Comments, Use of Weapons
Jul. 4th, 2015 10:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragoness_eI just finished reading the Iain M. Banks Culture novel, Use of Weapons. I am not impressed; I think the author cheated, or tacked on the twist ending (that I saw coming) at the last minute and was sloppy about editing.
If one character poses as another character for the entire book, the reader should not be getting the pre-imposture third-person limited point of view of the DEAD original character for the events prior to his death, because the impostor is not a telepath, does not have mind-prints of the original character, and has no way of knowing what was going on in the original character's head in the hours leading up to the original's death, and 90% of the book has been the 3rd person limited viewpoint of what is going on in the impostor's head. It's cheating the reader to make the big reveal be that the protagonist is really this other guy who wasn't even there for those events.
The other element that displeased me is like it: the protagonist has been fighting to avoid facing some horrific memory from his past the entire story, elements of which are slowly revealed as the novel unfolds. Near the end, we find out the significance of the horrible memory: the original character's enemy did something really horrific to the original character's beloved sister (who was also the enemy's lover at one point and was being held hostage by him), and in a really dick move, sent a really nasty memento of what he did to her to the original character. Okay, I can see why the original character would have horrible repressed memories.
Then we find out that the protagonist is really the original character's enemy who did the horrible thing, and WE NEVER FIND OUT HIS MOTIVATION! Okay, he has horrible, guilty repressed memories of the atrocity he committed--but why the hell did he do it? Nah, Banks, just leave us hanging on that one. It's arty or something.
Wallbanger.
ETA: after reading other people's thoughts on the end of the book, the final point above may be more my fault than the author's. I wasn't paying attention: one of the themes throughout the book was that the protagonist would do whatever was necessary to win or survive. The horrific act he committed was a calculated atrocity to demoralize his enemy and buy some breathing room to escape, if not win outright. It worked well enough for him to escape. Yes, the protagonist is a sociopathic asshole, but hey, Banks novel. Most of his protagonists are seriously messed up.
If one character poses as another character for the entire book, the reader should not be getting the pre-imposture third-person limited point of view of the DEAD original character for the events prior to his death, because the impostor is not a telepath, does not have mind-prints of the original character, and has no way of knowing what was going on in the original character's head in the hours leading up to the original's death, and 90% of the book has been the 3rd person limited viewpoint of what is going on in the impostor's head. It's cheating the reader to make the big reveal be that the protagonist is really this other guy who wasn't even there for those events.
The other element that displeased me is like it: the protagonist has been fighting to avoid facing some horrific memory from his past the entire story, elements of which are slowly revealed as the novel unfolds. Near the end, we find out the significance of the horrible memory: the original character's enemy did something really horrific to the original character's beloved sister (who was also the enemy's lover at one point and was being held hostage by him), and in a really dick move, sent a really nasty memento of what he did to her to the original character. Okay, I can see why the original character would have horrible repressed memories.
Then we find out that the protagonist is really the original character's enemy who did the horrible thing, and WE NEVER FIND OUT HIS MOTIVATION! Okay, he has horrible, guilty repressed memories of the atrocity he committed--but why the hell did he do it? Nah, Banks, just leave us hanging on that one. It's arty or something.
Wallbanger.
ETA: after reading other people's thoughts on the end of the book, the final point above may be more my fault than the author's. I wasn't paying attention: one of the themes throughout the book was that the protagonist would do whatever was necessary to win or survive. The horrific act he committed was a calculated atrocity to demoralize his enemy and buy some breathing room to escape, if not win outright. It worked well enough for him to escape. Yes, the protagonist is a sociopathic asshole, but hey, Banks novel. Most of his protagonists are seriously messed up.
