My feelings about this book was very mixed throughout, and how I felt about Jack kept wavering between amusement/neutral and disgust.Anyway. This book was very heartily recommended to me by someone whose opinion I value. You'll love it, he said. Well, "love" is a strong word. Let's just say I have some feelings about it.Few points. First, the writing is so much better than I anticipated. This is my introduction to Brust, as in the first complete novel I read by him, but my cursory glance at his novel titles and the first 3 pages of the first Jhereg book didn't leave me with much optimism. So, really high points on writing.Second, I have mixed feelings about the fact that the word "vampire" was never mentioned. On the one hand, I really appreciate the subtlety. On the other hand, it seems completely pointless. It's the diary of a vampire, he knows he's a vampire, his reader Jim the ghost knows he's a vampire... why is he skirting around it? In my opinion, it almost borders on Brust being gimmicky. But then, like I said, I also really appreciate the lack of the usual vampirey vocabulary.Third, I found the romance bordering on unconvincing. Which really means, since this book relies so heavily on this element (although it tries hard to be not-in-your-face about it), there are sentiments that I found contrived.Fourth... I really dislike Jack. I know he's supposed to be one of those "Oh I dislike him at first but in the end I see his redeeming qualities and I sympathize with him" sort of character. But I never found myself getting around to sympathizing with him. I just disliked him more and more, up till the very end.Fifth.. I had high hopes of Laura Kellem's character. Brust built up quite a bit of mystery around her, and her history with Jack, but that never got anywhere. I wanted to know more about her, I wanted to know why Jack feels the way he did about her, and I wanted her side of the story. But in the end, Brust's treatment of her was disappointing.Sixth.. I intensely disliked Susan, which is either a shame (because she's such a major character) or just funny, since she is supposedly unlikable by women in the book.Seventh.. the ending almost bordered on trite. Almost. 5 pages before the book ended I actually couldn't get myself to keep reading because I was staring at a potential train wreck in the face, aka it could have ended like every teenage romance with vampires in the mix. Fortunately, it didn't. It wasn't what I wanted, but it was a good ending nevertheless.It also annoyed me that there was a typo somewhere.But... obviously, it got 4 stars, it was worth a read.
Agyar, c’est avant tout un jeu de pistes dans les rues obscures d’une grande ville. C’est le récit des virées nocturnes d’un dénommé Agyar, victime de la mode, séducteur émérite, mais aussi squatteur d’une maison en ruine. Je l’ai toujours dit, je n’ai qu’une connaissance très partielle de la littérature générale. Les plus cultivés ne m’en voudront, je l’espère, pas si je dis des âneries. Mais il me semble que l’écriture de ce roman est très moderne ou, tout au moins, ressemble beaucoup à la littérature la plus courante, avec ses longues phases d’introspection, sa faible importance de l’univers extérieur vis-à-vis des sentiments du personnage principal. En règle général, j’ai tendance à trouver ce genre de procédé assez pitoyable de par son manque de lisibilité. Ici, c’est tout le contraire. Le personnage est certes assez confus, mais pas trop. Et surtout, sa nature d’être fantastique ne change finalement pas grand chose à son introspection. C’est cela que veut démontrer l’auteur, à mon avis, et il y arrive pour moi brillament. Ce personnage, romantique par construction, erre ainsi dans des abîmes de questionnement amoureux, sans vraiment s’intéresser à son avenir (ce qui est compréhensible dans son cas). Son manque d’intérêt à sa condition est d’ailleurs l’une des merveilles de cette histoire, car elle nous pousse à nous interroger sur ce qu’il est, sans que jamais la réponse ne nous soit fournie, ce qui est également un des charmes de ce fascinant roman.
Do You like book Agyar (2004)?
***SPOILERS***Things I pretty much hated about this book:1. I agree with someone else's statement that the entire structure of the book makes no sense (more specifically, how the diary structure plays out). Why would a vampire go out of his way to obfuscate his undead condition in his own diary entries? As far as he knows, the only other entity that's going to read his work is the ghost Jim.2. I cringed continuously at Brust's attempts to give Agyar any semblance of three-dimensionality. Shouldn't a vampire be a cut above, intellectually, emotionally? Agyar's turns of phrase were embarrassing and hackneyed---but I think they were supposed to be funny and endearing.3. Agyar is altogether unlikeable and hateful. So why would the reader care at all about his love life and, for that matter, any details about his personality? I was actually disappointed that he didn't die.I was in a bit of a bad mood while I read this, but it really is the worst book I've read in the last couple of years.
—Scott
This was really, really interesting and well-done. It's also hard to write a review about this without getting spoilery, so spoilers follow.This book is a pretty good antidote for all the vampire-romance lovers out there (yours truly included). Brust does the Hemingway thing where he refers to a lot of things obliquely and insinuates, and you have to piece it all together yourself. For instance, never once does he say the word vampire, nor does the narrator actually talk about drinking blood. So
—Marlo
Agyar is a vampire novel that never once uses the words "undead" "blood" or "vampire." There. That's the whole review.I mean, sure, the book has some okay moments, there's some nice turns of phrase, and it's kind of neat to read vampire novels that don't try and hide how shitty the main character is. But, and I am saying this as a Steven Brust fan, there's no point in reading this book.I got to the final chapter and just thought "oh, okay, I guess that was the story." It was just... This book wa
—Tom Whalley
