Kameron Hurley, The Mirror Empire

[Larry.]

This epic fantasy opener from the recent Hugo-winning writer Kameron Hurley seems to be getting some attention from online reviewers, so I thought I'd make a post here. I reviewed it myself last week and while my review is rather negative, I think there are probably enough elements to like within it to appeal to many readers here.

So who here has read it? If you have, what are your general impressions about the setup, the storylines, and the prose? Probably need to use spoiler tags for specific details.

[SkynJay]

I liked it quite a bit. I liked the set up and loved the detail she put into the various facets of the world in order to keep them consistent; down to and including small changes in basic language conventions. I think Hurley's attention to detail is tremendous. It is getting compared some to Ancillary Justice (another book I know you were not fond of Larry) because of some interesting gender dynamics, but much like that story I felt there was so much more going on. Multiple worlds, seeing the same character living under completely different rules, carnivorous mobile plants.

What didn't work for me was the basic set up of mirrored worlds. I think Hurley was consistent and didn't find a single instant where she contradicted her own rules BUT I didn't really buy all her rules. Or rather, I over thought them at times and just didn't see them working. But if you take it at face value and trust her then this really isn't an issue.

It won't really be a favorite book of mine, nor one that sticks with me for a long time; like many 'big idea' books it isn't one I connect with and there isn't a character that I want to read about over and over. But, as I said, still pretty damn good.

[Serious Callers Only]

It felt boring. I chucked it.

[Seli]

I am only 2 chapters in, so a bit early to comment yet. Although it is the first novel I've started to read this close to publication in years.

[Larry.]

I liked it quite a bit. I liked the set up and loved the detail she put into the various facets of the world in order to keep them consistent; down to and including small changes in basic language conventions. I think Hurley's attention to detail is tremendous. It is getting compared some to Ancillary Justice (another book I know you were not fond of Larry) because of some interesting gender dynamics, but much like that story I felt there was so much more going on. Multiple worlds, seeing the same character living under completely different rules, carnivorous mobile plants.

What didn't work for me was the basic set up of mirrored worlds. I think Hurley was consistent and didn't find a single instant where she contradicted her own rules BUT I didn't really buy all her rules. Or rather, I over thought them at times and just didn't see them working. But if you take it at face value and trust her then this really isn't an issue.

It won't really be a favorite book of mine, nor one that sticks with me for a long time; like many 'big idea' books it isn't one I connect with and there isn't a character that I want to read about over and over. But, as I said, still pretty damn good.

You're right, I didn't like AJ and for many of the same reasons: the prose. I like inventive stories, ones with "big ideas," but if they aren't presented as well as they could have been and I notice it, it does cause me in many cases to not like the book that much. That being said, her "ideas" were enough to keep me reading beyond the first 50 pages or so, as those were the worst in the book. But I could see others liking it much more than I did, depending on how much value they place upon ideas and setting compared to prose and characterization.

[Zorral]

It felt boring. I chucked it.

:agree:

[thistlepong]

Wow. No. This book was crazy good. I didn't find the opening chapters disorienting. Or at least not any more than I did with The Blade Itself or A Game of Thrones. The new world gauntlet is the price of admission. A quarter of the way through I could barely stop.

[Larry.]

Glad some enjoyed it much more than I did.

[Pecan]

I didn't read the entire review, but I read enough to know that I'm not especially interested. I guess I like my fantasy novels to not be too fantastic in their world building. I'm looking for Planetos or some similar template that has at least has some rough parallels to real history on the real planet that I currently live on. When things start getting too crazy with elaborate systems of magic, or fork-tongued bears, it's hard for me to buy in and suspend my disbelief. GRRM has spoiled me I guess.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah, GRRM's dragons are way more true to real life.

[peterbound]

Things you need to suspend disbelief in GRRM novels:

Undead supernatural beings with swords made of ice

Zombie hoard that is controlled by said supernatural beings

Human sized Wolfhound who are telepathically bounded to their owners.

Shape shifting assassins from a far off land

Shadow beings brought forth to do evil sorceresses bidding

Magic swords

Talking trees that drink blood

Giant Fucking DRAGONS

The ability to look into the future

Giants

Reptile controlling horns

Unicorns

Did i mention the fucking DRAGONS?

Don't kid yourself. George is well entrenched in the fantasy genre, and loves him some tropes. Just because he's the original Lord Grimdark, and is very..very loosely basing /some/ of the shit on the war of the roses, doesn't mean he can't be nerdy as hell.

[RedEyedGhost]

Wow. No. This book was crazy good. I didn't find the opening chapters disorienting. Or at least not any more than I did with The Blade Itself or A Game of Thrones. The new world gauntlet is the price of admission. A quarter of the way through I could barely stop.

I'm glad to hear that. I'm really looking forward to this book, although I probably won't get to it until November.

[Darth Richard II]

Bitch puh lease, Glen Cook is the original Lord Grimdark!

[Pecan]

Things you need to suspend disbelief in GRRM novels:

Undead supernatural beings with swords made of ice

Zombie hoard that is controlled by said supernatural beings

Human sized Wolfhound who are telepathically bounded to their owners.

Shape shifting assassins from a far off land

Shadow beings brought forth to do evil sorceresses bidding

Magic swords

Talking trees that drink blood

Giant Fucking DRAGONS

The ability to look into the future

Giants

Reptile controlling horns

Unicorns

Did i mention the fucking DRAGONS?

Don't kid yourself. George is well entrenched in the fantasy genre, and loves him some tropes. Just because he's the original Lord Grimdark, and is very..very loosely basing /some/ of the shit on the war of the roses, doesn't mean he can't be nerdy as hell.

Thanks for letting me know what's in the books, since I obviously haven't read them.

All I'm saying is that for me, it works better when all of that stuff is layered on a world that is somewhat recognizable. It's just my opinion is all.

[peterbound]

Thanks for letting me know what's in the books, since I obviously haven't read them.

All I'm saying is that for me, it works better when all of that stuff is layered on a world that is somewhat recognizable. It's just my opinion is all.

So, you're reading fantasy and sci fi for their basis in reality?

You seem conflicted, fella.

As stated above, I'm having a hard time understanding how Georgie is 'layered on a world that is somewhat recognizable'. Did I mention the fucking dragons? What makes his little creation 'somewhat recognizable?' The feudal structure? That's present in ME. The knights and squires? Again, present in ME, just called something else.

You're argument is invalid. If you want to say the book was boring (which it kind of is), that you have a strong dislike for people riding on fantastical creatures (although there are, alas, fucking dragons in george's books, also undead horses, and other crazy ass fauna), or that you hate the gender dynamics, fine. But don't wrap it in some sort of literary elitism. When you do that, you come off sounding silly.

[red snow]

I've picked this up as ebook was on offer (and was cheaper than the bel dame books which i was more interested in). It seems to be a bit divisive but I'll try and give it a go.

I also don't mind books that are initially disorientating as long as they become clear later in the book. Richard morgan used to do this pretty well where he'd be dropping words and concepts with little context but as the story progresses it becomes clear what they are. It can be a good trick, done well, to show you how different the setting is, It can be frustrating if handled poorly though.

In fairness to the dragons thing - everything in GRRMs books are recognisable (even if they don't exist). This is true of pretty much all fantasy. When people start having quadropods instead of a horse (and spend several pages describing then and their whole ecosystem), etc, etc it can become a pain. I think that kind of stuff is usually best suited to a visual medium (eg Avatar, etc) where we don't need to imagine it so much (and be taken out of the story). Maybe not a problem for people with really vivid imaginations either. I have no idea if this book goes anywhere near that far though.

Actually, Chris wooding has a far better argued case of what I'm trying to get at - just read that.

[peterbound]

I've picked this up as ebook was on offer (and was cheaper than the bel dame books which i was more interested in). It seems to be a bit divisive but I'll try and give it a go.

I also don't mind books that are initially disorientating as long as they become clear later in the book. Richard morgan used to do this pretty well where he'd be dropping words and concepts with little context but as the story progresses it becomes clear what they are. It can be a good trick, done well, to show you how different the setting is, It can be frustrating if handled poorly though.

In fairness to the dragons thing - everything in GRRMs books are recognisable (even if they don't exist). This is true of pretty much all fantasy. When people start having quadropods instead of a horse (and spend several pages describing then and their whole ecosystem), etc, etc it can become a pain. I think that kind of stuff is usually best suited to a visual medium (eg Avatar, etc) where we don't need to imagine it so much (and be taken out of the story). Maybe not a problem for people with really vivid imaginations either. I have no idea if this book goes anywhere near that far though.

Actually, Chris wooding has a far better argued case of what I'm trying to get at - just read that.

So, obviously i've read the book, I think the only big departure from the 'norm' is the transport system. That's explained pretty early on, and isn't all that ground breaking.

And the gender dynamics, but that's pretty straightforward.

[red snow]

So, obviously i've read the book, I think the only big departure from the 'norm' is the transport system. That's explained pretty early on, and isn't all that ground breaking.

And the gender dynamics, but that's pretty straightforward.

Doesn't sound that out-of-depth at all. The gender dynamics are the part that has me interested - although I suspect it'll rise or fall on whether the biology of how it works keeps me happy. Then again if it's not the be all and end all of the book I can overlook it,

[Pecan]

So, you're reading fantasy and sci fi for their basis in reality?

You seem conflicted, fella.

As stated above, I'm having a hard time understanding how Georgie is 'layered on a world that is somewhat recognizable'. Did I mention the fucking dragons? What makes his little creation 'somewhat recognizable?' The feudal structure? That's present in ME. The knights and squires? Again, present in ME, just called something else.

You're argument is invalid. If you want to say the book was boring (which it kind of is), that you have a strong dislike for people riding on fantastical creatures (although there are, alas, fucking dragons in george's books, also undead horses, and other crazy ass fauna), or that you hate the gender dynamics, fine. But don't wrap it in some sort of literary elitism. When you do that, you come off sounding silly.

It was just my opinion is all. I really wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone.

[Gaston de Foix]

I've read the book and I'm confused about how everyone is related to everyone else in the book.

In particular, a young female protagonist makes an assertion of authority near the end of the book that I just didn't understand. Someone explain, please.

The pacifist vegetarian cannibalism thing was interesting (and very relatable for me, minus the cannibalism). The gender thing seemed interesting - the polamory/polygamy seemed unrealistic.