Search
Search results
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Wuthering Heights in Books
Feb 12, 2020
Stands up (2 more)
Enthralling
Unique
Dislikable characters (1 more)
Difficult accents without translations
I will do my best to review this, however, I didn't heed the intro, this tour de force really does leave you as quickly as it comes, and reading another book before reviewing this one was a mistake.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
In reading reviews prior to reading this book, I learned three major things; 1, people either love or hate this book, 2. I had no idea what I was actually in for, and 3. this may have not been the romantic pick for February I was expecting it to be.
So yes, PSA for anyone out there considering going into this thinking it's a romance. It is NOT. There are love stories in this, absolutely, powerful love stories that made me read quotes to my boyfriend with snarky statements like "if you don't say this at my funeral, did you ever really love me?". But it is NOT a romance. If anything this has more in common with "The Count of Monte Cristo" than it does "Pride and Prejudice". Honestly, the only thing it has in common with other, romantic books of this time, is the time period. But beware, no balls and high society and Mr. Darcy's await you in this novel. I feel a number of the reviews decrying the book, calling the characters "monstrous" both were the orchestrators of their own disappointment by assuming it to be like an Austin, and really need to look in the mirror and reflect on if they are really as perfect as they think they are. Especially if they were in the circumstances that surround this tale.
I find that Heathcliff himself addresses this mistake many readers had going into this book.
"picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character and actin gon false impressions she cherished."
SO many readers went into this expecting Heathcliff to be some misunderstood brute or one harsh but salvaged by the purity of his love of Catherine. But this isn't the case.
Wuthering Heights tells the story of (I guess technically 3) but really 2 generations of families. Living in the Yorkshire Moors, isolated from high society. We have the Liptons, primmer and properer and more in touch with society, and the Earnshaws which become a little rough around the edges in their isolation and loss. Papa Earnshaw has two children, Catherine and Hindley, and adopts a small boy of unknown heritage but is implied to be Romani or of mixed race (sorry Tom Hardy and nearly every portrayal of Heathcliff), that he names, simply, Heathcliff. He loves Heathcliff, and dotes on him greatly, much to the chagrin of Hindly who grows to resent Heathcliff, treating him terribly until Hindly leaves for school. Catherine and Heathcliff become great playmates, their care is given primarily to a maid scarcely older than them, as Papa Earnshaw is a single daddy. They are wild things, as children I would assume would be, in such isolation as the Yorkshire Moors in a time before the creature comforts and entertainment we have. They grow very close, obsessively close. Upon Papa Earnshaw's death, Hindley returns (at around the age of 23) to run the household, and take over the care of these two youngsters, one of which, he hates. So, Cinderella-style, Heathcliff gets treated worse and worse and treated like a servant rather than the adoptive child that Papa Earnshaw loved so dearly. Suddenly Heathcliff is nothing, treated terribly, and has the most important thing in his life banned from him, Catherine. Meanwhile, the Liptons also have two children, not wild, but spoilt in their own ways, Edgar and Isabella, close in age to Heathcliff and Catherine. When H and C run off on a camping adventure and find themselves at the Lipton's house, Catherine is injured and stays with the Liptons, in their higher society for 5 weeks. Leaving Heathcliff to the abuse of her brother and further isolation. She returns much more a lady and with her connection to Heathcliff slightly burned. In an attempt to protect Heathcliff, and because Heathcliff is now no more than a servant and not an option to marry, Catherine intends to marry Edgar. Causing our resident bad boy to run off for a number of years. Only to return a proper, but still broody gentleman, and confuse Catherine's affection much to the displeasure of Edgar.
Now, this is where a number of shows and movies end things. With a focus on Catherine and Heathcliff's whirlwind romance, obsession. It has some of the most to the point and beautiful lines regarding love, not all flowery, not "I love you most ardently" but rather cries of "I am Heathcliff" by Catherine. Absolutely heart-rending, even though I didn't like Catherine. But this is not where the book ends. The book goes on to follow Heathcliff's obsession with revenge, with his treatment as a child, his rage against Hindley, and against losing Catherine to Edgar. He spends years slowly ruining everyone's lives. Not that you could really ruin Hindley's life, he was a mean drunk. But he even goes as far as to meddle with the next generation, Hindley's son Hareton is raised terribly and is a bit of a wild thing (those his redemption and love story is quite beautiful), Catherine's daughter Cathy and Heathcliff's son Lipton are whisked up into a big scheme by Heathcliff to take everything. Heathcliff even marry's out of pure spite.
Love does not redeem this man, he's barely an antihero without his youth story. He is angry and passionate and obsessed. Which for the first half of the book I didn't fault him for, but he does do some damnable things in the second half that you cannot argue away. No matter how romantic and beautiful and heartrending his lamentations can be. I was quite the character arc, quite the tale of revenge and loss. He was unredeemable because of his big sprawling schemes and harsh intentions. Catherine for me was unredeemable because she was an obnoxious, selfish thing, that honestly if Heathcliff had stopped thinking about two minutes would have found a better woman in every town. She whined and treated Edgar (who was honestly super sweet) so terribly, she had an anger problem and would work herself up until she was sick. But it is in this imperfection that I fell in love more with the book. Here is something unique and real, this is no Elizabeth Bennett. The isolation and hermetic lifestyle created very different characters than what we see in Jane Austin or even in Emily's sister's novel.
It's no wonder this book was harshly critiqued upon release, here is a woman, writing a revenge story, with love stories in it. That based on the biographical intro had some parallels to her own life. She lived an isolated existence, surrounded by the death of the majority of her family young. She was in her late 20s when she wrote this and died a year after publication. She made humans of monsters and monsters of humans and wrote something unexpected and truly unique.
It's hard for me to explain, amongst the harshness and bleakness of this novel, why I loved it so much. But I did, I loved every bit. The anger, the passion, the love, the scheming, I loved it all.
I also feel it's important to note that this whole story is told by a maid to a new tenant. So the narrator is unreliable. Were these people truly this way? Or is it clouded by this maid's opinions of them? How much is omitted due to the maid not being privy to an event?
Truly a fantastic read, that punched me in my chest and gut, grabbed and twisted my insides and refuses to let go. I would argue it's a cult classic rather than a classic. So please, shed all preconceived notions of what this book is, shake that Austin out of your mind and read this tale of obsession and revenge. It's well worth it.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Lonely Undead in Tabletop Games
May 24, 2021
“I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.” Now, this is an acceptable saying that one might utter flippantly to anyone around them. However, “I’m so lonely I could bite the town Mayor” is generally something that would raise some eyebrows or nervous smiles from eavesdroppers. But why, I ask. Why are we okay with eating horses but not simply biting another human? Probably because of laws. I get that. But sometimes you just need a friend. Someone… like you.
Lonely Undead is a hand management, grid movement, zombie adventure game for one to four players with a super crazy theme. In it, players are Zs looking to make some friends in the neighborhood, but most unturnt neighbors are keeping their distance. So what’s a Z to do? Go bite and infect people so they can be friends forever, of course!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. This preview will be highlighting the co-op mode with two players. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, lay out the board somewhere on the table (thankfully the rules do not specify where, so go ahead and be a bit off-center this time). Zs (the players) all start in “Dead Center” of the board. The rulebook indicated how to construct the Living deck, and each deck of different types of cards should be shuffled and put in their place either on the board or just off it. For sake of ease, use the rulebook’s suggested placement of Living (so, NOT the Zs) tokens. Each player receives or chooses a Z to embody, receives two Aid cards, four Limbs, and the game is setup and ready to begin!
Lonely Undead is played over a series of rounds, with each round consisting of two phases: Z Phase and Town Phase. During the Z Phase, the active player will have four actions they may take from the following choices: Movement, Draw an Aid Card, Equip a Card, Sound Check, Attack, and Bite. Each Z has their own unique card with their special actions and other stats. A Z may move up to their Movement amount,including diagonally, for one action.
Aid Cards are very helpful to Zs, and for an action a Z may Draw an Aid Card to their hand. Aid Cards could be stat modifiers, or other special actions available to be used. Some Aid Cards are free to use, but if that text is not on the card, a Z will need to spend an action to Equip a Card to their Z.
When the Z is adjacent to a Living token, they must Sound Check it in order to identify the kind of Living they are stalking. To do this a Z rolls the Chance Die and applies any modifier rolled to their base stat on their card for hearing. This is compared against the Living card that is drawn to see if the Living notices the hunting Z. If the Z is successful in this Sound Check (winning all ties), then the Z may continue with their turn. If the Z fails the check, however, the Z will suffer the consequence detailed on the Living’s card. Once the Living has been identified through a Sound Check (successfully or not), the Z may next Attack the Living by rolling the Chance Die again and applying the modifier to the base attack stat. If successful, the Z flips the Living token over to reveal the injured side, notating that the Living does not need to be Sound Checked again, and is ripe for the bitening. If the Z fails an Attack, though, they will suffer any consequences detailed on the Living’s card. When a Living is injured, they are vulnerable to a Z’s Bite. The Z will roll the special Bite die in an attempt to meet their Bite range on the Z’s character card. A successful Bite means the Z collects a friend and moves that much closer to victory! A failed Bite means the Z must place a color-matched Bite token on the Living standee to signify they cannot be Bitten by that same Z again.
Once a Z has taken their turn, they will draw a Reaction card from its pile. Reactions could be either beneficial to the Z, or could be very very bad news. Some Reaction cards bring Dogs into the game, and these Dogs chase and bite the Zs that drew them. Every Dog bite causes damage to the Z and after all their Limbs are gone, they are perma-dead and out of the game. Other Reactions could cause a Car to zoom down the street, mowing over anything in their path (Zs, Dogs, Living, etc).
In the cooperative mode, players work together to gain 15 friends before 10 Living perish and are placed on the Death Toll tracker. Every two Living tokens on the Death Toll tracker forces the players to draw and enact a Death Toll card. Once the win condition is met the players win!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so components will probably be a bit different in the final version. That said, I do have some opinions here. Firstly, there are a LOT of components included in this game. I am sure that they will all receive some kind of improvement in the final copy, so I will not comment on quality. I was able to play the prototype several times and had no problems with the components doing their job. I do have a comment on the art style. It’s just not my favorite. Now, this is obviously personal opinion, and it certainly does does not turn me off from the game at all. I just need to get it out to the aether that a different art style or genre may fit the game a bit better.
That all said, I THOROUGHLY enjoyed all my plays of Lonely Undead. Once the turns start cookin, you just don’t want to stop playing. Yes, there are random events or spawns that cause some chaos for our heroes, chief of which are the Dogs. Those little buggers will chase you all over town to get that juicy bite off and take one of your Limbs. I hate to say this, but there were many times I hoped to draw a Car card so that it could run over the Dogs (now, in real life I love dogs, but they are perfectly annoying in Lonely Undead). The variety of Z special powers lead to interesting combinations when playing co-op or competitively. However, I honestly prefer the co-op mode here.
In co-op, players are (obviously) working together to Bite and infect as many Living as they possibly can. This makes for some strategic placement between players, as well as combat tactics when Livings are clustered together in a building. Perhaps one Z is better at handling Officers, while another can more easily prey upon Livings from outside areas. Being able to set strategies and tactics by working together has made for some very excellent gaming experiences.
I’m going to be honest, as I always try to do. When I opened up Lonely Undead and saw the art style, I was a bit turned off. But, as I learned the game and played through it several times, I grew to really enjoy the game. I think it’s a great example of taking a tired theme and breathing a bit of new life into it. Yes, zombies are trying to eat people, but typically in zombie games the players are working AGAINST the zombies, not AS the zombies. I think this is a very clever spin. I have certainly and purposefully left out a few rules as surprises for gamers who decide to back this one, and I would recommend that you at least check out the Kickstarter campaign. This may not be for everyone, and even if the art doesn’t change, it is definitely for me. Kudos to Shelby Matussak and Dead Lemon Games for a fine first entry into the gaming world.
CHOMP!
Lonely Undead is a hand management, grid movement, zombie adventure game for one to four players with a super crazy theme. In it, players are Zs looking to make some friends in the neighborhood, but most unturnt neighbors are keeping their distance. So what’s a Z to do? Go bite and infect people so they can be friends forever, of course!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. This preview will be highlighting the co-op mode with two players. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, lay out the board somewhere on the table (thankfully the rules do not specify where, so go ahead and be a bit off-center this time). Zs (the players) all start in “Dead Center” of the board. The rulebook indicated how to construct the Living deck, and each deck of different types of cards should be shuffled and put in their place either on the board or just off it. For sake of ease, use the rulebook’s suggested placement of Living (so, NOT the Zs) tokens. Each player receives or chooses a Z to embody, receives two Aid cards, four Limbs, and the game is setup and ready to begin!
Lonely Undead is played over a series of rounds, with each round consisting of two phases: Z Phase and Town Phase. During the Z Phase, the active player will have four actions they may take from the following choices: Movement, Draw an Aid Card, Equip a Card, Sound Check, Attack, and Bite. Each Z has their own unique card with their special actions and other stats. A Z may move up to their Movement amount,including diagonally, for one action.
Aid Cards are very helpful to Zs, and for an action a Z may Draw an Aid Card to their hand. Aid Cards could be stat modifiers, or other special actions available to be used. Some Aid Cards are free to use, but if that text is not on the card, a Z will need to spend an action to Equip a Card to their Z.
When the Z is adjacent to a Living token, they must Sound Check it in order to identify the kind of Living they are stalking. To do this a Z rolls the Chance Die and applies any modifier rolled to their base stat on their card for hearing. This is compared against the Living card that is drawn to see if the Living notices the hunting Z. If the Z is successful in this Sound Check (winning all ties), then the Z may continue with their turn. If the Z fails the check, however, the Z will suffer the consequence detailed on the Living’s card. Once the Living has been identified through a Sound Check (successfully or not), the Z may next Attack the Living by rolling the Chance Die again and applying the modifier to the base attack stat. If successful, the Z flips the Living token over to reveal the injured side, notating that the Living does not need to be Sound Checked again, and is ripe for the bitening. If the Z fails an Attack, though, they will suffer any consequences detailed on the Living’s card. When a Living is injured, they are vulnerable to a Z’s Bite. The Z will roll the special Bite die in an attempt to meet their Bite range on the Z’s character card. A successful Bite means the Z collects a friend and moves that much closer to victory! A failed Bite means the Z must place a color-matched Bite token on the Living standee to signify they cannot be Bitten by that same Z again.
Once a Z has taken their turn, they will draw a Reaction card from its pile. Reactions could be either beneficial to the Z, or could be very very bad news. Some Reaction cards bring Dogs into the game, and these Dogs chase and bite the Zs that drew them. Every Dog bite causes damage to the Z and after all their Limbs are gone, they are perma-dead and out of the game. Other Reactions could cause a Car to zoom down the street, mowing over anything in their path (Zs, Dogs, Living, etc).
In the cooperative mode, players work together to gain 15 friends before 10 Living perish and are placed on the Death Toll tracker. Every two Living tokens on the Death Toll tracker forces the players to draw and enact a Death Toll card. Once the win condition is met the players win!
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game, so components will probably be a bit different in the final version. That said, I do have some opinions here. Firstly, there are a LOT of components included in this game. I am sure that they will all receive some kind of improvement in the final copy, so I will not comment on quality. I was able to play the prototype several times and had no problems with the components doing their job. I do have a comment on the art style. It’s just not my favorite. Now, this is obviously personal opinion, and it certainly does does not turn me off from the game at all. I just need to get it out to the aether that a different art style or genre may fit the game a bit better.
That all said, I THOROUGHLY enjoyed all my plays of Lonely Undead. Once the turns start cookin, you just don’t want to stop playing. Yes, there are random events or spawns that cause some chaos for our heroes, chief of which are the Dogs. Those little buggers will chase you all over town to get that juicy bite off and take one of your Limbs. I hate to say this, but there were many times I hoped to draw a Car card so that it could run over the Dogs (now, in real life I love dogs, but they are perfectly annoying in Lonely Undead). The variety of Z special powers lead to interesting combinations when playing co-op or competitively. However, I honestly prefer the co-op mode here.
In co-op, players are (obviously) working together to Bite and infect as many Living as they possibly can. This makes for some strategic placement between players, as well as combat tactics when Livings are clustered together in a building. Perhaps one Z is better at handling Officers, while another can more easily prey upon Livings from outside areas. Being able to set strategies and tactics by working together has made for some very excellent gaming experiences.
I’m going to be honest, as I always try to do. When I opened up Lonely Undead and saw the art style, I was a bit turned off. But, as I learned the game and played through it several times, I grew to really enjoy the game. I think it’s a great example of taking a tired theme and breathing a bit of new life into it. Yes, zombies are trying to eat people, but typically in zombie games the players are working AGAINST the zombies, not AS the zombies. I think this is a very clever spin. I have certainly and purposefully left out a few rules as surprises for gamers who decide to back this one, and I would recommend that you at least check out the Kickstarter campaign. This may not be for everyone, and even if the art doesn’t change, it is definitely for me. Kudos to Shelby Matussak and Dead Lemon Games for a fine first entry into the gaming world.
CHOMP!
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated Banewreaker in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – Banewreaker Will Make You Feel Bad for Sauron
Contains spoilers, click to show
Very few fantasy fans can get away with admitting that they aren’t all that big into sweeping, high epic fantasy à la Lord of the Rings or the Pern stories or everything that Terry Brooks writes. Many non-fantasy fans, however, can point to these tales as examples of why they aren’t into fantasy. Like it or not, it’s hard not to see the latter group’s point, as a lot of high fantasy is riddled with confusing terminology, rehashed stories, and genre clichés. This is not to say that these stories are bad, per sé, just that they can easily turn off readers who aren’t in the right kind of crowd.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Banewreaker, the first book in Jacqueline Carey’s two-part volume The Sundering, will probably not change any opinions in this respect, then, as it’s sweeping high fantasy to the core. This, as it turns out, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.
There are some reviews out there that laud Banewreaker as a masterful examination of subjective viewpoints in an epic fantasy turned into a human tragedy by a simple change of perspective. And they are absolutely correct.
There are other reviews, however, that call the book out as a heap of all of the stalest fantasy clichés piled one atop the other in a confusing and pretentious jumble with a shellacking of purple prose for good measure. And they are also absolutely correct.
Let me explain.
For starters, it would be inaccurate to say that this story is full of clichés. This story is clichés. This story is every familiar and used-up trope you would expect from a high fantasy, all of those details that have been done to death in thousands of other versions until almost nothing that happens seems original anymore.
This is what’s going to turn off a lot of people. But the thing is, Banewreaker has to be this way. It wants the reader to look at all of the things that they’ve come to expect from a fantasy epic and then, by shifting the narrative focus, realize that all of these beloved tropes are actually, when you think about it, tragic as hell.
In other words, it’s Lord of the Rings from Sauron’s point of view.
It’s not a riff, though. It’s not goofy like most of the stuff I go in for. It takes its subject just as seriously as the stories that it’s mirroring, and this is what makes the whole story ultimately so gripping and so moving.
The story starts out like many stories of this magnitude, with exposition stretching back to the Dawn of This Particular Creation. In this case, we have a protogenos world god named Uru-Alat who died and gave rise to seven smaller godlike beings called Shapers. First comes Haomane, who becomes the Lord of Thought and sets himself up as head honcho for this ensuing pantheon. Second is Arahila, the Basically a Love Goddess; and third is Satoris, whose purview was “the quickening of the flesh,” which is high fantasy speak for sexy times. Four more Shapers come after this who, for the sake of brevity, we’ll be glossing over.
To summarize the important godly exposition, the Seven Shapers set about shaping the world to the surprise of no one. Haomane creates elves (here called Ellyl, but if you’ve ever even looked at a fantasy, you know that they’re the elves here), Arahila creates humans, and Satoris doesn’t create anything because he’s busy hanging out with dragons and learning their wisdom. Satoris grants his fleshy quickening to the humans but not the elves, because Haomane didn’t want his elves to do that. Then Haomane decides he doesn’t want the humans to do that either, but Satoris refuses to take the gift away again. Conflict escalates, god wars ensue, and the world splits into two continents, with Satoris ostracized from his brethren on one and the remaining Shapers on the other. By the time the dust has settled, Satoris is scarred and burned pitch black, living in a mostly dead land thanks to Haomane’s wrath, but with a dagger in his possession that is the only weapon capable of killing any of the Shapers.
The story itself picks up thousands of years later, with Satoris as the Satan/Sauron stand-in living in a forbidding land surrounded by classically evil things like trolls, giant spiders, and insane people. Since Haomane is the head god, the rest of the world believes Satoris to be a terrible figure of evil and betrayal, while Satoris’s few allies know him as a pitiable and misunderstood figure who only ever wanted to honor his word and do right by his own sense of morality rather than the dictates of his elder brother god king.
From here the plot becomes the typical Army of Good vs. Army of Evil adventure, but with the protagonistic focus on Satoris and his allies. His trolls we see not as a mindless horde but as a simple, honorable people who happily serve their lord because he happily serves them right back. The mad individuals inhabiting his fortress are castaways from normal society with nowhere else to go. And the giant spiders just happen to live there and be bigger than normal, with no sinister intentions beyond that.
And just like that, by actually showing us the home life of the ultimate in evil fantasy tropes, we see how easily one side’s view of evil is another’s view of good. In doing so, Banewreaker becomes perhaps the first sweeping fantasy epic with no real bad guy, just two sides of an unfortunate conflict. Both sides have their likeable characters, both sides seem from their view to be in the right, and pretty soon you, as the reader, will stop cheering for either one, because whenever one person that you like succeeds it means that another person whom you also like is failing.
In fact, the closest thing that this story has to a clearly-labeled “evil” character is the sorceress Lilias, and even then, she’s not evil so much as a woman who has done some bad things for completely understandable reasons. Lilias, in fact, is one of the most pitiful characters in this whole saga of pitiable characters, with her fears and attachments closely mirroring those of most readers, only amplified by her immortality and magical powers. She is afraid of dying. She wants to be more in the grand scheme of things than just another man’s wife or another country’s momentary ruler, both of which would just be tiny moments in a long history. She likes her youth. She likes having pretty things and pretty people around her. And from her interactions with her dragon mentor and apparently only friend, Calandor, we see that she is also capable of intense affection and even love just as she is capable of indulging in self-centered self-interest that, if not particularly a good trait, is also one that she is not alone in possessing.
Banewreaker, then, is a story with a large cast of characters but very few actual heroes or innocents as well as very few outright villains, which is exactly what it sets out to be. Those who love it and those who hate it both seem to blame this quality in particular for their feelings. The biggest complaint leveled against it (that I have read, anyway) is that the people we should be rooting for do not deserve our sympathy, while the people we should be rooting against are more misguided and unwilling to see things in another light than deserving of our scorn.
This is true. But if it’s a flaw, it’s an intentional one. And if it makes you feel like you shouldn’t be cheering for either side at all in this conflict, that’s the point. This is a story of clichés, yes, but it has something that it needs to say about these clichés and, in doing so, about the subjective and impossibly nebulous quality of morality in general.
In short, here again is another fantasy story about the Forces of Good wiping out an entire nation dedicated to their “evil” enemy. And as the story points out, even if you believe in that cause, you’re still wiping out an entire nation of people. No way is there not a downside to that. Seeing things in a black-and-white morality just means crushing a whole lot of important shades of gray underfoot.
Whether or not you like Banewreaker, then, depends in large part upon how much you realize that Carey as an author is being self-aware. As someone who read and still hasn’t stopped being awed over her Kushiel series, I can’t claim complete objectivity in this area, because I came to Banewreaker already in love with her. I can say, however, that unless you have an intense and searing aversion to ornate and sweeping style, this book is worth any fantasy-lover’s time – especially if you’ve ever felt a pang of empathy for all of the poor villainous mooks that fantasy heroes tend to mow down without a thought because they were the wrong kind of ugly.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hiding Hitler in Tabletop Games
Apr 6, 2021
Adolf Hitler was an abomination of a person, can we all agree? Now that THAT is out of the way, let’s talk card games based on a character from history named Hitler. This game is based on a historical figure, but once translated to cardstock becomes simply the target of victory. When I heard the pitch (I paraphrased by quite a bit) for Hiding Hitler I immediately winced, as the subject matter makes me wince. But I took a chance on the game, and I am here to let you know that it will be okay, this is merely a card game, but if you are offended by the subject matter, please check out any of our other reviews that contain zero references to horrible people.
Hiding Hitler is a hand management, take that card game for four to six players. In it, players are trying to end the game with either the Hitler card in their hand or the Death token in their possession. The game is played over a series of turns and ends once the final turn has been taken, following the draw of the final card from the draw deck.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and deal six cards to each player. Set the draw deck in the middle of the table, along with the other components. The left of the deck is considered the “Graveyard” and the right side of the deck is the “Action Pile.” Depending on the game mode chosen to play, the Hitler card may be in one of the players’ hands (Blitzkrieg mode – faster because Hitler is already in one player’s hand) or possibly in the draw deck (Strategic mode – slower if Hitler starts in the draw deck). The first player is now able to begin taking their turn and the hunt (or hiding) of Hitler may begin!
On a turn a player may play any amount of Action, Attack, or Instant cards from their hand, resolved one at a time. Action cards are just that: cards that allow for some type of action, be it drawing more cards, or having the entire table draw more cards. Attacks are targeted at a specific player and that player will need to roll the die in order to achieve the Attack card’s victory condition. For example, the Attack card may instruct the attacked to roll higher than value 2 on the die. If they beat that number nothing happens. However, should they roll a 1 (or simply not meet the number on the card) the failing player will need to discard Hitler to the Graveyard if they have it, or discard any other card to the Action Pile. Finally, Instant cards can be played AT ANY TIME, even if not on the player’s turn. These can negate actions or modify die/roll results. Once a player has no more cards to play (or cards they wish to play), the turn ends by drawing one card from the draw deck. It is now the next player’s turn.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns playing cards from their hands to attack each other, bolster their hands, and affect each other in various ways until the last card is drawn from the deck. This signifies one final turn for all players. When the final turns are over the winning player is they who either have the Hitler card in hand, or was the last player to send Hitler to the Graveyard, thus collecting the Death token. This winner may now awkwardly congratulate themselves on winning a card game based on eliminating or Hiding Hitler. Yay?
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so the components may be different as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a bunch of cards, a small die, and a plastic token with Hitler stickers. The cards are all fine, the die is a smaller size than your typical RPG set, and the plastic standee token is fine as well. I do need to address the art style on the cards. It is quite cartoony and really isn’t my style, but for this type of game it works just fine. I am not really excited by it at all, but there is nothing gruesome or triggery in the artwork. FOR ME. I do not speak for everyone though, so if you have issues with it, you are more than entitled to your opinions.
It is difficult to review, or even play for that matter, a game with such an emotionally charged central character. However, this is meant to be a lighthearted card game with a wonky theme. And it most certainly is that. Players are playing as many cards as they dare trying to find out where that Hitler card is residing so they may Attack and send it to the Graveyard. This earns the Death token. But can you hold onto that token until the end of the game? Depending on how far through the deck the game currently is, other players still may have chances to bring the Hitler card back to life. When this happens that Death token is surrendered and available to be earned again. I like that. Now, obviously, the whole zombie thing is weird, but the game is weird in itself, so that fits. Want to throw some achievements into your game? See how many times a player can send Hitler to the Graveyard. You can do that, and it would be a fun way to spice up the game for everyone.
At the end of the day, again, this is a card game with a Hitler theme. In it, Hitler really doesn’t DO anything. He just hangs out in players’ hands, gets sent to the Graveyard, possibly is resurrected, and the cycle continues until the end of the game. The theme may be off-putting for some, but I have no problems with it after having played it several times now. I cannot stress this enough: if you or any of your playmates MAY be offended by the theme, please do not pull this out at game night. It works best with players who can see it and appreciate it for what it is.
Now that the disclaimers are hopefully done, I can explain what this reminds me of, and give you some thoughts. Have you played Munchkin before? You know the part of the game (which we lovingly refer to as “the second half”) where one player is on 9th level attempting to win the game and everyone is ganging up on them to prevent the victory? Hiding Hitler feels a little like that scenario, but throughout the entire game. So many cards can be played on one turn and some cards are played out of turn to increase or decrease the die rolls, and when all players know exactly who has Hitler and they gang up on that player, it’s just Munchkin all over. Now, I feel like here in Hiding Hitler it doesn’t seem to be SO hurtful toward other players as it is in Munchkin, but I get that same vibe. It should be restated that I like Munchkin, so comping this to that game doesn’t necessarily mean it is at all a bad thing. It just gives me that same feeling.
So if you are looking for a possibly quicker and smaller card game to replace your copy of Munchkin, then check out Hiding Hitler. Yes, this is SUPER niche with the gameplay and theme, but with the right crowd I do believe it would be a hit. It has its flaws, but does also offer a rewarding gaming experience that I think about for hours after the game is over. When games can create lasting fond memories of the experience, then it has graduated into a good game. And I think Hiding Hitler is a good game. If you like the sounds of this one, I invite you to consider backing it on Kickstarter when the campaign launches. Find some friends ahead of time that may be into the theme, or can look past it, and prepare them for what is about to come: a game about keeping Hitler safe. Or murdering him. Either way.
Hiding Hitler is a hand management, take that card game for four to six players. In it, players are trying to end the game with either the Hitler card in their hand or the Death token in their possession. The game is played over a series of turns and ends once the final turn has been taken, following the draw of the final card from the draw deck.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and deal six cards to each player. Set the draw deck in the middle of the table, along with the other components. The left of the deck is considered the “Graveyard” and the right side of the deck is the “Action Pile.” Depending on the game mode chosen to play, the Hitler card may be in one of the players’ hands (Blitzkrieg mode – faster because Hitler is already in one player’s hand) or possibly in the draw deck (Strategic mode – slower if Hitler starts in the draw deck). The first player is now able to begin taking their turn and the hunt (or hiding) of Hitler may begin!
On a turn a player may play any amount of Action, Attack, or Instant cards from their hand, resolved one at a time. Action cards are just that: cards that allow for some type of action, be it drawing more cards, or having the entire table draw more cards. Attacks are targeted at a specific player and that player will need to roll the die in order to achieve the Attack card’s victory condition. For example, the Attack card may instruct the attacked to roll higher than value 2 on the die. If they beat that number nothing happens. However, should they roll a 1 (or simply not meet the number on the card) the failing player will need to discard Hitler to the Graveyard if they have it, or discard any other card to the Action Pile. Finally, Instant cards can be played AT ANY TIME, even if not on the player’s turn. These can negate actions or modify die/roll results. Once a player has no more cards to play (or cards they wish to play), the turn ends by drawing one card from the draw deck. It is now the next player’s turn.
Play continues in this fashion of players taking turns playing cards from their hands to attack each other, bolster their hands, and affect each other in various ways until the last card is drawn from the deck. This signifies one final turn for all players. When the final turns are over the winning player is they who either have the Hitler card in hand, or was the last player to send Hitler to the Graveyard, thus collecting the Death token. This winner may now awkwardly congratulate themselves on winning a card game based on eliminating or Hiding Hitler. Yay?
Components. Again, this is a prototype version of the game, so the components may be different as a result of a successful Kickstarter campaign. That said, this game is a bunch of cards, a small die, and a plastic token with Hitler stickers. The cards are all fine, the die is a smaller size than your typical RPG set, and the plastic standee token is fine as well. I do need to address the art style on the cards. It is quite cartoony and really isn’t my style, but for this type of game it works just fine. I am not really excited by it at all, but there is nothing gruesome or triggery in the artwork. FOR ME. I do not speak for everyone though, so if you have issues with it, you are more than entitled to your opinions.
It is difficult to review, or even play for that matter, a game with such an emotionally charged central character. However, this is meant to be a lighthearted card game with a wonky theme. And it most certainly is that. Players are playing as many cards as they dare trying to find out where that Hitler card is residing so they may Attack and send it to the Graveyard. This earns the Death token. But can you hold onto that token until the end of the game? Depending on how far through the deck the game currently is, other players still may have chances to bring the Hitler card back to life. When this happens that Death token is surrendered and available to be earned again. I like that. Now, obviously, the whole zombie thing is weird, but the game is weird in itself, so that fits. Want to throw some achievements into your game? See how many times a player can send Hitler to the Graveyard. You can do that, and it would be a fun way to spice up the game for everyone.
At the end of the day, again, this is a card game with a Hitler theme. In it, Hitler really doesn’t DO anything. He just hangs out in players’ hands, gets sent to the Graveyard, possibly is resurrected, and the cycle continues until the end of the game. The theme may be off-putting for some, but I have no problems with it after having played it several times now. I cannot stress this enough: if you or any of your playmates MAY be offended by the theme, please do not pull this out at game night. It works best with players who can see it and appreciate it for what it is.
Now that the disclaimers are hopefully done, I can explain what this reminds me of, and give you some thoughts. Have you played Munchkin before? You know the part of the game (which we lovingly refer to as “the second half”) where one player is on 9th level attempting to win the game and everyone is ganging up on them to prevent the victory? Hiding Hitler feels a little like that scenario, but throughout the entire game. So many cards can be played on one turn and some cards are played out of turn to increase or decrease the die rolls, and when all players know exactly who has Hitler and they gang up on that player, it’s just Munchkin all over. Now, I feel like here in Hiding Hitler it doesn’t seem to be SO hurtful toward other players as it is in Munchkin, but I get that same vibe. It should be restated that I like Munchkin, so comping this to that game doesn’t necessarily mean it is at all a bad thing. It just gives me that same feeling.
So if you are looking for a possibly quicker and smaller card game to replace your copy of Munchkin, then check out Hiding Hitler. Yes, this is SUPER niche with the gameplay and theme, but with the right crowd I do believe it would be a hit. It has its flaws, but does also offer a rewarding gaming experience that I think about for hours after the game is over. When games can create lasting fond memories of the experience, then it has graduated into a good game. And I think Hiding Hitler is a good game. If you like the sounds of this one, I invite you to consider backing it on Kickstarter when the campaign launches. Find some friends ahead of time that may be into the theme, or can look past it, and prepare them for what is about to come: a game about keeping Hitler safe. Or murdering him. Either way.
