Highly unoriginal, dull characters, and what should be a massively-inflated economy.
Instantly captured by the mythological, fire-breathing, over-sized lizard on the front cover, you might just make a great mistake from which you may never recover. If reading this book to your kids, you may just be saved from an overwhelmingly-visceral reaction to lose your lunch by the fact that you're sharing the pain with your kids. If not, soul-scars and a mental institution may be your next trip. Not only does Slathbog's Gold lack solid characters and an interesting and/or deep plot, if this book can be considered the stereotype for all Fantasy books, "nerds" around the globe are in serious trouble.
I enjoy reading and writing Fantasy and Sci-Fi, as well as analyzing good characters. In Slathbog's Gold, there are characters who make Flat Stanley appear deeper than the Atlantic Trench. The story's main protagonist, a certain Alexander Taylor, is about as realistic as my chances of spontaneously growing to tremendous size, and rampaging throughout Downtown Tokyo. He's too "holier-than-thou," a paragon of virtue, a pillar of purity, a puddle of putrefying pus.
How many fifteen-year old boys have you seen that are thick as ten (thousand) short posts, and sets out on his adventure, already a perfect human? He's probably too wonder-stricken with his sojourn into a magical world (where adventurers sign up to a potentially-deadly trip, where they happily frolic through Mordor-ish landscapes to slay the evil, EVIL dragon), to ask basic questions about the land.
Another reason for my wellspring of ire is Alex's involvement with the plot in the first two books. The whole universe appears to revolve around him. Who is the one chosen as the final member of a dragonslayin' team? Alex. Who is chosen by an incredibly powerful sword? Alex. Who has the potential to become one of the greatest wizards ever? Alex. Whatever next? A prophecy proclaiming him as "The Frozen One," or some such stereotype? Speaking of which, stereotypes are too commonly used in this book, such as anything that hasn't happened for 100 or 1,000 years. Whatever happened to a nice, exact figure, like 2,928 years?
The other, less universally-inclined characters, such as the elf, Arconn, or the dwarf, Thrang, have practically no solid background. Most every character are composed of a single facet, whereas in other books, say, Kitty Jones, from Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy, can be equated with a glorious and magnificent jewel. Even the main antagonist, Slathbog, has no real reason for his death warrant apart from "He's EVIL! E-V-I-L!" Is this the inherent nature of all dragons with no comprehensive back-story, or is Slathbog lacking sentience? Unwarranted animosity, that's what this is! Thinking rationally, what if Slathbog had been "evil" in his past due to a nearby village slaughtering Slathbog's relatives/young?
There is only one original creature in Slathbog's Gold: the bi-headed messenger, the "geeb." I thought I had a Fantasy book in my hands, not a Dr. Seuss book! Other creatures are variations of widely used fantastical/mythological creatures, albeit accompanied by very little description. I mean, come on; an elf (Arconn) is first described as a man with pointed ears and a happy, glowing face, if I remember correctly. Such lack of description is a major issue that encompasses the whole book, making for a very simple, easy read.
But apart from the bad, this book isn't bad reading material
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback.
Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.