Book Review retcon

I got the sequel to this one over Christmas but it's been a couple of years so a re-read was in order. It's the first of a second trilogy in the Peculiar series. I remember being kind of hard on this book when I first read it. I was still reeling from the emotional rollercoaster ride of the series I'd finished prior to reading it, so it just wasn't sitting right with me. It's crazy how books can effect you like that.. 😄. But after reading it again I can see how well planned it was this time around. There are still a couple of tedious moments of America bashing for a plot point. (A plot point with holes because sometimes it's more important to prove you're cool by being lazy than to make sense... so tiresome...) But overall it's not the copy of other hidden world fantasies that I remember it being. It's not over dramatic...  that was my own emotional state, lol. And and all of the elements that built up to the end were not as slow as I recalled either. The world needed to be tweaked, reconstructed and expanded in more detail in order to move forward from the original premise. I'd also completely forgotten the ending so I would've been lost if I'd just started the sequel. 

Lesson here: there's always an advantage to re-reading.

Book Review

The Man In The Iron Mask, Alexander Dumas

Disappointing, but probably not in the way most people would be disappointed. I get it, that this is the swan song of the Musketeers. I wasn't even bothered by Porthos and Athos deaths. Porthos' death was actually pretty magnificent and heroic and just how one would expect it. Athos' was very sad and tragic, but it made sense. But D'Artagnan's death just seemed mean on the part of Dumas. Why do him that way? He's the protagonist and the only one with any sense. I actually expected all of them to die so I was even a little disappointed that Aramis lived.

But what bothers me about this is what bothered me about The Three Musketeers. I don't understand how the respect is won by the characters who were clearly the antagonists throughout the book. Richelieu in the Musketeers, and the king and Colbert in particular in this one. I chalked it up to my ignorance of French history since the narrative is tangled with real historical figures like the royalty. But twice in a row? Maybe it's just that the characters are all too damned honorable for their own good. Especially Fouqet.

Then there's the matter of loose ends. No follow up on Phillipe, who was pushed into the coup to begin with. I felt bad for him and he becomes a throwaway character after the first almost third of the book is devoted to becoming invested in him and his life story. And we never find out Madame de la Valliere's reasons for becoming the royal consort when she loved Raoul. Reasons that would have made her a more sympathic figure presumably. Or maybe I was expecting something that Dumas never intended to give. Rather that she was predicting that she would fall out of favor one day and that's why she'd be pitied. I don't know. 

Anyway, what a bummer. I'll just stick with the first book. At least it was fun even when it didn't make sense. The writing is spectacular though. Hard to put down. Loved the old characters while they lasted.