MobileRead January 2015 Discussion: The Iron King (spoilers)

[WT Sharpe]

The time has come to discuss the January 2015 MobileRead Book Club selection, The Iron King by Maurice Druon. What did you think?

[din155]

Firstly a disclosure - I am not into historic fiction but the book made me wonder if I would have gotten more out of it if I was familiar with the actual history during that period.
I don’t think I would have finished the book had I not picked the audiobook. Initially it was a drag but it did pick pace and was quite an enjoyable read. I thought it was going to be a story of cruel king later being punished for his atrocities. But Philip the Fair turned out to be much more complex and to a certain extent very humane. Throughout the book I kept thinking that there had to be more to the Templers persecution than what was written but I could not think of any.
I was really disappointed with the abrupt ending before I realized that it was part of a series and that did not make it any better. Overall I am glad to have read it, although not sure if I will read the entire series.

[jj2me]

What a laugh on me! I read (well, only got halfway through, as I couldn't take it anymore) the wrong book! I didn't realize this until just now when I read din155's review.

I jumped on "The Iron King" when I saw it available for free from my local library's OverDrive collection. But it was "The Iron King" by Julie Kagawa.

I kept trying to read it despite hating it, so that I could see others' comments here, and try to understand what I presumed was the fantasy genre so many on here like. It was a kid's book, probably the biggest waste of time for my tastes that I've ever spent. Certainly the most ridiculous book I've ever read, IMO. Oops, I've now ventured into reviewing the wrong book!

[issybird]

This was a mixed bag for me. On the positive side, it was a quick and entertaining and informative read about a fascinating time in history at a key point that would determine the events of the next century. I also quite enjoyed the dichotomy between the chaste, frustrated and splenetic Isabella and her wanton and careless sisters-in-law. The Nesle tower plot was the best part of the story for me.

I thought the execution was poor, however. Worst of all were the info dumps disguised as dialogue. From the beginning, when Robert of Artois showed up at Isabella's palace and gave his whole backstory as part of their conversation, my inner voice was saying, "She knows all that, dude." Druon relied on that device far too much when I would have preferred an in medias res approach, where subtlety would have clued the reader in over the course of the story.

I also thought the whole thing was cheesy. I'm not saying sex wasn't a big aspect of parts of the story, but I could have skipped the tender moments between Robert and Isabella, and also between Guccio and his countryside amour whose name I can't remember. And in both cases, Druon attributed great consequences to the connections, but didn't follow up. I hate series where the books aren't complete in themselves. You can't say Robert and Isabella started the war and then not have the war start. War, what war? It's poor fiction and poor history.

Some of it I thought unlikely and they were major plot points. Were the brothers really caught by their purses? If they were, I'm wrong, but I think in this situation the cousins would have said to their lovers, "For God's sake, don't wear these to meet Isabella." Similarly, Guccio and his burying of the incriminating casket in the countryside seemed like a huge stretch to me. Too much could have gone wrong and the documents been irretrievable. Kind of like Lady Mary giving her thingie to Anna to hide in her barebones cottage, instead of finding a secret place (surely she could have managed a locked drawer) in her own room. *ahem*

Originally Posted by din155

Firstly a disclosure - I am not into historic fiction but the book made me wonder if I would have gotten more out of it if I was familiar with the actual history during that period.
<snip>
I was really disappointed with the abrupt ending before I realized that it was part of a series and that did not make it any better. Overall I am glad to have read it, although not sure if I will read the entire series.

My reaction was that I would have enjoyed it less had I been more familiar with the history. It would have been too easy to pick nits with both the facts and their intrepretation.

And yes, the whole structure was wrong. If the point of the book was the end of Philip the Fair because of the Templar's curse, then it shouldn't have been started as the run-up to the Hundred Years War. Either overarching plot would have been fine, but Druon needed to pick one and stick with it.

My bottom line is that I had enough enjoyment out of it that I'll read the second book when I need some mindless entertainment. Then I'll see how I feel after that.

[din155]

Originally Posted by issybird

I also thought the whole thing was cheesy. I'm not saying sex wasn't a big aspect of parts of the story, but I could have skipped the tender moments between Robert and Isabella, and also between Guccio and his countryside amour whose name I can't remember. And in both cases, Druon attributed great consequences to the connections, but didn't follow up. I hate series where the books aren't complete in themselves. You can't say Robert and Isabella started the war and then not have the war start. War, what war? It's poor fiction and poor history.

I guess Druon would want us to read the whole series to know the connection

Originally Posted by issybird

Similarly, Guccio and his burying of the incriminating casket in the countryside seemed like a huge stretch to me. Too much could have gone wrong and the documents been irretrievable. Kind of like Lady Mary giving her thingie to Anna to hide in her barebones cottage, instead of finding a secret place (surely she could have managed a locked drawer) in her own room. *ahem*

[HomeInMyShoes]

I believe that first point would be covered by the unwritten rule that "we shouldn't read books from a series in a bookclub."

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I believe that first point would be covered by the unwritten rule that "we shouldn't read books from a series in a bookclub."

Actually, first books in a series have always been okay. Personally I feel that "stand alone" is the only unwritten rule we should follow; whether or not a book is first in a series makes little difference to me. Of course, the trouble with that logic is that, until we've read a particular book, how do we know if it's stand-alone? Mistakes are inevitable, but that's life.

[sun surfer]

I really enjoyed this book for what it was. Judging by the standard of hard-hitting, sombre and meticulously researched historical fiction, maybe it's not up to snuff. But as slightly pulpy fun fare it more than does the job well and keeps the pages turning.

One thing in particular that I enjoyed was the time period and events in question. Certainly a fascinating time and yet the first historical fiction book I've ever read or even heard of on the subject! I'm sure there may be others somewhere, but I don't know of them. So, though I knew vaguely about the subject going in, I give it big kudos for exposing me to this period of time and making it not only interesting but lively and engaging.

Druon has a knack for telling a good story with surprising twists and making the characters feel truly alive in a large-scale setting. I can definitely see how George RR Martin was influenced by Druon because he picked up the same traits. From the layers of story, including the royalty and nobility to the middle class to the lower classes, from the little vignettes throughout, Martin owes a debt to Druon that he has acknowledged. The main difference between the two is that Druon had to stay within the general confines of what he knew of real history.

How accurate is the story? I don't know. Reading, I had the sneaking suspicion that a lot of it might be wrong in the details. But it's refreshing to read a historical fiction that doesn't get so bogged down in trying to be exactly "right", and instead just goes for fun. Not that I don't like more serious historical fiction as well, but I think there's room for this type to have its niche. And not that I would give that pass to just any book - it would have to be as good and enjoyable to read as this one is.


PS - Re the "series" discussion, it might be worthwhile to point out that a full six out of the last 12 selections for this book club were part of series.

[WT Sharpe]

I don't know if fun is the right word, but it's certainly interesting reading. Yes, sometimes the characters do things that are entirely clueless, but people do clueless things every day. My knowledge of history is inadequate to judge how closely the author adhered to the facts, but as a novel it is engaging, in my opinion.

[caleb72]

I quite enjoyed it but I think I shared some of issybird's complaints. There was the hint of the ridiculous in some of the set-up.

However, because I came at this as a work that influenced Martin's Game of Thrones, I found I was reading from a slightly off-centre perspective. I was feeling the similarity - the casual cruelty of youth in power, the plotting, the torture, the sex.

I too found it a bit pulpy and camp, but I also found it entertaining enough that I will want to read the second one. I also liked that I knew nothing about this period of time, (although I'm no history major by any stretch).

However, one complaint I did have was that the writing itself didn't impress me as much as I would have liked. The translation may be partly to blame, but I found that quite a few scenes lacked impact, particular the death/torture scenes.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Actually, first books in a series have always been okay. Personally I feel that "stand alone" is the only unwritten rule we should follow; whether or not a book is first in a series makes little difference to me. Of course, the trouble with that logic is that, until we've read a particular book, how do we know if it's stand-alone? Mistakes are inevitable, but that's life.

Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense to me. Given how many books are published every year avoiding a series book should be easy. Then again, being the hypocrite (human) I am, I go and nominate Guy Vanderhaege for the literary club when it is listed as the Frontier series. The only thing those books share is a theme of the West and no plot or characters.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense to me. Given how many books are published every year avoiding a series book should be easy. Then again, being the hypocrite (human) I am, I go and nominate Guy Vanderhaege for the literary club when it is listed as the Frontier series. The only thing those books share is a theme of the West and no plot or characters.

That's been kind of an unwritten rule for a while, but nothing is set in stone, so as long as people nominate a book, whether it's stand-alone and first in a series or not, I'll post it and let the members decide.

[treadlightly]

I enjoyed the story as it has many of the elements that I like about Martin's ASOIF - political intrigue and the plotting and back-stabbing between different characters. You can easily see Druon's influence on Martin's writing. I like to learn about a particular time period in history in an entertaining setting and will continue to read the series.

The only aggravating thing was that I could not read the footnotes in the middle of the story, I had to wait for the end. The number wasn't a link. I have never been able to read footnotes with eInk but haven't taken the time to investigate why.

[WT Sharpe]

I may continue with this series as well. Despite some stylistic flaws, it was highly entertaining.

[ccowie]

I really found this book a lot of fun. For some reason I thought the book would be too long, have too many characters and be a little boring. But, it moved fast, stuff happened, the characters were quite fun and I finished it in no time. I really not an expert in the history and what I do know is more from a church history perspective. I will likely read a couple more in the series.