I felt like I didn't have enough information on them to care.
The dialogue fit this book very well. However, I think a lot of people will struggle with the farming terminology and have a hard time relating to the whole farm scenario. As I've said before, this book reads like two books in one. To further prove my point, even the dialogue is different. During the whole family losing their farm scenario, the language isn't vulgar nor is there any swearing (that I could remember). Once Jack gets to Montreal, the language turns a bit vulgar, and there is some swearing.
Overall, When Patty Went Away is just an alright read. The plot could've been better and the merging of ideas could've been smoother. Saying that, the main character is very likable and the world building was good.
I'd recommend this book to those 18+ who know something about farming or those who want a book that will last awhile.
<b>I'd give When Patty Went Away by Jeannie Burt a 2.5 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free paperback of this book from LibraryThing for free in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Only When I Laugh: My Autobiography
9.0
Rate It
Book
Known for his intelligent and often surreal humour, Paul Merton's weekly appearances on BBC1's Have...
Cut the Rope 2: Om Nom's Quest
Games and Entertainment
App
Second part of the legendary Cut the Rope logic puzzles series. Get it now for free! Cut the Rope 2...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Sir Apropos of Nothing in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Sir Apropos of Nothing Skewers the Hero’s Journey
Contains spoilers, click to show
Fantasy and satire are two of my favorite genres in any medium, but especially so in books. Satirical fantasy, then, holds a special place on my shelves. I grew up on Sir Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series, and desire to imitate him and his style is what led me in middle school to begin writing in earnest, for fun, and for myself rather than just for my teachers and their assignments.
So when I picked up Sir Apropos of Nothing, I did so based on the title pun and the back-of-the-book synopsis that promised “a berserk phoenix, murderous unicorns, mutated harpies, homicidal warrior kings, and – most problematic of all – a princess who may or may not be a psychotic arsonist.” I expected another lighthearted riff on the familiar archetypes. Murderous unicorns? Unicorns are not typically described as such! Oh teehee, how unexpectedly humorous!
Sir Apropos of Nothing is a satirical fantasy, just like it promised, though at times it’s hard to tell how much of the story is played for laughs and how much is played straight. See, the thing about satire that’s easy to forget at times is that it’s not synonymous with buffoonery. Make no mistake – Apropos is a funny book, full of witty dialogue and groan-inducing puns. It’s a book that takes great delight in lampshading traditional fantasy tropes and archetypes, as well as the entirety of Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey idea. But it is not always a silly lampshade; sometimes a cliche or trope is pointed out to have its inherit ridiculousness laughed at, and sometimes it is pointed out because it is causing real and lasting pain or damage, either to the society in which it is set or, more often, to the titular Apropos himself and his ever-degrading esteem of both the people around him and himself.
The tone, at first, is hard to pin down. The story starts in media res with the main character being caught by a knight while in mid-coitus with that knight’s wife and escalates from there. The second chapter opens with a fourth wall-breaking narrative admission by Apropos himself that this was done with the express purpose of catching your attention, and now we’re going back to cover Apropos’s childhood, which ends up being equal parts dark, tragic, punny, and conveniently trope-filled – all of which Apropos, as narrator, approaches with the same resigned, blasé outlook.
If this sounds a bit jarring, well, it kind of is. Early on, I wasn’t sure what to think of where the story was trying to go or what I was expected to feel about it. After the first turn from cliché to dark and visceral to light and punny, all within a few pages, I caught myself thinking, “Crap, is this book gonna try and mix goofy jokes with serious drama and thoughtful moral quandary?”
The answer is yes. And it pulls it off fantastically.
This is due in large part to the interesting depths of the antihero, Apropos, who seems to be so named purely for the joke in the title. In Apropos we see a deep sense of justice and rightness that is entirely eclipsed by an even deeper cynicism and an unshakeable instinct for self-preservation. His life is objectively terrible, but rather than brood and lament, he adjusts. He keeps his head down when he can, weathers abuse when he can’t, and learns to deal with the constant shit storm, all the while bottling his growing anger and resentment at a world that would allow such amounts of suffering and hypocrisy to go unchecked. The fact that he himself becomes a selfish, hypocritical, and generally awful person is not lost on him, and the result is a flawed, unheroic, pathetic coward of a protagonist, a magnificently multifaceted bastard who doesn’t spare even himself from his vast and withering contempt.
And it’s a blast. It really is. Apropos is refreshingly pragmatic and unabashedly pessimistic, a welcome change from the typical righteous-yet-humble heroes of traditional fantasy, or even the loveable and untalented everyman in over his head of traditional fantasy spoofs. Despite a portentous birthmark (on his ass, no less) and beginnings that are not “humble” so much as “poverty of the dirtiest kind,” Apropos is everything a hero should not be short of outright evil.
And this, as it turns out, is entirely the point. This is where the satire, funny or otherwise, really shines through. This is the crux that elevates Sir Apropos of Nothing from a generically self-aware fantasy story to an original and memorable subversion of storytelling as a whole.
Without giving too much away, there comes a point in the plot where Apropos realizes that the events surrounding his miserable life are part of a heroic tale that has been preordained by Fate and is now being epically written out by Destiny. And despite his birthmark, his tragic past, and his mother’s constant reassurances that he has some sort of great destiny hovering over him, he is not the hero. He is only a minor character. A walk-on role on the hero’s stage. A brief pit-stop along the hero’s journey. An NPC whose dreams, desires, and continued existence are so far below importance to the story as to be utterly negligible.
And once this finally clicks with him, he violently, brazenly rebels against it. He gives an emphatic middle finger to Fate’s ideas and sets about making Destiny sit up and take notice of him again. He momentarily and violently overcomes his own abject cowardice just long enough to find a way to completely wreck the traditional heroic ballad in which he lives, all on the basis that, dammit, the world owes him more than this, and nobody should be so miserably cursed as to live their entire life as a foil character.
At this point in my own reading, I didn’t know whether to cheer him on or worry about the repercussions of his actions, because he doesn’t suddenly become heroic when this happens. He’s exactly as much of a selfish, lying bastard as before, and however bad you feel for him, you can completely understand why he was never cast for this role in the first place. Add to this the complete disregard of the author for following what seems to be the obvious progression of events in favor of twists that take you completely by surprise, but still make complete sense and arise organically from the story itself, and you eventually give up thinking that you have any sense of where the story’s going or how any event is going to play out. From beginning to end, it feeds you familiar ideas and then completely subverts them, introduces clichés and then proceeds to tear them apart, and you laugh and pity and feel something the entire way through.
In short, Sir Apropos of Nothing is a book that will keep you turning page after page – not necessarily because of the gripping drama (although it has that) or because of any breezy humor (although it has that too), or because the narration itself oozes suspense (although it often does), but because, with the rapid infusion of new and creative ideas and the hidden depths of character constantly bubbling to the surface in everyone involved, you honestly never know what’s going to happen next. If you like fantasy and can stand to have your expectations messed with, Apropos is certainly apropos.
So when I picked up Sir Apropos of Nothing, I did so based on the title pun and the back-of-the-book synopsis that promised “a berserk phoenix, murderous unicorns, mutated harpies, homicidal warrior kings, and – most problematic of all – a princess who may or may not be a psychotic arsonist.” I expected another lighthearted riff on the familiar archetypes. Murderous unicorns? Unicorns are not typically described as such! Oh teehee, how unexpectedly humorous!
Sir Apropos of Nothing is a satirical fantasy, just like it promised, though at times it’s hard to tell how much of the story is played for laughs and how much is played straight. See, the thing about satire that’s easy to forget at times is that it’s not synonymous with buffoonery. Make no mistake – Apropos is a funny book, full of witty dialogue and groan-inducing puns. It’s a book that takes great delight in lampshading traditional fantasy tropes and archetypes, as well as the entirety of Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey idea. But it is not always a silly lampshade; sometimes a cliche or trope is pointed out to have its inherit ridiculousness laughed at, and sometimes it is pointed out because it is causing real and lasting pain or damage, either to the society in which it is set or, more often, to the titular Apropos himself and his ever-degrading esteem of both the people around him and himself.
The tone, at first, is hard to pin down. The story starts in media res with the main character being caught by a knight while in mid-coitus with that knight’s wife and escalates from there. The second chapter opens with a fourth wall-breaking narrative admission by Apropos himself that this was done with the express purpose of catching your attention, and now we’re going back to cover Apropos’s childhood, which ends up being equal parts dark, tragic, punny, and conveniently trope-filled – all of which Apropos, as narrator, approaches with the same resigned, blasé outlook.
If this sounds a bit jarring, well, it kind of is. Early on, I wasn’t sure what to think of where the story was trying to go or what I was expected to feel about it. After the first turn from cliché to dark and visceral to light and punny, all within a few pages, I caught myself thinking, “Crap, is this book gonna try and mix goofy jokes with serious drama and thoughtful moral quandary?”
The answer is yes. And it pulls it off fantastically.
This is due in large part to the interesting depths of the antihero, Apropos, who seems to be so named purely for the joke in the title. In Apropos we see a deep sense of justice and rightness that is entirely eclipsed by an even deeper cynicism and an unshakeable instinct for self-preservation. His life is objectively terrible, but rather than brood and lament, he adjusts. He keeps his head down when he can, weathers abuse when he can’t, and learns to deal with the constant shit storm, all the while bottling his growing anger and resentment at a world that would allow such amounts of suffering and hypocrisy to go unchecked. The fact that he himself becomes a selfish, hypocritical, and generally awful person is not lost on him, and the result is a flawed, unheroic, pathetic coward of a protagonist, a magnificently multifaceted bastard who doesn’t spare even himself from his vast and withering contempt.
And it’s a blast. It really is. Apropos is refreshingly pragmatic and unabashedly pessimistic, a welcome change from the typical righteous-yet-humble heroes of traditional fantasy, or even the loveable and untalented everyman in over his head of traditional fantasy spoofs. Despite a portentous birthmark (on his ass, no less) and beginnings that are not “humble” so much as “poverty of the dirtiest kind,” Apropos is everything a hero should not be short of outright evil.
And this, as it turns out, is entirely the point. This is where the satire, funny or otherwise, really shines through. This is the crux that elevates Sir Apropos of Nothing from a generically self-aware fantasy story to an original and memorable subversion of storytelling as a whole.
Without giving too much away, there comes a point in the plot where Apropos realizes that the events surrounding his miserable life are part of a heroic tale that has been preordained by Fate and is now being epically written out by Destiny. And despite his birthmark, his tragic past, and his mother’s constant reassurances that he has some sort of great destiny hovering over him, he is not the hero. He is only a minor character. A walk-on role on the hero’s stage. A brief pit-stop along the hero’s journey. An NPC whose dreams, desires, and continued existence are so far below importance to the story as to be utterly negligible.
And once this finally clicks with him, he violently, brazenly rebels against it. He gives an emphatic middle finger to Fate’s ideas and sets about making Destiny sit up and take notice of him again. He momentarily and violently overcomes his own abject cowardice just long enough to find a way to completely wreck the traditional heroic ballad in which he lives, all on the basis that, dammit, the world owes him more than this, and nobody should be so miserably cursed as to live their entire life as a foil character.
At this point in my own reading, I didn’t know whether to cheer him on or worry about the repercussions of his actions, because he doesn’t suddenly become heroic when this happens. He’s exactly as much of a selfish, lying bastard as before, and however bad you feel for him, you can completely understand why he was never cast for this role in the first place. Add to this the complete disregard of the author for following what seems to be the obvious progression of events in favor of twists that take you completely by surprise, but still make complete sense and arise organically from the story itself, and you eventually give up thinking that you have any sense of where the story’s going or how any event is going to play out. From beginning to end, it feeds you familiar ideas and then completely subverts them, introduces clichés and then proceeds to tear them apart, and you laugh and pity and feel something the entire way through.
In short, Sir Apropos of Nothing is a book that will keep you turning page after page – not necessarily because of the gripping drama (although it has that) or because of any breezy humor (although it has that too), or because the narration itself oozes suspense (although it often does), but because, with the rapid infusion of new and creative ideas and the hidden depths of character constantly bubbling to the surface in everyone involved, you honestly never know what’s going to happen next. If you like fantasy and can stand to have your expectations messed with, Apropos is certainly apropos.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Princess of Thorns in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Princess of Thorns is a not-so-classic retelling of the Sleeping Beauty story. The main character is actually the daughter of the cursed princess, who awoke from a kiss. Her name is Aurora, like the Disney movie's princess and her mother's name is Rose. In the french version of the tale, Sleeping Beauty's daughter is named Aurore. I believe that her mother's is the shortened form of Briar Rose, like German version of her tale by the Brother's Grimm. If you are familiar with the Grimm and Perrault versions of the tale, not only the Disney one, then you will notice many similarities. In a few versions of the tale, there is an evil step-mother or mother-in-law who attempts to eat the leading lady's children.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
Graham Massey recommended Live Evil by Miles Davis in Music (curated)
The Spinner of Dreams
7.0
Rate It
Book
Inventive, empathetic, and strange in all the best ways, The Spinner of Dreams draws from the...
Fidel and Che
Book
FIDEL AND CHE is the story of the remarkable and revolutionary friendship between two of the most...