Jump to content
Scott de Montevideo!

Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn/The Heart of what was Lost/The Last King of Osten Ard

Recommended Posts

I'm somewhat confused. Tad's page says the book is out to day yet amazon claims it is only out on the 29th. What's true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another glowing review by sffworld.com claiming

Quote

The Witchwood Crown is a weighty, emotional, and engrossing launch to The Last King of Osten Ard. It is a novel that requires patience, but rewards that patience greatly. It touches on a range of emotions from loss to friendship to fear to anger.  It is nearly everything I hoped it would be in a return to a beloved world and characters, the launch of a trilogy, and a novel written by Tad Williams. I was overjoyed to return to this world, the characters, and the type of story Tad Williams tells with the most skill and gusto.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Aidan loves it as well:

The Witchwood Crown Is a Triumphant Return to a Beloved Fantasy World

Quote

Williams’ prose, characterization, and worldbuilding are top-notch, as always, and the return to Osten Ard is so seamless, it is difficult to believe that 30 years have passed since the story began. Like Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, The Last King of Osten Ard is shaping up to be an exploration of what happens to people—on a personal, societal, and political level—in the aftermath of war. Williams’ injects The Witchwood Crown with the same aged and thoughtful writing that gave the original trilogy its trademark air of melancholy, creating a lovely sense of reverberation for those of us who’ve grown up—and grown old—in this world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That URL doesn't work; here it is, fixed.

Quote

Considering the the lasting legacy of Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, and the long wait for its fans, it’s easy to call the release of The Witchwood Crown the epic fantasy event of the year. It’s also difficult to think of a better novel released so far in 2017.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a big problem with an established, respected reviewer like Pat to have a strongly negative reaction to a property, even if it's highly respected by most other peers. He clearly disliked the hell out of it, and a lot of others clearly liked the hell out of it. MST is about as good as it gets for me, personally, from start to finish. Many posters here disliked its pacing or saccharine epilogue. Pat has said he enjoyed the first series very much. I don't think he was personally trying to torpedo Williams' new work or anything. He just didn't like it, and let that be known.

In any medium, fans are going to have varied opinions, as are reviewers. Subjectivity is inherently illogical. I have read and re-read and mostly adored the hell out of Robin Hobb's work, but I absolutely think the Fitz and the Fool series is awful in every way. Most here love it, I don't know why I could hardly finish the first two and can't be bothered to finish the third. I loathe mushrooms, but I use cream of mushroom soup for one of my favorite recipes. I am among about twenty people in the world that really enjoyed the John Carter movie. 

Anyway, my apologies for an off-topic, whisky inspired ramble, but I'm quite excited to get this in the mail. I hope it's a tome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully we'll be able to soon shift from the marketing tactics employed by a select few to actual conversation regarding the novel's flaws and virtues. 

I know this is all to counter the early bad buzz of pat's, but it's annoying nonethless--if every upcoming release had this sort of shilling, this forum wouldn't be worth visiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

To be fair to pat, there have been certain highly praised beloved Pulitzer prize winning books that I found to be complete shit.

But yeah he's probably crazy. :P

I tend to prefer Booker Prize winners and nominees to Pulitzer winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kuenjato said:

Hopefully we'll be able to soon shift from the marketing tactics employed by a select few to actual conversation regarding the novel's flaws and virtues. 

I know this is all to counter the early bad buzz of pat's, but it's annoying nonethless--if every upcoming release had this sort of shilling, this forum wouldn't be worth visiting.

Since this seems to be directed at me, I'll respond.

Those of us who read the book early discussed some of the merits and flaws of The Witchwood Crown.

I posted several reviews of The Witchwood Crown in response to Pat's assertion, in this very thread, that "ARCs were sent out well over two months ago, and yet there are only 2 reviews out there. Given that there is no embargo and that Goodreads reviewers usually don't give a shit and post their reviews immediately, I'm afraid that I might not the be the only person feeling underwhelmed by TWC and don't want to piss in people's cereals. A lack of reviews this late in the game is usually an indication that the book isn't that good."

That statement, made in April, implied that many reviewers didn't like TWC. I pointed out reviews and have now been accused of "shilling" and "marketing". Sorry you were annoyed by the posting of reviews of the book; were you equally annoyed by someone mentioning the lack of reviews as evidence that the novel isn't good?

The fact is: reviews have been very positive. Back in April, Pat stated that a lack of reviews indicated that reviewers didn't like the book. We know now that isn't true. Further, I still wonder what the heck Pat read. It wasn't The Witchwood Crown; he's stated either in his review or here that the novel had more POVs than all of ASOIAF (it doesn't), that there are two Talon POV characters (there aren't), that someone falls down the stairs (heh... hardly), that "a brother is reunited with his sister" (that doesn't happen), etc, etc. Pointing out the flaws in someone's review isn't "shilling"; pointing out reviews in response to someone stating there are no reviews isn't "marketing". If the only thing that's allowed is a negative review, this forum wouldn't be worth visiting.

 

 

Edited by Jiriki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

I don't see a big problem with an established, respected reviewer like Pat to have a strongly negative reaction to a property, even if it's highly respected by most other peers

I agree: nothing wrong with a negative review; it's his opinion. But... Pat went further than that. He claimed here on this forum that reviewers weren't reviewing the book because they didn't like it. That kind of speculation, that the book is universally disliked and that's why there are no reviews, veers into the "torpedoing" category, in my opinion. 

11 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

. I don't think he was personally trying to torpedo Williams' new work or anything. He just didn't like it, and let that be known.

Well... Pat also claimed here in this thread that he was censored on TadWilliams.com for "posting a negative review". Near as I can tell, Pat isn't really a member of that community; he hadn't posted on that message board in years, and his last posts, from 2012 and 2013, were of the "link to my site" variety. He'd been asked not to do that, but has done it for years

I hope you enjoy The Witchwood Crown as much as I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note that discussing the happenings on other forums and other websites is against board policy. Discussing reviews is valid, dragging up previous complaints on other message boards and linking them is frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jiriki said:

Since this seems to be directed at me, I'll respond.

Those of us who read the book early discussed some of the merits and flaws of The Witchwood Crown.

I posted several reviews of The Witchwood Crown in response to Pat's assertion, in this very thread, that "ARCs were sent out well over two months ago, and yet there are only 2 reviews out there. Given that there is no embargo and that Goodreads reviewers usually don't give a shit and post their reviews immediately, I'm afraid that I might not the be the only person feeling underwhelmed by TWC and don't want to piss in people's cereals. A lack of reviews this late in the game is usually an indication that the book isn't that good."

That statement, made in April, implied that many reviewers didn't like TWC. I pointed out reviews and have now been accused of "shilling" and "marketing". Sorry you were annoyed by the posting of reviews of the book; were you equally annoyed by someone mentioning the lack of reviews as evidence that the novel isn't good?

The fact is: reviews have been very positive. Back in April, Pat stated that a lack of reviews indicated that reviewers didn't like the book. We know now that isn't true. Further, I still wonder what the heck Pat read. It wasn't The Witchwood Crown; he's stated either in his review or here that the novel had more POVs than all of ASOIAF (it doesn't), that there are two Talon POV characters (there aren't), that someone falls down the stairs (heh... hardly), that "a brother is reunited with his sister" (that doesn't happen), etc, etc. Pointing out the flaws in someone's review isn't "shilling"; pointing out reviews in response to someone stating there are no reviews isn't "marketing". If the only thing that's allowed is a negative review, this forum wouldn't be worth visiting.

 

 

Good thing you and ylvs aren't Bakker shills. Your heads would have long since exploded. And my comment stands... Posting a couple reviews in contrast to pat's is fine. This ongoing campaign feels like marketing spam. I write this as a fan of MST and a member of the board from the ez boad days (around 2000).

Stuff like the Reddit chat are more appropriate ways of promoting the author/book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm closing in on page 100. So far it is pretty interesting. There is one letdown, though.

Spoiler

It looks like Hakatri is dead.

The drunkard grandson is funny. The overall take 'we have more pressing concerns' or 'we can't do anything about that right now' not so much. Simon and Miri rule this land. They should at least try to do something. Or plan to eventually do something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×