The Terror
Jan. 29th, 2009 05:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueI've just finished reading The Terror by Dan Simmons.
I'd say it was a good book, but not quite what I was looking for.
To start with, it's very well written. It's ... referenced to history, and it's very clear that Simmons has done his home work - the 'feel' of the arctic expedition is very clear, sharp and precise. His background on the Esquimaux and Inuits are also... well, feel like they're real. (Although it took me a couple of misparses to connect Esquimaux with the "Eskimos" I'm used to)
Anyway. The story tells the tale of the Terror and Erebus, and their arctic expedition to find the North West passage through the ice, under the command of Francis Crozier, and John Franklin. References at the back strongly suggest (although I haven't actually checked) that this was real expedition - the novel thus explores and semi-fictionalises 'what happened'.
As with all Simmons stuff, it is very well written - as much art as story - and it feels like a firsthand account, that you'd be able to piece together from a historian's point of view - there's several points of view adopted, and a couple of them 'feel like' and read like someone's journal, and others adopt difference stances.
Despite all that though, I have to day I didn't really get along with it. The characterisation and atmosphere are evocative, but the plot feels largely unsatisfying. The story itself seems like there's ... well, I don't want to spoiler, but the last third of the book or so shifts significantly in context and focus, and builds heavily on an element earlier in the story that was given little weight. I think either would have worked as standalone novels, but being stuck together leaves the whole thing feeling somewhat disjointed.
I both would and wouldn't recommend it - it's really great for the atmosphere and feel of an arctic expedition, and also the ... 'almost historical' presentation of the expedition. That wasn't quite what I was looking for.
I'd say it was a good book, but not quite what I was looking for.
To start with, it's very well written. It's ... referenced to history, and it's very clear that Simmons has done his home work - the 'feel' of the arctic expedition is very clear, sharp and precise. His background on the Esquimaux and Inuits are also... well, feel like they're real. (Although it took me a couple of misparses to connect Esquimaux with the "Eskimos" I'm used to)
Anyway. The story tells the tale of the Terror and Erebus, and their arctic expedition to find the North West passage through the ice, under the command of Francis Crozier, and John Franklin. References at the back strongly suggest (although I haven't actually checked) that this was real expedition - the novel thus explores and semi-fictionalises 'what happened'.
As with all Simmons stuff, it is very well written - as much art as story - and it feels like a firsthand account, that you'd be able to piece together from a historian's point of view - there's several points of view adopted, and a couple of them 'feel like' and read like someone's journal, and others adopt difference stances.
Despite all that though, I have to day I didn't really get along with it. The characterisation and atmosphere are evocative, but the plot feels largely unsatisfying. The story itself seems like there's ... well, I don't want to spoiler, but the last third of the book or so shifts significantly in context and focus, and builds heavily on an element earlier in the story that was given little weight. I think either would have worked as standalone novels, but being stuck together leaves the whole thing feeling somewhat disjointed.
I both would and wouldn't recommend it - it's really great for the atmosphere and feel of an arctic expedition, and also the ... 'almost historical' presentation of the expedition. That wasn't quite what I was looking for.
