What do you think?
Rate this book
The World of Riverside #3
The Fall of the Kings
This stunning follow-up to Ellen Kushner's cult-classic novel, "Swordspoint," is set in the same world of labyrinthine intrigue, where sharp swords and even sharper wits rule. Against a rich tapestry of artists and aristocrats, students, strumpets, and spies, a gentleman and a scholar will find themselves playing out an ancient drama destined to explode their society's smug view of itself--and reveal that sometimes the best price of uncovering history is being forced to repeat it....
The Fall of the Kings
Generations ago the last king fell, taking with him the final truths about a race of wizards who ruled at his side. But the blood of the kings runs deep in the land and its people, waiting for the coming together of two unusual men. Theron Campion, a young nobleman of royal lineage, is heir to an ancient house and a modern scandal. Tormented by his twin duties to his family and his own bright spirit, he seeks solace in the University. There he meets Basil St. Cloud, a brilliant and charismatic teacher ruled by a passion for knowledge--and a passion for the ancient kings. Of course, everyone now knows that the wizards were charlatans and the kings their dupes and puppets. Only Basil is not convinced--nor is he convinced that the city has seen its last king...
From the Trade Paperback edition
The Fall of the Kings
Generations ago the last king fell, taking with him the final truths about a race of wizards who ruled at his side. But the blood of the kings runs deep in the land and its people, waiting for the coming together of two unusual men. Theron Campion, a young nobleman of royal lineage, is heir to an ancient house and a modern scandal. Tormented by his twin duties to his family and his own bright spirit, he seeks solace in the University. There he meets Basil St. Cloud, a brilliant and charismatic teacher ruled by a passion for knowledge--and a passion for the ancient kings. Of course, everyone now knows that the wizards were charlatans and the kings their dupes and puppets. Only Basil is not convinced--nor is he convinced that the city has seen its last king...
From the Trade Paperback edition
510 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
71 people are currently reading
2046 people want to read
About the author
Ellen Kushner
138books595followersEllen Kushner weaves together multiple careers as a writer, radio host, teacher, performer and public speaker.
A graduate of Barnard College, she also attended Bryn Mawr College, and grew up in Cleveland, Ohio. She began her career in publishing as a fiction editor in New York City, but left to write her first novel Swordspoint, which has become a cult classic, hailed as the progenitor of the “mannerpunk� (or “Fantasy of Manners�) school of urban fantasy. Swordspoint was followed by Thomas the Rhymer (World Fantasy Award and the Mythopoeic Award), and two more novels in her “Riverside� series. In 2015, Thomas the Rhymer was published in the UK as part of the Gollancz “Fantasy Masterworks� line.
In addition, her short fiction appears regularly in numerous anthologies. Her stories have been translated into a wide variety of languages, including Japanese, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Latvian and Finnish.
Upon moving to Boston, she became a radio host for WGBH-FM. In 1996, she created Sound & Spirit, PRI’s award-winning national public radio series. With Ellen as host and writer, the program aired nationally until 2010; many of the original shows can now be heard archived online.
As a live stage performer, her solo spoken word works include Esther: the Feast of Masks, and The Golden Dreydl: a Klezmer ‘Nutcracker� for Chanukah (with Shirim Klezmer Orchestra). In 2008, Vital Theatre commissioned her to script a full-scale theatrical version. The Klezmer Nutcracker played to sold-out audiences in New York City, with Kushner in the role of the magical Tante Miriam.
In 2012, Kushner entered the world of audiobooks, narrating and co-producing “illuminated� versions of all three of the “Riverside� novels with SueMedia Productions for Neil Gaiman Presents at Audible.com—and winning a 2013 Audie Award for Swordspoint.
Other recent projects include the urban fantasy anthology Welcome to Bordertown (co-edited with Holly Black), and The Witches of Lublin, a musical audio drama written with Elizabeth Schwartz and Yale Strom (which one Gabriel, Gracie and Wilbur Awards in 2012). In 2015 she contributed to and oversaw the creation of the online Riverside series prequel Tremontaine for Serial Box with collaborators Joel Derfner, Alaya Dawn Johnson, Malinda Lo, Racheline Maltese and Patty Bryant.
A dauntless traveler, Ellen Kushner has been a guest of honor at conventions all over the world. She regularly teaches writing at the prestigious Clarion Workshop and the Hollins University Graduate Program in Children’s Literature.
Ellen Kushner is a co-founder and past president of the Interstitial Arts Foundation, an organization supporting work that falls between genre categories. She lives in New York City with author and educator Delia Sherman, a lot of books, airplane and theater ticket stubs, and no cats whatsoever.
A graduate of Barnard College, she also attended Bryn Mawr College, and grew up in Cleveland, Ohio. She began her career in publishing as a fiction editor in New York City, but left to write her first novel Swordspoint, which has become a cult classic, hailed as the progenitor of the “mannerpunk� (or “Fantasy of Manners�) school of urban fantasy. Swordspoint was followed by Thomas the Rhymer (World Fantasy Award and the Mythopoeic Award), and two more novels in her “Riverside� series. In 2015, Thomas the Rhymer was published in the UK as part of the Gollancz “Fantasy Masterworks� line.
In addition, her short fiction appears regularly in numerous anthologies. Her stories have been translated into a wide variety of languages, including Japanese, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Latvian and Finnish.
Upon moving to Boston, she became a radio host for WGBH-FM. In 1996, she created Sound & Spirit, PRI’s award-winning national public radio series. With Ellen as host and writer, the program aired nationally until 2010; many of the original shows can now be heard archived online.
As a live stage performer, her solo spoken word works include Esther: the Feast of Masks, and The Golden Dreydl: a Klezmer ‘Nutcracker� for Chanukah (with Shirim Klezmer Orchestra). In 2008, Vital Theatre commissioned her to script a full-scale theatrical version. The Klezmer Nutcracker played to sold-out audiences in New York City, with Kushner in the role of the magical Tante Miriam.
In 2012, Kushner entered the world of audiobooks, narrating and co-producing “illuminated� versions of all three of the “Riverside� novels with SueMedia Productions for Neil Gaiman Presents at Audible.com—and winning a 2013 Audie Award for Swordspoint.
Other recent projects include the urban fantasy anthology Welcome to Bordertown (co-edited with Holly Black), and The Witches of Lublin, a musical audio drama written with Elizabeth Schwartz and Yale Strom (which one Gabriel, Gracie and Wilbur Awards in 2012). In 2015 she contributed to and oversaw the creation of the online Riverside series prequel Tremontaine for Serial Box with collaborators Joel Derfner, Alaya Dawn Johnson, Malinda Lo, Racheline Maltese and Patty Bryant.
A dauntless traveler, Ellen Kushner has been a guest of honor at conventions all over the world. She regularly teaches writing at the prestigious Clarion Workshop and the Hollins University Graduate Program in Children’s Literature.
Ellen Kushner is a co-founder and past president of the Interstitial Arts Foundation, an organization supporting work that falls between genre categories. She lives in New York City with author and educator Delia Sherman, a lot of books, airplane and theater ticket stubs, and no cats whatsoever.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
May 23, 2021
I found this novel to have a rather dreamlike quality, where myth and reality rub up against one another in an unsettling way. But it also deals with intellectual concerns such as whether one should restrict oneself to studying the works of other scholars or dig into the archives and documents in order to come to one's own conclusions through original research. I would hope that most of us would prefer the latter. Having spent some of my working life on archival projects may have prejudiced me in this regard.
I admit that although I read Swordspoint (and rated it 4 stars) I really don't remember the details of it. I hope I am more successful at holding the details of this novel in my memory. It seems to me that Basil is Merlin to Theron's Arthur, both of them being manipulated by magic that shimmers on the edge of their comprehension. How many times do ancient patterns unexpectedly take our lives hostage, causing chaos of our otherwise satisfactory lives? Old patterns of behaviour or childhood roles may sabotage the best of us when we least anticipate it and when we may even believe them to be dealt with, ancient history. Like most myths, there is no unequivocally happy ending, but there is hope. And really, what more can a reader ask for?
Thomas Canty has provided an attractive cover, beautifully illustrating both the book's mythology and its handsome protagonist. It is reminiscent of a stained glass window. Perhaps it is meant to recreate one of Ysaud's paintings?
If you enjoyed this book, I would recommend that you try by Patricia McKillip and by Charles de Lint, both of which seem to me to have a similar atmosphere and outlook.
Book number 410 of my Science Fiction & Fantasy Reading Project.
Cross posted at my blog:
I admit that although I read Swordspoint (and rated it 4 stars) I really don't remember the details of it. I hope I am more successful at holding the details of this novel in my memory. It seems to me that Basil is Merlin to Theron's Arthur, both of them being manipulated by magic that shimmers on the edge of their comprehension. How many times do ancient patterns unexpectedly take our lives hostage, causing chaos of our otherwise satisfactory lives? Old patterns of behaviour or childhood roles may sabotage the best of us when we least anticipate it and when we may even believe them to be dealt with, ancient history. Like most myths, there is no unequivocally happy ending, but there is hope. And really, what more can a reader ask for?
Thomas Canty has provided an attractive cover, beautifully illustrating both the book's mythology and its handsome protagonist. It is reminiscent of a stained glass window. Perhaps it is meant to recreate one of Ysaud's paintings?
If you enjoyed this book, I would recommend that you try by Patricia McKillip and by Charles de Lint, both of which seem to me to have a similar atmosphere and outlook.
Book number 410 of my Science Fiction & Fantasy Reading Project.
Cross posted at my blog:
April 12, 2024
In summary: why wasn't this book as good as its forebears? .
Oh, man, I was so disappointed by this book. I wanted to like it, but in the end I just didn't, mainly because I felt a bit like the author betrayed me. We return to the world of Riverside around 40 years after "The Privilege of the Sword" (my favorite of the lot, as it was the least angsty and most fun). So all the characters I liked are either old or dead. But I soldiered on and initially it seemed like a good time was in the offing--instead of swordfighting (of which there is none), the characters are scholars at the university, and battles are fought via debate.
The beginning of this book was promising, at least to anyone who thinks academic intrigue is kind of hilarious. Several of my friends are professors or grad students, and reading this book reminded me strongly of their wry complaints about academic nonsense. I liked the idea of a book about two medieval history profs having a spat, I was cool with another gay couple, and I could mostly ignore all the overwrought hot-for-teacher imaginings of Basil's students.
But it really, REALLY went downhill after Basil and Theron get together (not a spoiler unless you didn't read the back of the book). Not because of them--on the contrary, the plot went south and ruined the fun I might have had reading about the relationship.
There were so many things about the main plot that bothered me that I've decided to make an itemized list (in no particular order):
1. The relationship is subverted and ruined by the plot. Buu. (This is forgivable since, after all, it's supposed to be the genre of epic fantasy, not romance. But I still personally disliked it.)
2. MAGIC. In Riverside! Now, don't get me wrong. I love swords & sorcery novels... but when your first two books establish an interesting world with political intrigue and physical prowess as the two sources of power, then you CAN'T just be like "OH AND NOW THERE'S MAGIC!" It felt so out of place.
3. KINGS/ROYALTY ARGH. This is the major area where I felt really betrayed by Ms Kushner, since she wrote the previous 2 books. Did she simply FORGET that her major character of the last 2 books, Alec, was against inherited power and the idea that some people are inherently born superior to other lesser humans? That he was generous to the Riversiders because, as he said, he happened to be born wealthy and they happened to be born poor, and he doesn't DESERVE it more than they do? This sort of proletariat thinking goes directly AGAINST the idea in this book that "blood will out" and that royal or noble blood really DOES make you special. I think the general idea wouldn't have bothered me so much if this story hadn't been in the same world as the other books. It would have been much, much better if the authors had simply created a new world and characters to write their story of kings and "magic of the land." This story felt like a total reversal of everything we'd been told so far about this world, and that really annoyed me.
4. All the female characters were pretty weak. Katherine was dull with age and grumpiness, Therion's sister was fun (and the only interesting female character at all) but felt right out of a video game, and everyone else... meh. MEH I SAY.
The end!
Oh, man, I was so disappointed by this book. I wanted to like it, but in the end I just didn't, mainly because I felt a bit like the author betrayed me. We return to the world of Riverside around 40 years after "The Privilege of the Sword" (my favorite of the lot, as it was the least angsty and most fun). So all the characters I liked are either old or dead. But I soldiered on and initially it seemed like a good time was in the offing--instead of swordfighting (of which there is none), the characters are scholars at the university, and battles are fought via debate.
The beginning of this book was promising, at least to anyone who thinks academic intrigue is kind of hilarious. Several of my friends are professors or grad students, and reading this book reminded me strongly of their wry complaints about academic nonsense. I liked the idea of a book about two medieval history profs having a spat, I was cool with another gay couple, and I could mostly ignore all the overwrought hot-for-teacher imaginings of Basil's students.
But it really, REALLY went downhill after Basil and Theron get together (not a spoiler unless you didn't read the back of the book). Not because of them--on the contrary, the plot went south and ruined the fun I might have had reading about the relationship.
There were so many things about the main plot that bothered me that I've decided to make an itemized list (in no particular order):
1. The relationship is subverted and ruined by the plot. Buu. (This is forgivable since, after all, it's supposed to be the genre of epic fantasy, not romance. But I still personally disliked it.)
2. MAGIC. In Riverside! Now, don't get me wrong. I love swords & sorcery novels... but when your first two books establish an interesting world with political intrigue and physical prowess as the two sources of power, then you CAN'T just be like "OH AND NOW THERE'S MAGIC!" It felt so out of place.
3. KINGS/ROYALTY ARGH. This is the major area where I felt really betrayed by Ms Kushner, since she wrote the previous 2 books. Did she simply FORGET that her major character of the last 2 books, Alec, was against inherited power and the idea that some people are inherently born superior to other lesser humans? That he was generous to the Riversiders because, as he said, he happened to be born wealthy and they happened to be born poor, and he doesn't DESERVE it more than they do? This sort of proletariat thinking goes directly AGAINST the idea in this book that "blood will out" and that royal or noble blood really DOES make you special. I think the general idea wouldn't have bothered me so much if this story hadn't been in the same world as the other books. It would have been much, much better if the authors had simply created a new world and characters to write their story of kings and "magic of the land." This story felt like a total reversal of everything we'd been told so far about this world, and that really annoyed me.
4. All the female characters were pretty weak. Katherine was dull with age and grumpiness, Therion's sister was fun (and the only interesting female character at all) but felt right out of a video game, and everyone else... meh. MEH I SAY.
The end!
March 11, 2013
This was a frustrating one! I love little more than academia in a fantasy setting, and a climactic sequence begun by a scholarly debate is sooo up my street--but what dreadful pacing it turned out to have. This book takes a pleasant road but a slow one towards its destination, and when you finally reach the book's pivotal moment it's so rushed that it's robbed of all its power. The relationship between the two leads gets so much focus, only to have its purpose shoved from "character development" to "ritual plot point" right out of give-a-damn territory.
Which is an awful shame, because I really enjoyed their chemistry for a while. I found Basil a far more engaging protagonist than Theron, though, and then Basil wandered offscreen to accomplish things without any visible effort leaving Theron the only one with a half-decent attempt at a real arc. Sigh.
Uh, also, this book sure did have a lot of dudes in it. The second half of the book does at last yield up some Women Who Actually Affect Anything That Happens, but it takes its sweet time getting there, and populates its minor cast almost entirely by men. All the significant relationships (except Theron and his sister, and that's only introduced in the book's last...eighth or so), platonic and romantic, are between men; the University's only got men in it; the minor female characters are either relatives of Theron or paraded before Theron as potential wives. ??? It was distracting!
Eeeeespecially in a society that seemed to have obligingly accepted all varieties of sexual orientation quite some time ago...it felt almost like an ornamental patriarchy. The book was more or less brushing women off to the side so it could embrace its hypermasculine hunter/hunted ritual motifs, and magic explicitly born of a bond between men. It felt less like feminism fail and more like fetish indulgence in the end, which is...fair enough, I suppose. xD They just could have done with a little more tightening up on the worldbuilding end so it didn't feel like the whole setting was in the service of "dude, that's hot."
Which is an awful shame, because I really enjoyed their chemistry for a while. I found Basil a far more engaging protagonist than Theron, though, and then Basil wandered offscreen to accomplish things without any visible effort leaving Theron the only one with a half-decent attempt at a real arc. Sigh.
Uh, also, this book sure did have a lot of dudes in it. The second half of the book does at last yield up some Women Who Actually Affect Anything That Happens, but it takes its sweet time getting there, and populates its minor cast almost entirely by men. All the significant relationships (except Theron and his sister, and that's only introduced in the book's last...eighth or so), platonic and romantic, are between men; the University's only got men in it; the minor female characters are either relatives of Theron or paraded before Theron as potential wives. ??? It was distracting!
Eeeeespecially in a society that seemed to have obligingly accepted all varieties of sexual orientation quite some time ago...it felt almost like an ornamental patriarchy. The book was more or less brushing women off to the side so it could embrace its hypermasculine hunter/hunted ritual motifs, and magic explicitly born of a bond between men. It felt less like feminism fail and more like fetish indulgence in the end, which is...fair enough, I suppose. xD They just could have done with a little more tightening up on the worldbuilding end so it didn't feel like the whole setting was in the service of "dude, that's hot."
Read
December 16, 2009Reread this, and I am even more convinced that this is part one of a larger novel. It is engaging, witty and vivid and sensory and rich, with hints of magic; it also has an enormous cast. Toward the end, rather than pulling them all together, the cast members seem to be dropped or scattered, coming to an abrupt end. The central figure, the shadowy Lord Arlen, has yet to reveal motivation or intention, and his pole star, the beautiful Theron Campion, is out for the nonce.
Would love to see Part Two!
Would love to see Part Two!
May 5, 2008
I'm puzzled by this book. I like Kushner's other work so much and this one has some of the same flowing language and nice touches of the atmosphere of her other books, but the plot is soooooo drearily slow and the protagonist so undeserving because of his apathy in the central part of the book that I just could not enjoy it. Plus the confused and strongly hinted at presence of magic seems so totally unnecessary in the world of Riverside.
August 22, 2008
Despite the claims of the jacket blurb, The Fall of the Kings is not "set in the same world of labyrinthine intrigue [as [book:Swordspoint]], where sharp swords and even sharper wits rule"--for one thing, swords hardly figure at all in The Fall of the Kings, and sharp wits end up not counting for much. Swordspoint was a "melodrama of manners"; The Fall of the Kings is an exploration of the meaning of history, culture, tradition, relationships, academia and metaphysics. Swordspoint was ultimately about intrigue and society; The Fall of the Kings is about the subversion of both by man's innate animal needs and tendencies.
What I find very interesting is that Kushner and Sherman (a married lesbian couple) have chosen to concentrate almost exclusively on male characters, male-male relationships and male privilege. There's lots of sex, lots of skin and sweat and blood, most of it involving, belonging to or dripping off of men. I'm not complaining about this; I'm a gay man, and I like hearing about gay male relationships, no matter how torrid and anguished and doomed. But it is a non-obvious choice for the authors.
In the end, The Fall of the Kings is interesting, bloody, sexy and dark. It isn't Swordspoint come again, but in some ways it might be even better.
What I find very interesting is that Kushner and Sherman (a married lesbian couple) have chosen to concentrate almost exclusively on male characters, male-male relationships and male privilege. There's lots of sex, lots of skin and sweat and blood, most of it involving, belonging to or dripping off of men. I'm not complaining about this; I'm a gay man, and I like hearing about gay male relationships, no matter how torrid and anguished and doomed. But it is a non-obvious choice for the authors.
In the end, The Fall of the Kings is interesting, bloody, sexy and dark. It isn't Swordspoint come again, but in some ways it might be even better.
May 25, 2013
Despite the two stars, and despite all the complaints I'm going to make below, I never seriously thought about not finishing The Fall of the Kings. Its best achievement: setting up its plot, making clear what kinds of things are at stake (to a degree; see below) and establishing that the current story has deep connections to the myth and history that the characters retell and uncover, without making any specific ending seem inevitable early on.
That was well done, really -- in other stories I've read that hold up legends or images from the past as some sort of mirror for the characters' interactions, it's because the climax of the current plot will repeat or invert the older narrative in ways whose predictability gives the whole story deep emotional significance. The Fall of the Kings does this differently --
Now on to my complaints!
Characters: I liked maybe four of them and didn't really care about any of them. I remember having this problem with Swordspoint, but not with The Privilege of the Sword. There is only so much I can feel sorry for a character who is an asshole because he's unhappy and misunderstood despite his massive economic privilege. There's only so much interest I can feel in a romantic relationship in which the only thing the participants like to do together is fuck. If the author then wants me to feel more sympathy to the characters because they feel intense love, I revolt.
Yes, The Fall of the Kings does go deeper into those things (especially ), but I think that the story does basically depend on the id-appeal of Irrationally Passionate Assholes. This doesn't work for me very well, but obviously it does for a lot of readers. Which is important, because...
Political intrigue: This novel has a lot of political intrigue in it! And the fact that sympathetic characters are necessary to the political intrigue element is another thing I really didn't like. It's probably not fair of me to take this out on The Fall of the Kings because it's true of so many other books, particularly in the fantasy genre: the politics in the political intrigue is all about people -- families, relationships, characters in fact -- instead of about policy. When the reader learns anything related to policy, it's vague and in the service of characterization. You know how this works: here's so-and-so rich person at home, how charming s/he is to the spouse and children and how generous to the servants! Would clearly be a better administrator (and definitely better for the plebs) than the current office-holder, who is mean to his/her family and beats the servants.
In this story there's a moment that perfectly encapsulates this annoyance of mine -- Theron Campion, not quite in his right mind, complains that the head of his family, Duchess Tremontaine, doesn't really understand what's important, because she spends all her time working on dull things like taxes and never thinks about The Land. Never mind that Theron himself has zero sober-reality-based concrete understanding of the land or The Land or anything of the sort. Taxes! What on earth have they got to do with government, right? ... and while the Duchess is one of the very few characters in this story whom I actually personally like, I'm frustrated that nobody within or without the narrative seems to have any interest in telling me what her tax policy is so I can decide whether I like her politically too, because those are different things.
In The Fall of the Kings we have a nation ruled by a council of hereditary aristocrats, which was once also ruled by hereditary kings with some mysterious relationship to wizards. A few aristocrats are concerned by a small popular movement, which may or may not have any influence, to restore the monarchy. The aristocratic version of history says: the last kings were corrupt and worse than useless in various vague ways, so we got rid of them and are better off now. The monarchists say: the king had a magical relationship with The Land, and The Land is suffering for lack of a king, which is why we are having famines etc. The aristocrats say: famines aren't that uncommon in your part of the country, also magic doesn't exist.
It's impossible for the reader to make any kind of informed choice between the sides. We don't know how the aristocrats govern -- presumably, given the wealth disparity, not as well as they or a different government could, but there's no real information about this. And as for how a restored monarchy would govern -- the historical record preserved by the aristocrats suggests badly, of course, but the monarchists themselves seem unable or unmotivated to present an alternate version; apparently they haven't thought farther than the restoration itself. In the absence of actual information about their policies, and since none of these people is even remotely likeable (and we don't get even a minor viewpoint character to sympathize with inside the monarchist group), I'm left hoping for rocks to fall on all of them, leaving a power vacuum that could be filled by, say, a workers' party.
Intellectual history: I think I know what party I'm supposed to be rooting for, though, and why the authors don't give a lot of reason to care for the aristocrats or the monarchists. The political intrigue really serves to cast its suspicious lights on the actual center of the plot, which is -- ancient historian Basil St. Cloud's search for Truth. Here we have a young professor who's frustrated by the official version of the era of kings, intent on looking behind the accepted narratives and discovering what really happened. He's painfully (perhaps deliberately) naive about the political implications of his research; his only official opinion of the current administration is that it's wrong to limit academic freedom. Meanwhile, the monarchists are faithfully attending his lectures, and some of the aristocrats get more worried when St. Cloud begins a relationship with the unpredictable heir of one of the most powerful aristocratic families (which is also descended from the old kings). But to St. Cloud, all that matters is his research and his lover. It's not aristocrats vs. monarchists to him; it's truth & beauty & love vs. irritating obstacles.
And in a way, I like what the authors are doing with this particular conflict. They bring it to the center and then they complicate it -- because not only can't St. Cloud keep studying and loving without outside interference, he also finds it impossible to devote himself purely to those two aims. They hinder each other, and sometimes they help each other and that turns out to be even more worrying. And, of course, historical truth is inevitably political; sometimes, not acknowledging that makes everything worse. What happens to St. Cloud ... I found it a rather good metaphor for the perils of obsessive and isolated studying.
But I couldn't properly enjoy this because the academic/societal-worldbuilding context of St. Cloud's pursuit of the truth is a mess.
Maybe I'm being unfair here? I see that Delia Sherman has a PhD in Renaissance Studies. Surely that means she knows way more intellectual history than I do, that she has poetic license here, that when she plays around with religion and skepticism, empiricism and authority, rearranging their connections to one another, she knows what's she's doing. Maybe she's making a big beautiful plausible pattern. Maybe she's making a horrible snarly knot on purpose for readers to have fun pulling at.
But there really were things here that I found very jarring. First, other magisters who support St. Cloud say explicitly, consciously, that his work challenges the status quo not only because it makes a new argument about the kings and wizards, but because of its methodology. They use the word methodology. They also use the words empiricism, documentary evidence, data (to mean qualitative information about history, not a collection of numbers). They use them with a cheerful assurance that I don't think English-speakers in this universe achieved until the nineteenth century, and they use them to complain about, basically, straw men. St. Cloud's academic nemesis, Roger Crabbe, is worldly and ambitious; the governors of the university who worry about St. Cloud's radical ideas are also aristocrats who have obvious political interest in not taking his ideas about kings and magic seriously. These are such good motives to defend the historiographical status quo that, perhaps, the authors didn't worry overmuch about showing why Crabbe's own methods have enough merit to be taken seriously by, apparently, the entire university through its entire history, except for St. Cloud and a few friends.
It's so easy to interpret these passages as the writing of someone who never got much deeper into European Renaissance intellectual history than the story of how bold scientist Galileo was martyred by the reactionary Church for daring to reason out something that contradicted sacred tradition. It looks so simple when all you have is this story. On one side there are the men of reason, who seem to have birthed themselves out of some god's skull with scientific method ready in hand. On the other, the men of tradition, who use their brains solely to memorize and paraphrase the wisdom of the ancients. But, of course, it was a lot more complicated than that; for starters, if I'm remembering my lessons correctly, the great founders of modern science often paid homage to, took inspiration from, and even believed they were continuing the work of those ancient authorities. There was a debate about methodology but I don't think the sides were so clearly drawn, the terms so established; I don't think there was so much jargon about it then. This was a time (so the OED tells me) when poets used "science" to mean an attribute of an omniscient God, as well as the practice of human seekers of truth.
But then, of course, there's one final twist that makes me suspect that the authors do get what's wrong about the simple Galileo-vs-the-Church story, and are just having a big cosmic laugh at a world whose intellectual history they have deliberately twisted up into all sorts of fancy bows:
I can't really tell if this is on purpose, though, which means one of three things about The Fall of the Kings: (a) I didn't get it; (b) it's a hopeless muddle [like this review, I fear]; (c) it's the wreck of something brilliant that just aimed too high and crashed.
That was well done, really -- in other stories I've read that hold up legends or images from the past as some sort of mirror for the characters' interactions, it's because the climax of the current plot will repeat or invert the older narrative in ways whose predictability gives the whole story deep emotional significance. The Fall of the Kings does this differently --
Now on to my complaints!
Characters: I liked maybe four of them and didn't really care about any of them. I remember having this problem with Swordspoint, but not with The Privilege of the Sword. There is only so much I can feel sorry for a character who is an asshole because he's unhappy and misunderstood despite his massive economic privilege. There's only so much interest I can feel in a romantic relationship in which the only thing the participants like to do together is fuck. If the author then wants me to feel more sympathy to the characters because they feel intense love, I revolt.
Yes, The Fall of the Kings does go deeper into those things (especially ), but I think that the story does basically depend on the id-appeal of Irrationally Passionate Assholes. This doesn't work for me very well, but obviously it does for a lot of readers. Which is important, because...
Political intrigue: This novel has a lot of political intrigue in it! And the fact that sympathetic characters are necessary to the political intrigue element is another thing I really didn't like. It's probably not fair of me to take this out on The Fall of the Kings because it's true of so many other books, particularly in the fantasy genre: the politics in the political intrigue is all about people -- families, relationships, characters in fact -- instead of about policy. When the reader learns anything related to policy, it's vague and in the service of characterization. You know how this works: here's so-and-so rich person at home, how charming s/he is to the spouse and children and how generous to the servants! Would clearly be a better administrator (and definitely better for the plebs) than the current office-holder, who is mean to his/her family and beats the servants.
In this story there's a moment that perfectly encapsulates this annoyance of mine -- Theron Campion, not quite in his right mind, complains that the head of his family, Duchess Tremontaine, doesn't really understand what's important, because she spends all her time working on dull things like taxes and never thinks about The Land. Never mind that Theron himself has zero sober-reality-based concrete understanding of the land or The Land or anything of the sort. Taxes! What on earth have they got to do with government, right? ... and while the Duchess is one of the very few characters in this story whom I actually personally like, I'm frustrated that nobody within or without the narrative seems to have any interest in telling me what her tax policy is so I can decide whether I like her politically too, because those are different things.
In The Fall of the Kings we have a nation ruled by a council of hereditary aristocrats, which was once also ruled by hereditary kings with some mysterious relationship to wizards. A few aristocrats are concerned by a small popular movement, which may or may not have any influence, to restore the monarchy. The aristocratic version of history says: the last kings were corrupt and worse than useless in various vague ways, so we got rid of them and are better off now. The monarchists say: the king had a magical relationship with The Land, and The Land is suffering for lack of a king, which is why we are having famines etc. The aristocrats say: famines aren't that uncommon in your part of the country, also magic doesn't exist.
It's impossible for the reader to make any kind of informed choice between the sides. We don't know how the aristocrats govern -- presumably, given the wealth disparity, not as well as they or a different government could, but there's no real information about this. And as for how a restored monarchy would govern -- the historical record preserved by the aristocrats suggests badly, of course, but the monarchists themselves seem unable or unmotivated to present an alternate version; apparently they haven't thought farther than the restoration itself. In the absence of actual information about their policies, and since none of these people is even remotely likeable (and we don't get even a minor viewpoint character to sympathize with inside the monarchist group), I'm left hoping for rocks to fall on all of them, leaving a power vacuum that could be filled by, say, a workers' party.
Intellectual history: I think I know what party I'm supposed to be rooting for, though, and why the authors don't give a lot of reason to care for the aristocrats or the monarchists. The political intrigue really serves to cast its suspicious lights on the actual center of the plot, which is -- ancient historian Basil St. Cloud's search for Truth. Here we have a young professor who's frustrated by the official version of the era of kings, intent on looking behind the accepted narratives and discovering what really happened. He's painfully (perhaps deliberately) naive about the political implications of his research; his only official opinion of the current administration is that it's wrong to limit academic freedom. Meanwhile, the monarchists are faithfully attending his lectures, and some of the aristocrats get more worried when St. Cloud begins a relationship with the unpredictable heir of one of the most powerful aristocratic families (which is also descended from the old kings). But to St. Cloud, all that matters is his research and his lover. It's not aristocrats vs. monarchists to him; it's truth & beauty & love vs. irritating obstacles.
And in a way, I like what the authors are doing with this particular conflict. They bring it to the center and then they complicate it -- because not only can't St. Cloud keep studying and loving without outside interference, he also finds it impossible to devote himself purely to those two aims. They hinder each other, and sometimes they help each other and that turns out to be even more worrying. And, of course, historical truth is inevitably political; sometimes, not acknowledging that makes everything worse. What happens to St. Cloud ... I found it a rather good metaphor for the perils of obsessive and isolated studying.
But I couldn't properly enjoy this because the academic/societal-worldbuilding context of St. Cloud's pursuit of the truth is a mess.
Maybe I'm being unfair here? I see that Delia Sherman has a PhD in Renaissance Studies. Surely that means she knows way more intellectual history than I do, that she has poetic license here, that when she plays around with religion and skepticism, empiricism and authority, rearranging their connections to one another, she knows what's she's doing. Maybe she's making a big beautiful plausible pattern. Maybe she's making a horrible snarly knot on purpose for readers to have fun pulling at.
But there really were things here that I found very jarring. First, other magisters who support St. Cloud say explicitly, consciously, that his work challenges the status quo not only because it makes a new argument about the kings and wizards, but because of its methodology. They use the word methodology. They also use the words empiricism, documentary evidence, data (to mean qualitative information about history, not a collection of numbers). They use them with a cheerful assurance that I don't think English-speakers in this universe achieved until the nineteenth century, and they use them to complain about, basically, straw men. St. Cloud's academic nemesis, Roger Crabbe, is worldly and ambitious; the governors of the university who worry about St. Cloud's radical ideas are also aristocrats who have obvious political interest in not taking his ideas about kings and magic seriously. These are such good motives to defend the historiographical status quo that, perhaps, the authors didn't worry overmuch about showing why Crabbe's own methods have enough merit to be taken seriously by, apparently, the entire university through its entire history, except for St. Cloud and a few friends.
It's so easy to interpret these passages as the writing of someone who never got much deeper into European Renaissance intellectual history than the story of how bold scientist Galileo was martyred by the reactionary Church for daring to reason out something that contradicted sacred tradition. It looks so simple when all you have is this story. On one side there are the men of reason, who seem to have birthed themselves out of some god's skull with scientific method ready in hand. On the other, the men of tradition, who use their brains solely to memorize and paraphrase the wisdom of the ancients. But, of course, it was a lot more complicated than that; for starters, if I'm remembering my lessons correctly, the great founders of modern science often paid homage to, took inspiration from, and even believed they were continuing the work of those ancient authorities. There was a debate about methodology but I don't think the sides were so clearly drawn, the terms so established; I don't think there was so much jargon about it then. This was a time (so the OED tells me) when poets used "science" to mean an attribute of an omniscient God, as well as the practice of human seekers of truth.
But then, of course, there's one final twist that makes me suspect that the authors do get what's wrong about the simple Galileo-vs-the-Church story, and are just having a big cosmic laugh at a world whose intellectual history they have deliberately twisted up into all sorts of fancy bows:
I can't really tell if this is on purpose, though, which means one of three things about The Fall of the Kings: (a) I didn't get it; (b) it's a hopeless muddle [like this review, I fear]; (c) it's the wreck of something brilliant that just aimed too high and crashed.
March 21, 2017
Lots of reviews seem not to have liked the ending. But I thought it was a good place to leave things.
More proper review when I'm less desperately hungover.
*Awake and Alive Edits 26.03.2012*
I think part of why people find the ending unsatisfying, (and I think it is unsatisfying, I just likes it that way, literary masochism, whey) is that Riverside is a very fully realized setting, and Kushner and Sherman want to leave it so. Things don't end tidily, some people wander off to do other things. It's similar to the end of Swordspoint
I thought this book was just a fantastic return to Riverside. I work in University administration and have a general interest in the history and philosophy of higher education, so stories concerned with Universities always tickle me. And I'm woman enough to admit that I found a debate over competing academic methodologies interesting.
More proper review when I'm less desperately hungover.
*Awake and Alive Edits 26.03.2012*
I think part of why people find the ending unsatisfying, (and I think it is unsatisfying, I just likes it that way, literary masochism, whey) is that Riverside is a very fully realized setting, and Kushner and Sherman want to leave it so. Things don't end tidily, some people wander off to do other things. It's similar to the end of Swordspoint
I thought this book was just a fantastic return to Riverside. I work in University administration and have a general interest in the history and philosophy of higher education, so stories concerned with Universities always tickle me. And I'm woman enough to admit that I found a debate over competing academic methodologies interesting.
December 13, 2023
The first time I read this book it made me SO MAD and also very upset, but now I understand. Excellent demonstration of how bad academia is, how dangerous zealotry is, wonderfully uninhibited, interesting politics where the petty feelings of the individual have broad ramifications, and an unabashed tragedy that I think (whether you like the decision or not) was brave and therefore deeply interesting for putting old magic in a secondary world that didn’t seem to have any in its previous installments. Does it have flaws? Probably! I don’t really care because it’s wholly itself, atmospheric, and committed to the end.
November 20, 2008
After finishing Swordspoint, I was immediately on the lookout for more novels by Kushner. I figured that The Fall of the Kings, while not using the same characters as the previous novel, would still be a fun read.
Well, I'm surmising that as a book written by two authors the novel's fault lies primarily with Delia Sherman for the drop in quality. Or Kushner lost whatever way with words she had in the past more-than-ten year span from Swordspoint. At any rate, I have compiled a list of the obnoxious overused words that stuck out to me:
-lover
-Little King
-fawn
-seed
-rut
-lover
-lover
GODDAMMIT just use the main characters' fucking names.
Still, I made it through the 500 pages; then again, I made it through Melusine.
It does have something in common with Swordspoint: both end abruptly.
Well, I'm surmising that as a book written by two authors the novel's fault lies primarily with Delia Sherman for the drop in quality. Or Kushner lost whatever way with words she had in the past more-than-ten year span from Swordspoint. At any rate, I have compiled a list of the obnoxious overused words that stuck out to me:
-lover
-Little King
-fawn
-seed
-rut
-lover
-lover
GODDAMMIT just use the main characters' fucking names.
Still, I made it through the 500 pages; then again, I made it through Melusine.
It does have something in common with Swordspoint: both end abruptly.
November 17, 2018
Ah, this was good. So good. Scholars, history, mystery, magic, sword fights, treason
I mean nothing really happened for the majority of the book - it was all academic intrigue and side character plotting . And the main romance had a whole 'fate' contrived feel. Which just got awkward... especially in the bedroom...
But I really quite enjoyed it. I had no idea how it was going to turn out, and the ending was totally different to what I expected. And turns out I quite like academic intrigue.
I mean nothing really happened for the majority of the book - it was all academic intrigue and side character plotting . And the main romance had a whole 'fate' contrived feel. Which just got awkward... especially in the bedroom...
But I really quite enjoyed it. I had no idea how it was going to turn out, and the ending was totally different to what I expected. And turns out I quite like academic intrigue.
October 12, 2021
Surprisingly, the reviewers here seem to prefer Swordspoint to this sequel. I liked Swordspoint, but admired this complex, intricately plotted sequel even more. The novels avoid a neat ending, preferring to wraps some things up while leaving others in flux; just like life, in other words.
As it turns out, this is book #3 of the series, yet I've somehow managed to skip over book #2. And yet, despite that, I enjoyed book #3 more than I did #2!
As it turns out, this is book #3 of the series, yet I've somehow managed to skip over book #2. And yet, despite that, I enjoyed book #3 more than I did #2!
May 7, 2024
si fa leggere ma.. è tutto una forzatura e quello che non lo è.. è annacquatura
TRAMA E SPOILER:
la nipotina del Duca è ora una duchessa 60enne contrariata dal nuovo rampollo di famiglia che invece di andare alle feste, frequentare balli e partite a carte della buona società come dovrebbe, ha il cattivo gusto di frequentare l'università; a peggiorare queste sue pessime maniere si aggiunge il fatto che dopo più di 200 anni di assenza ingiustificata la magia si ripresenta e lo sceglie come suo rappresentante
TRAMA E SPOILER:
la nipotina del Duca è ora una duchessa 60enne contrariata dal nuovo rampollo di famiglia che invece di andare alle feste, frequentare balli e partite a carte della buona società come dovrebbe, ha il cattivo gusto di frequentare l'università; a peggiorare queste sue pessime maniere si aggiunge il fatto che dopo più di 200 anni di assenza ingiustificata la magia si ripresenta e lo sceglie come suo rappresentante
February 5, 2020
4.5 - so close!
April 29, 2009
The Fall of the Kings is set in the same world as Swordspoint and The Privilege of the Sword. However, it's a very different kind of story. The really personal focus, the sense that this story matters most to the people involved in it, is gone, and now there's a more far-reaching plot about scholarship, politics, monarchy, magic and restoration. This time there's a co-author: Ellen Kushner's wife, Delia Sherman.
Having read Swordspoint and The Privilege of the Sword, I didn't know exactly how I felt about them. They were fun, but... And then reading this, I decided that I liked those a lot, and didn't like this so much. It's hard to pinpoint why. I like the way things grew out of the original two books -- the madness of the kings, the madness that ran in Alec's family, is interesting. The fate of Alec's child is also interesting. The fact that such a lot of background to the world is also filled in is good in its way. I like worldbuilding.
This, though, felt too wordy. It dragged and I stalled on reading it several times. It didn't flow as well, and it felt as if there were several infodumps. It's also less exciting and flowing a story, since it's written about a scholar and not a swordsman (or swordswoman). The mystical scenes and dreams seemed slightly... overblown, I guess. But I generally find mysticism overblown, so that's probably a rather personal judgement. I didn't find the characters all that absorbing -- which is an argument I've felt about all of these books, gaining my affection for the characters only after reading. I felt it particularly in this book, in that I didn't just find the characters difficult to like, I wanted to slap most of them outright. I liked Jessica, though, because she was lively and straight-forward and different.
The plot itself is intriguing, the characters could be, it's just the execution that makes it difficult for me. I did love the end, actually. I was wondering how things could possibly come out okay, and then they just... didn't.
If you're expecting a second Swordspoint, you'll be disappointed.
Having read Swordspoint and The Privilege of the Sword, I didn't know exactly how I felt about them. They were fun, but... And then reading this, I decided that I liked those a lot, and didn't like this so much. It's hard to pinpoint why. I like the way things grew out of the original two books -- the madness of the kings, the madness that ran in Alec's family, is interesting. The fate of Alec's child is also interesting. The fact that such a lot of background to the world is also filled in is good in its way. I like worldbuilding.
This, though, felt too wordy. It dragged and I stalled on reading it several times. It didn't flow as well, and it felt as if there were several infodumps. It's also less exciting and flowing a story, since it's written about a scholar and not a swordsman (or swordswoman). The mystical scenes and dreams seemed slightly... overblown, I guess. But I generally find mysticism overblown, so that's probably a rather personal judgement. I didn't find the characters all that absorbing -- which is an argument I've felt about all of these books, gaining my affection for the characters only after reading. I felt it particularly in this book, in that I didn't just find the characters difficult to like, I wanted to slap most of them outright. I liked Jessica, though, because she was lively and straight-forward and different.
The plot itself is intriguing, the characters could be, it's just the execution that makes it difficult for me. I did love the end, actually. I was wondering how things could possibly come out okay, and then they just... didn't.
If you're expecting a second Swordspoint, you'll be disappointed.
April 30, 2018
I maintain that Ellen Kushner is one of the most underrated fantasy authors out there.
November 30, 2024
for the most part i really enjoyed this book. in fact, i could've even gone as far as to say it's my favorite in the series. yes, theron and basil aren't as iconic as The Swordsman Whose Name Was Not Death and his lover, The Mad Duke, but they're more relatable to me personally and it was fun watching their drama-filled relationship develop from beginning to end. basil, in particular, spoke to me as an academic. i'm not sure i have ever seen a fictional depiction of scholarship and of what it means to be a scholar that aligned so perfectly with my own feelings and experiences.
adding the magic back to the low fantasy world of riverside was a bold choice but i loved it for the lush atmosphere and folklore symbolism it brought. the gorgeous cover conveys the vibe pretty well in that regard. set several decades after the privilege of the sword, the fall of the kings isn't really a swashbuckling story anymore, but it still remains a brilliant fantasy of manners, with an academic novel and a quasi-arthurian legend added to the mix, and then of course it's queer as all fuck. i'm serious, the fujoshi of ye olden day did not fuck around. and lo and behold: in the afterword they thank dorothy dunnett for inspiration. because all fujoshi roads lead to dunnett😅
anyways yeah i was absolutely loving everything for 90% of the book - and then the ending happened😕 for the record, i don't mind that it's sad or whatever but i do mind the lack of a satisfying conclusion to the main character's arc coupled with a clumsy set up for a sequel that was never written - which is all the more annoying, seeing as the other two books in the series were neatly wrapped standalones. it felt as if you're at this beautiful violin concert and then, instead of concluding the piece, the musician just drops the instrument and leaves. like,, wtf happened here☹️
still, while the last chapter or so put a damper on things for me, i can't agree with the low ratings and scathing reviews. the series overall is unique and wonderful and i will forever be sad that nobody writes queer fantasy like this anymore😔
adding the magic back to the low fantasy world of riverside was a bold choice but i loved it for the lush atmosphere and folklore symbolism it brought. the gorgeous cover conveys the vibe pretty well in that regard. set several decades after the privilege of the sword, the fall of the kings isn't really a swashbuckling story anymore, but it still remains a brilliant fantasy of manners, with an academic novel and a quasi-arthurian legend added to the mix, and then of course it's queer as all fuck. i'm serious, the fujoshi of ye olden day did not fuck around. and lo and behold: in the afterword they thank dorothy dunnett for inspiration. because all fujoshi roads lead to dunnett😅
anyways yeah i was absolutely loving everything for 90% of the book - and then the ending happened😕 for the record, i don't mind that it's sad or whatever but i do mind the lack of a satisfying conclusion to the main character's arc coupled with a clumsy set up for a sequel that was never written - which is all the more annoying, seeing as the other two books in the series were neatly wrapped standalones. it felt as if you're at this beautiful violin concert and then, instead of concluding the piece, the musician just drops the instrument and leaves. like,, wtf happened here☹️
still, while the last chapter or so put a damper on things for me, i can't agree with the low ratings and scathing reviews. the series overall is unique and wonderful and i will forever be sad that nobody writes queer fantasy like this anymore😔
April 21, 2025
Y’all this was heckin weird!! And I ate up EVERY WORD!
Older fantasy books just have something so special about them that can’t be replicated, and I’ll never get tired of the joy in discovering them 😍
Older fantasy books just have something so special about them that can’t be replicated, and I’ll never get tired of the joy in discovering them 😍
February 18, 2023
Varied in quality and pace but it had its moments. I’d have hoped for a more exciting, satisfying finish for the trilogy, although the book ended quite well. Still, a better fate than starting strong and fizzling out.
Incidentally, I have found in the few books I have read (as I’m inclined to avoid them) where the author has sought out a collaborator for later volumes in a series, the quality and cohesiveness often suffer.
Incidentally, I have found in the few books I have read (as I’m inclined to avoid them) where the author has sought out a collaborator for later volumes in a series, the quality and cohesiveness often suffer.
July 24, 2022
The third installment in the Riverside series. I read Swordspoint several years ago, and in typical fashion haven't yet read the second - Privilege of the Sword.
I really enjoy Sherman's/Kushner's writing and I wish they'd written more novels - plus there is always the enjoyment of having central characters who are gay/bisexual which (ignoring the naff M/M fantasy romance style books) is rare in fantasy literature.
This is a very Wildean, dandified scholarly romp, and wonderfully literary. No one else does fantasy quite like this and I highly enjoyed it.
I really enjoy Sherman's/Kushner's writing and I wish they'd written more novels - plus there is always the enjoyment of having central characters who are gay/bisexual which (ignoring the naff M/M fantasy romance style books) is rare in fantasy literature.
This is a very Wildean, dandified scholarly romp, and wonderfully literary. No one else does fantasy quite like this and I highly enjoyed it.
May 8, 2018
"...We know, up in the North, we've always known; about the Sacred Grove and the Deer Hunt and the Royal Sacrifice."
"The Royal Sacrifice, or the King's Night Out," drawled Fremont into the silence. "It sounds like a bad play." [p. 147]
Set forty years after , and about sixty after , this is the story of Theron Campion, posthumous son of the Mad Duke (his parentage is revealed in the short story ), and his love affair with scholar Basil St Cloud, an historian who's interested in the legends of the old kings and their wizards. It's common knowledge that the wizards claimed they were bound by magic to the Land; they chose the kings who would rule; the system was dismantled two centuries ago by the nobles, who saw through the wizards' fraudulent tricks. Even the suggestion that magic might exist is illegal. St Cloud, however, insists on researching primary sources, and what he finds makes him question the consensus.
Meanwhile, the nobles on the Hill are becoming increasingly concerned about rumours of trouble in the North. Can the so-called Companions of the King be anything more than 'an association of young men, young and unmarried, who gather in the woods from time to time to celebrate elaborate rituals that draw equally from local folklore and a youthful taste for mysticism and indiscriminate copulation'? [p. 348] And does Theron's family tree explain their interest in him?
Theron is something of a dilettante, studying at the University until he takes up his duties as Duke Tremontaine: Katherine, the heroine of The Privilege of the Sword, is the current head of the family, and between her benevolent rule and that of Theron's mother Sophia (a surgeon), Theron is allowed to indulge himself. He doesn't reveal his relationship with Basil to his family: Basil, after all, is a commoner, whose father is a tenant farmer on Theron's estates at Highcombe. (Basil can't complain, as he can hardly be open about having an affair with one of his students.) Instead, Theron courts Lady Genevieve Randall, who he thinks might rather like to be Duchess Tremontaine some day.
The Fall of the Kings is much longer, and more richly detailed, than the two preceding books. There are more characters (including more women), and more plot threads: I especially liked the scenes of student life, with claret and eels and arguments about whether the earth revolves around the sun. And I'm especially glad to have read this novel, at last, in its proper place in the sequence, with the weight of backstory behind it. I can see, from Theron's 'outsider' point of view, how Katherine grows up (though I do wonder why she has chosen to remain single) and learn the fate of the Black Rose's child, the utterly splendid Jessica. And it's interesting to see why magic has gone unmentioned in the previous novels -- and how the Tremontaine family have retained their power over the centuries. [I note, too, that the revelations of cast the events of The Fall of the Kings in a different light.]
Now I am more than ready to embarque upon Tremontaine Season 2 ...
April 14, 2012
It's interesting thinking about my responses to books set in universities (mundane or mythical). They tend to irritate or bore me. Perhaps it's a result of having spent too much time knocking about in such institutions myself; although as a mediocre biology student and, later, a hard-working health sciences student very little of my time has been spent in pubs or lecturer's private parties crapping on about the real truth of X or Y. Sadly, The Fall of the Kings has this in plenty, and failed to do it for me as a result (in much the same way as Pamela Dean's Tam Lin). I wonder if I'm just jealous of the purported dilettante lifestyles of all these arts students...
As an aside, I guess that makes my weird tolerance for Patrick Rothfuss's King Killer books even more inexplicable. And it's also interesting that there's a moderate amount of allusion to killing kings in this.
My major issue with this, apart from my own personal gripes about the setting was actually the pacing. It went for the long, slow wind-up and the central crisis of the plot really only became apparent or acted upon in the last third to quarter of the book. By that point I was mostly sick of St. Cloud, his lover, and his coterie of adoringfanboys students. The only thing that kept me going and curious was whether Theron would actually manage to get himself killed, and by whom. I contend that the more interesting path was not taken there.
I'd like to like Ellen Kushner's and Delia Sherman's work more. I really would, but while both this and Swordspoint were okay, they haven't been anywhere near as wonderful for me as other people seem to find them. I'm assured that The Privilege of the Sword is the best of the lot, and the third time may still prove the charm, but I'm increasingly reluctant.
As an aside, I guess that makes my weird tolerance for Patrick Rothfuss's King Killer books even more inexplicable. And it's also interesting that there's a moderate amount of allusion to killing kings in this.
My major issue with this, apart from my own personal gripes about the setting was actually the pacing. It went for the long, slow wind-up and the central crisis of the plot really only became apparent or acted upon in the last third to quarter of the book. By that point I was mostly sick of St. Cloud, his lover, and his coterie of adoring
I'd like to like Ellen Kushner's and Delia Sherman's work more. I really would, but while both this and Swordspoint were okay, they haven't been anywhere near as wonderful for me as other people seem to find them. I'm assured that The Privilege of the Sword is the best of the lot, and the third time may still prove the charm, but I'm increasingly reluctant.
November 15, 2009
I first learned of Kushner's work through her radio show "Sound and Spirit," on WBGH. Grounded in the songs and stories of cultures throughout the world, this show does an excellent job of exploring spiritual and religious traditions and themes that transcend divides of politics and dogma. This understanding of how ancient stories and archetypes echo through the ages blossoms forth in The Fall of The Kings. The Fall of the Kings is one of the Swordspoint books, which take place in an unspecified country that bears some resemblance to 18th-century Venice or London.
Earlier books focused on political intrigue and traditions around sword-fighting, and evoked a time in which same-sex love was part and parcel of the fabric of society. As a bisexual woman, I find it refreshing to read about a world in which people were free to take male and female lovers without scandal, condemnation, or even much gossip.
The plot of The Fall of the Kings, however, turns not on its characters' amorous adventures but on a deep, old archetype found in British folklore and tradition. Echoes of the story of the Oak King and the Holly King can be found in Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight, Le Mort D'Artur, accounts of William the Conqueror's reign, and in modern Traditional British Witchcraft. Kushner takes this old myth and makes it new in a story that weaves love and sexuality, scholarship and magic, family duty and political intrigue, and ancient notions of kingship and leadership into a rich tapestry that touches the very deepest part of human experience.
The prose is also much better than your average genre novel.
Earlier books focused on political intrigue and traditions around sword-fighting, and evoked a time in which same-sex love was part and parcel of the fabric of society. As a bisexual woman, I find it refreshing to read about a world in which people were free to take male and female lovers without scandal, condemnation, or even much gossip.
The plot of The Fall of the Kings, however, turns not on its characters' amorous adventures but on a deep, old archetype found in British folklore and tradition. Echoes of the story of the Oak King and the Holly King can be found in Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight, Le Mort D'Artur, accounts of William the Conqueror's reign, and in modern Traditional British Witchcraft. Kushner takes this old myth and makes it new in a story that weaves love and sexuality, scholarship and magic, family duty and political intrigue, and ancient notions of kingship and leadership into a rich tapestry that touches the very deepest part of human experience.
The prose is also much better than your average genre novel.
February 14, 2018
Now, don't get me wrong (or do, I'm often wrong, but never admit that), I liked this book.
An epic conclusion to the Riverside trilogy, beautifully written, flowing language and no hint of a purple prose, original plot, interesting characters, strong female leads, further exploration of the Riverside world and all that.
But. Me dissapoint. Sad trombone.
As several reviewers have noticed, this book suffers from It trope.
I liked Riverside precisely because there was no freakin magic in that fantasy land.
I loved Riverside because there were no freakin kings with their freakin birth rights.
Main character was a silly sod, and that's good, because rich youths usually (well, always) are. Proffesor was... well, I didn't like him? Romance was weird and icky, we call that thing #metoo nowadays. And then he went and did that ritual? And bad got to worse? So much #metoos. Too many #meetoos. Magic sucks.
OK.
4*, because it's a freakin literary masterpiece. I just did not like some aspects. Resolved trombone.
And I just found out there are more The World of Riverside Series books, whole new Tremontaine series and I'm happy again. Jolly trombone.
An epic conclusion to the Riverside trilogy, beautifully written, flowing language and no hint of a purple prose, original plot, interesting characters, strong female leads, further exploration of the Riverside world and all that.
But. Me dissapoint. Sad trombone.
As several reviewers have noticed, this book suffers from It trope.
I liked Riverside precisely because there was no freakin magic in that fantasy land.
I loved Riverside because there were no freakin kings with their freakin birth rights.
Main character was a silly sod, and that's good, because rich youths usually (well, always) are. Proffesor was... well, I didn't like him? Romance was weird and icky, we call that thing #metoo nowadays. And then he went and did that ritual? And bad got to worse? So much #metoos. Too many #meetoos. Magic sucks.
OK.
4*, because it's a freakin literary masterpiece. I just did not like some aspects. Resolved trombone.
And I just found out there are more The World of Riverside Series books, whole new Tremontaine series and I'm happy again. Jolly trombone.
March 16, 2014
It wasn't until I reached the end of this-a shore I would never have landed on, had my love for the other Riverside stories not set such wind in my sails-that I learned this was originally published as a novella, in . It was the one line I read which made perfect sense to me, having felt the whole of the book how much better the story would be had they just cut out all the pages and pages of non-events. The writing itself is florid and polished, the dialogue smooth, and revelatory of each character's distinct worldview. And still, this book bored me.
Some part of me wonders how the original novella compares to this final edit, but there is no wind left to carry me there.
Some part of me wonders how the original novella compares to this final edit, but there is no wind left to carry me there.
July 15, 2016
More like 2.5 stars. The first two books don't really fit neatly into my idea of fantasy. But this one dives right in to old rituals. Frankly, I found it often confusing, with relatives coming out of the woodwork and far too many student characters. I think a person who wants to know what the fuss is about with could read just that one and then and leave this one be.
June 23, 2010
A dissolute young nobleman has unwise affairs and become entangled in ancient cultic ritual practices.
I am positive that Kushner was inspired to write this by or .
I am positive that Kushner was inspired to write this by or .
September 8, 2019
WTF was that?
The focus on the University is a fun change, and I don't mind the dive into this world's ancient history. But the introduction of magic into a world that previously had always been non-magic I found off-putting - a fundamental change that felt inconsistent.
FWIW, even more centered on men than Swordspoint. Katherine doesn't get nearly as much to do as I would like. Jessica is fabulous once she arrives, but that's late in the game.
The focus on the University is a fun change, and I don't mind the dive into this world's ancient history. But the introduction of magic into a world that previously had always been non-magic I found off-putting - a fundamental change that felt inconsistent.
FWIW, even more centered on men than Swordspoint. Katherine doesn't get nearly as much to do as I would like. Jessica is fabulous once she arrives, but that's late in the game.
December 24, 2008
I just didn't care for the book. It was debate after debate, very little adventure, very little magic. To much debate. The plot wasn't bad, and the ending was left wide open. I didn't much care for any of the characters, except maybe Justis Blake. And maybe Jessica. But the book to me was soooo dull.
July 3, 2007
An overblown and clumsy plot, some of the most unlikeable characters I've ever encountered in fiction, and a deus-ex-machina ending that would make Zeus envious. One of the most disappointing and thoughtlessly written books I've ever had the misfortune to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.