What do you think?
Rate this book
Mithgar (Publication) #1
The Dark Tide
Tuck Underbank is a Warrow -- think a hobbit with shoes and "large jewel-like eyes" -- living in the peaceful Boskydells. When an unnaturally cold winter strikes and the evil Modru threatens the world, he and a number of his fellow Thornwalkers go to the High King's aid. But a vast expanse of lightless blizzard called the Dimmendark (sounds bad, doesn't it?) is spreading over the land, and Tuck soon finds that the "dark tide" is going to swamp them all. Despite the fact that they're tiny and temperamental, the Warrows get included in the military forces. But the High King doesn't have enough warriors to hold off the horde of slobbering monsters who are coming to attack. And the battle goes horribly wrong, separating the friends from one another and possibly dooming them all.
304 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
43 people are currently reading
2530 people want to read
About the author
Dennis L. McKiernan
69 books524 followersMcKiernan was born in Moberly, Missouri, where he lived until he served the U.S. Air Force for four years, stationed within US territory during the Korean War. After military service, he attended the University of Missouri and received a B.S. in electrical engineering in 1958 and an M.S. in the same field from Duke University in 1964. He worked as an engineer at AT&T, initially at Western Electric but soon at Bell Laboratories, from 1958 until 1989. In 1989, after early retirement from engineering, McKiernan began writing on a full-time basis.
In 1977, while riding his motorcycle, McKiernan was hit by a car which had crossed the center-line, and was confined to a bed, first in traction and then in a hip spica cast, for many months. During his recuperation, he boldly began a sequel to J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The publisher Doubleday showed an interest in his work and tried to obtain authorization from Tolkien's estate but was denied. Doubleday then asked McKiernan to rewrite his story, placing the characters in a different fictitious world, and also to write a prequel supporting it. The prequel, of necessity, resembles The Lord of the Rings; the decision of Doubleday to issue the work as a trilogy increased that resemblance; and some critics have seen McKiernan as simply imitating Tolkien's epic work. McKiernan has subsequently developed stories in the series that followed along a story line different from those that plausibly could have been taken by Tolkien.
McKiernan's Faery Series expands tales draw from Andrew Lang's Fairy Books, additionally tying the selected tales together with a larger plot.
McKiernan currently lives in Tucson, Arizona.
(Biography taken from Wikipedia)
In 1977, while riding his motorcycle, McKiernan was hit by a car which had crossed the center-line, and was confined to a bed, first in traction and then in a hip spica cast, for many months. During his recuperation, he boldly began a sequel to J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The publisher Doubleday showed an interest in his work and tried to obtain authorization from Tolkien's estate but was denied. Doubleday then asked McKiernan to rewrite his story, placing the characters in a different fictitious world, and also to write a prequel supporting it. The prequel, of necessity, resembles The Lord of the Rings; the decision of Doubleday to issue the work as a trilogy increased that resemblance; and some critics have seen McKiernan as simply imitating Tolkien's epic work. McKiernan has subsequently developed stories in the series that followed along a story line different from those that plausibly could have been taken by Tolkien.
McKiernan's Faery Series expands tales draw from Andrew Lang's Fairy Books, additionally tying the selected tales together with a larger plot.
McKiernan currently lives in Tucson, Arizona.
(Biography taken from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews
April 20, 2011
Look, this book is like eating a rhubarb pie made by your friend, where you weren't expecting rhubarb pie (or maybe you did because you read the introduction), and you're surprised and kind of pissed because you thought only your grandmother could make rhubarb pie, and you always brag about how your grandmother invented rhubarb pie, before that people tried to eat the leaves and kept dying, but here's this jerk making a rhubarb pie, and the worst part is it's actually fairly tasty.
Sure, it's not as epic or long-winded as your grandmother's pie, and you suspect this pie crust might not be made from scratch, and it has a tendency to use completely ridiculous words and the phrasing is so silly it makes you laugh, but overall it's actually a pretty good pie.
If you'd never had your grandmother's real rhubarb pie, and ate this first, you would probably not be complaining so much. You might think the pie-author could have gone into a lot more detail, and made a richer and fuller story, with perhaps a bit less comically over-done heroic posing and characters talking as though they knew they were being recorded, but it was fun to eat and you might eat it again but definitely not tell your family.
OK, enough pie stuff. I don't give a rat's bum if McKiernan wrote his own story on Tolkien's framework, because he did it in a way I enjoyed. He managed to do away with things I didn't like in Tolkien (sweeping generalizations about races, characters never having to go to the bathroom, nobody ever asking useful questions) and introduced things I really liked (people listening to logic, characters being creative, people being people instead of mindless examples of their races, an interesting religious premise, silly writing).
The edition I read included an introduction which explained McKiernan's respect for Tolkien, and acknowledgment of the relationship between his story and the other. Maybe if I hadn't read that first, I would have been outraged, but come on. He's taking a fun twist, more directly mapped to Tolkien than most later high fantasy, but with a lot of merit.
I wished the books were longer so he could have gone into more detail (thus further defining the areas in which he expanded and moved away from Tolkien), but the depth with which he wrote the story left me interested in reading more. And you know what? I like the outline of characters grow up in sleepy town, larger events crash down, characters leave, characters bumble around, characters end up being really important, go through a nifty cave, fight a thing, get gifts from pretty elf ladies, wander around, have problems with horses, there are battles, characters sneak to final confrontation, epic thing, everyone smokes pipes by fire if they aren't dead afterward, reproduce.
Just because Tolkien made a delicious pie of great visibility and creativity doesn't mean there's no merit to improvising on his recipe and producing more tasty pies. I like tasty pies, and I don't care how closely related they are to the original pie, especially since Tolkien is dead and won't be contributing to the pie industry any further.
Sure, it's not as epic or long-winded as your grandmother's pie, and you suspect this pie crust might not be made from scratch, and it has a tendency to use completely ridiculous words and the phrasing is so silly it makes you laugh, but overall it's actually a pretty good pie.
If you'd never had your grandmother's real rhubarb pie, and ate this first, you would probably not be complaining so much. You might think the pie-author could have gone into a lot more detail, and made a richer and fuller story, with perhaps a bit less comically over-done heroic posing and characters talking as though they knew they were being recorded, but it was fun to eat and you might eat it again but definitely not tell your family.
OK, enough pie stuff. I don't give a rat's bum if McKiernan wrote his own story on Tolkien's framework, because he did it in a way I enjoyed. He managed to do away with things I didn't like in Tolkien (sweeping generalizations about races, characters never having to go to the bathroom, nobody ever asking useful questions) and introduced things I really liked (people listening to logic, characters being creative, people being people instead of mindless examples of their races, an interesting religious premise, silly writing).
The edition I read included an introduction which explained McKiernan's respect for Tolkien, and acknowledgment of the relationship between his story and the other. Maybe if I hadn't read that first, I would have been outraged, but come on. He's taking a fun twist, more directly mapped to Tolkien than most later high fantasy, but with a lot of merit.
I wished the books were longer so he could have gone into more detail (thus further defining the areas in which he expanded and moved away from Tolkien), but the depth with which he wrote the story left me interested in reading more. And you know what? I like the outline of characters grow up in sleepy town, larger events crash down, characters leave, characters bumble around, characters end up being really important, go through a nifty cave, fight a thing, get gifts from pretty elf ladies, wander around, have problems with horses, there are battles, characters sneak to final confrontation, epic thing, everyone smokes pipes by fire if they aren't dead afterward, reproduce.
Just because Tolkien made a delicious pie of great visibility and creativity doesn't mean there's no merit to improvising on his recipe and producing more tasty pies. I like tasty pies, and I don't care how closely related they are to the original pie, especially since Tolkien is dead and won't be contributing to the pie industry any further.
September 11, 2009
NOTE: This is a review of the whole trilogy, as I'd left a brief comment on this book first when I started reading it - why not keep it here?
First off, I don't have much to add to all the other negatives - this is likely the worst book of any kind that I've ever read. Read on if you must...
Tolkien plagiarism - well, duh. This makes the "Sword of Shannara" look like a masterpiece of originality in comparison. The very beginning, with the "young buccan Warrows" (McKiernan's strength sure isn't in his naming) practicing their archery, is just about the only scene that doesn't seem like a LOTR swipe. OK, the warrows are a little more warlike than the hobbits. So what? They also have a piece in the appendix called "On Warrows" - they're quite short - they tend to stoutness - they live in a peaceful country all their own and like to avoid the big folks - there's a town on the verge of their country called Stonehill (Bree) populated by men and Warrows, with an inkeeper named Bockleman (Barliman Butterbur) - four of them take part in most of the action of the book, with one Tuck (Frodo) being eventually responsible for the downfall of the bad guy Modru (Sauron) and his boss Gryphon (Morgoth). You get the idea.
But I guess one can plagiarise pretty baldly and get away with it. I don't think McKiernan got sued - if he did, he must have settled quietly - his books are still out there. So let's let go of that. If he's writing a copy, well, how does he write it? Not well at all I'm afraid. His heroes and villains are all paper-thin - Modru comes off as a James Bond villain at best, cackling about his plans to his helpless female prisoner and hissing a lot, and he's evil because....uh...he's evil. The heroes have no personalities either, and most of them cry a lot. There's no sense of landscape, of culture, of history, it all just feels tacked together, all makeshift and cheap, all no more detailed or interesting than the average AD&D game I was playing in college around the time this was first published. Others have mentioned how McKiernan flips back and forth between "quarrels" and "arrows" (it should be the latter in most cases) indiscriminately, but his writing is remarkably lazy and poor throughout. He uses the passive voice an awful lot and throws in archaisms and umlauts and accents recklessly, I guess to make it feel "old" and "epic", but he only succeeds in making himself look illiterate and pretentious. He also has one very curious trait that I've never seen anywhere before - he likes to abbreviate words that are not normally ever abbreviate, e.g. "landscape" becomes " 'scape". This choice and several other equally mysterious ones like using an apostrophe before non-abbreviated words ('Day) help contribute to the general sense that the guy never wrote so much as a letter between college and the writing of this book - and his editors didn't do him any favors.
And he's awfully, awfully obvious. When Tuck finds the Red Quarrel early on, we're never in the slightest doubt that he'll be using it to complete the Big Task and destroy the Big Nasty; when the heroes go underground in Dimmen-whatever (Moria) we know they'll have to face the Balrog-thing; when the eclipse is first mentioned there's never a shred of doubt that they'll have to reach the Big Bad Iron Tower before it. And so on. This is a book almost wholly without subtext, except maybe a very cynical one: how badly can a book be written, and how obvious can it's debt to LOTR be, and yet still be published - and even cherished by fantasy fans with little taste or experience. The answer saddens me.
First off, I don't have much to add to all the other negatives - this is likely the worst book of any kind that I've ever read. Read on if you must...
Tolkien plagiarism - well, duh. This makes the "Sword of Shannara" look like a masterpiece of originality in comparison. The very beginning, with the "young buccan Warrows" (McKiernan's strength sure isn't in his naming) practicing their archery, is just about the only scene that doesn't seem like a LOTR swipe. OK, the warrows are a little more warlike than the hobbits. So what? They also have a piece in the appendix called "On Warrows" - they're quite short - they tend to stoutness - they live in a peaceful country all their own and like to avoid the big folks - there's a town on the verge of their country called Stonehill (Bree) populated by men and Warrows, with an inkeeper named Bockleman (Barliman Butterbur) - four of them take part in most of the action of the book, with one Tuck (Frodo) being eventually responsible for the downfall of the bad guy Modru (Sauron) and his boss Gryphon (Morgoth). You get the idea.
But I guess one can plagiarise pretty baldly and get away with it. I don't think McKiernan got sued - if he did, he must have settled quietly - his books are still out there. So let's let go of that. If he's writing a copy, well, how does he write it? Not well at all I'm afraid. His heroes and villains are all paper-thin - Modru comes off as a James Bond villain at best, cackling about his plans to his helpless female prisoner and hissing a lot, and he's evil because....uh...he's evil. The heroes have no personalities either, and most of them cry a lot. There's no sense of landscape, of culture, of history, it all just feels tacked together, all makeshift and cheap, all no more detailed or interesting than the average AD&D game I was playing in college around the time this was first published. Others have mentioned how McKiernan flips back and forth between "quarrels" and "arrows" (it should be the latter in most cases) indiscriminately, but his writing is remarkably lazy and poor throughout. He uses the passive voice an awful lot and throws in archaisms and umlauts and accents recklessly, I guess to make it feel "old" and "epic", but he only succeeds in making himself look illiterate and pretentious. He also has one very curious trait that I've never seen anywhere before - he likes to abbreviate words that are not normally ever abbreviate, e.g. "landscape" becomes " 'scape". This choice and several other equally mysterious ones like using an apostrophe before non-abbreviated words ('Day) help contribute to the general sense that the guy never wrote so much as a letter between college and the writing of this book - and his editors didn't do him any favors.
And he's awfully, awfully obvious. When Tuck finds the Red Quarrel early on, we're never in the slightest doubt that he'll be using it to complete the Big Task and destroy the Big Nasty; when the heroes go underground in Dimmen-whatever (Moria) we know they'll have to face the Balrog-thing; when the eclipse is first mentioned there's never a shred of doubt that they'll have to reach the Big Bad Iron Tower before it. And so on. This is a book almost wholly without subtext, except maybe a very cynical one: how badly can a book be written, and how obvious can it's debt to LOTR be, and yet still be published - and even cherished by fantasy fans with little taste or experience. The answer saddens me.
August 3, 2012
This is one of my all time favorite Fantasy trilogies. I think of it as a better lord of the rings. I actually read this series before I read Lord of the rings which is probably why I can commit what others will consider lunacy and rate this Higher than Tolkiens work. Yes there are many similarities to Lord of the rings and Tolkiens middle earth world, but he makes the world different enough That you can overlook it. In a time when everybody is remaking everything and putting their own spin on it I am sure you'll be used to it by now.
One thing I really enjoy is that the people that stand in for Hobbits (the Warrows) are not snivelling cry baby whiners afraid of their own shadows like the hobbits. They are small but not without resolve and courage.
Once you have read this trilogy you'll want to learn more of the history of this world and mkiernan provides plenty of stories to immerse yourself in.
One thing I really enjoy is that the people that stand in for Hobbits (the Warrows) are not snivelling cry baby whiners afraid of their own shadows like the hobbits. They are small but not without resolve and courage.
Once you have read this trilogy you'll want to learn more of the history of this world and mkiernan provides plenty of stories to immerse yourself in.
April 30, 2019
Before we begin, check out Alan Lee's gorgeous cover art for this series.
Ok, so this is an odd trilogy, and there are a few stories as to why/how it came to be.
The most plausible story is that McKiernan simply did what a lot of other author's did at the time and just ripped off Tolkien.
There is also an unconfirmed story about McKiernan asking the Tolkien estate if he could write sequels/pastiches of The Lord of the RIngs. The estate said no and McKiernan said "Screw it, imma' do it anyway".
The least believable story is in the introduction to the newest collected edition of this series: that McKiernan was simply "inspired" by the works of Tolkien.
So, anyway, it goes without saying that this series is A LOT like The Lord of the Rings, but maybe not in the ways you might expect. It is not a scene-for-scene remake, but it really does feel like a different story told in the same world. Let's take a closer look:
So we get all of the Tolkien races: Elves, Dwarves (only mentioned in this book, not actually appearing), men, goblins/orcs, trolls, and Hobbits (here called "Warrows". They are small, emotional, and love to eat so, yeah, Hobbits). We also get lots of made up languages and songs. As for parts of the story that follow Tolkien, the most egregious are a Helm's Deep-like battle where the good guys have to keep falling back behind several walls, and a trip to a hidden elf village in the woods.
There are a lot of differences, too, and many that I kind of like, such as evil vampire armies and the fact that the Warrows (Hobbits) actually kick ass and have elf-like archery skills. One of the main differences, however, is that this book is a lot darker than Tolkien. Warrows get slaughtered left and right, the world is stuck in a perpetual winter night, and the enemy has no problem launching dead bodies with catapults at their enemies.
When I read this book, I couldn't help but feel like it was a Middle Earth story that either took place in a different area from the original trilogy (likely right on the doorstep of Mordor, seeing as how bleak it is right from the start), or maybe in a different age.
My main thought, however, was the McKiernan didn't need to copy Tolkien at all. The story is actually really good and could have easily stood on it's own with less cribbed elements.
In any event, if you ever wanted to know what a Tolkien pastiche would be like, or you want more stories like The Lord of the Rings, you could certainly do way worse than this.
Ok, so this is an odd trilogy, and there are a few stories as to why/how it came to be.
The most plausible story is that McKiernan simply did what a lot of other author's did at the time and just ripped off Tolkien.
There is also an unconfirmed story about McKiernan asking the Tolkien estate if he could write sequels/pastiches of The Lord of the RIngs. The estate said no and McKiernan said "Screw it, imma' do it anyway".
The least believable story is in the introduction to the newest collected edition of this series: that McKiernan was simply "inspired" by the works of Tolkien.
So, anyway, it goes without saying that this series is A LOT like The Lord of the Rings, but maybe not in the ways you might expect. It is not a scene-for-scene remake, but it really does feel like a different story told in the same world. Let's take a closer look:
So we get all of the Tolkien races: Elves, Dwarves (only mentioned in this book, not actually appearing), men, goblins/orcs, trolls, and Hobbits (here called "Warrows". They are small, emotional, and love to eat so, yeah, Hobbits). We also get lots of made up languages and songs. As for parts of the story that follow Tolkien, the most egregious are a Helm's Deep-like battle where the good guys have to keep falling back behind several walls, and a trip to a hidden elf village in the woods.
There are a lot of differences, too, and many that I kind of like, such as evil vampire armies and the fact that the Warrows (Hobbits) actually kick ass and have elf-like archery skills. One of the main differences, however, is that this book is a lot darker than Tolkien. Warrows get slaughtered left and right, the world is stuck in a perpetual winter night, and the enemy has no problem launching dead bodies with catapults at their enemies.
When I read this book, I couldn't help but feel like it was a Middle Earth story that either took place in a different area from the original trilogy (likely right on the doorstep of Mordor, seeing as how bleak it is right from the start), or maybe in a different age.
My main thought, however, was the McKiernan didn't need to copy Tolkien at all. The story is actually really good and could have easily stood on it's own with less cribbed elements.
In any event, if you ever wanted to know what a Tolkien pastiche would be like, or you want more stories like The Lord of the Rings, you could certainly do way worse than this.
January 11, 2008
The author pretty much begins the book by explaining that he liked Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings so much that he wanted to enjoy the experience of going through it again. So he wrote what he openly admits is a huge rip-off. Having admitted this, I guess he felt free to really, REALLY rip off Tolkien.
Personally, if you like Tolkien so much, I'd recommend doing what I'm doing: re-read The Lord of the Rings. Let Tolkien be Tolkien, and write your own freaking story.
Personally, if you like Tolkien so much, I'd recommend doing what I'm doing: re-read The Lord of the Rings. Let Tolkien be Tolkien, and write your own freaking story.
January 17, 2021
Some people used to call it plagiarism, me, I call it a loving homage.
April 24, 2012
I loved this series. I really don't get what everyone is being such a whino for. He clearly says how he respects Tolkien and used his framework. Plus, it was written pretty well. Tuck was such a courageous character with a humble outlook, and Galen and Danner, poor 'ol Danner. He didn't go into the characters as much (Tolkien had an entire appendix dedicated to Ent History!) but they were all inspiring nevertheless.
Just because the story has similarities doesn't make it a BAD book. Everyone who loves reading loves Tolkien. He is an inspiration to hundreds around the world. That means people inspire to be like him. To have an imagination like like him. To look at things through his eyes. Everyone is entitled to it.
The Iron Tower trilogy was a wonderful series that made my nights long and scary and sad and wonderful and magical. I'd read it again and again because I LOVE reading, and this is a good book to read.
Just because the story has similarities doesn't make it a BAD book. Everyone who loves reading loves Tolkien. He is an inspiration to hundreds around the world. That means people inspire to be like him. To have an imagination like like him. To look at things through his eyes. Everyone is entitled to it.
The Iron Tower trilogy was a wonderful series that made my nights long and scary and sad and wonderful and magical. I'd read it again and again because I LOVE reading, and this is a good book to read.
April 14, 2009
I learned you can re-do what another has done, and in style, and make it wholly your own without diminishing or insulting the original in the slightest. I don't enjoy McKiernan's Iron Tower trilogy in the same way as The Lord of the Rings, but it is, in its own way and on its own terms, every bit as satisfying. If you're a fan of the one, I strongly suggest you read the other.
April 14, 2010
Oh, man, this is bad. I growl and/or yell at the book approximately once per page at least. It's a fascinating train wreck of a book, and gives me both terrors (that it has so many defenders and that someone capable of reading could actually like it) and solace (in that, no matter my many deficiencies as a writer, at least I don't do what McKiernan does here). I might recommend the book to a young child just getting into fantasy, but if you can read this slog, you can read The Hobbit and not only enjoy the story, but not have your brain corrupted by miserable writing.
April 19, 2018
Many people are extremely hateful towards this series as it is clearly a 'rip-off' of Tolkien. However, I found this series very enjoyable. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was certainly a magnificent series, but it did have many many long drawn out battle scenes. McKiernan's novels, on the other hand, are significantly less focused on battles. There's still plenty of action and battle, but I found the series to be much faster paced and attention keeping. I love McKiernan's take on Tolkien's hobbits. The Warrows are not just simple, helpless characters. They are skilled with the bow and hunting techniques. Overall, I found this series to be extremely enjoyable. I for one am a huge fan of the Iron Tower Trilogy, and the Silver Call Duology.
August 25, 2011
Two things need to be established up front:
1) This is a LOTR facsimile out-and-out, and it was intentionally written to be so. Those who actually take the time to learn some of the history behind the book know that it was originally written to be a sequel to the LOTR trilogy, but the green light for publication was never given by Tolkien's family. The book was thus published after some edits to make it "its own story."
2) This is epic fantasy. In that vein, it is by nature slow in developing its story.
Okay, now that we have the foundation, let's move into the review. Some spoilers are sprinkled into the review. Oh, and I'm sure there will be some typos as well, since Goodread's review box is acting funny right now. You've been warned.
Unlike many fantasy fans, I'm not attached to the LOTR trilogy. (I must admit to having only read The Hobbit.) Thus, the many blatant and veiled similarities between this novel and LOTR don't rile me as much. I give the author more of a pass on his borrowing of ideas, than others such as Paolini, precisely because he is upfront about why he did what he did. He doesn't try to take any credit away from Tolkein. I'm cool with that. Put all of that to the side.
What I don't like about the book is the tedious pacing and needless ponderous descriptions. Characterization is also a significant problem. And while I understand the world-building purpose behind it, the faux names to objects (sometimes multiple to a single one) are cumbersome and detract from the story.
The pacing is atrocious, even for an epic fantasy. For most of the book's middle section, it felt as though more attention was given to developing the relationship between Tuck and Laurelin than to the impending doom surrouding the whole land. It is difficult to care about the gravity of the danger posed by Modru's forces when the primary character spends his waking hours speaking with a teenager who's only thoughts and expressions are in regards to her bethrothed prince, whom the reader has not yet met. Let me put this another way. Most if not all of the middle section consists of characters we don't care about talking to each other about characters we have yet to meet, and thus don't care about. (I'll address the characterization problem in short order.) Compared with the amount of space devoted to the aforementioned empty conversations, the final battle scene was rushed and formulaic. Tens of thousands of enemy troops surround the king's castle, lay seige, attack, and through successive waves overrun each of the walls to the last one. The success of the enemy, as far the plot is concerned, is largely premised on the idiocy of the castle's defenders. The pacing gets even worse following the primary characters' desperate attempt to escape the fallen castle, when the reader is forced to endure endless pages of description about the dark cloud that has fallen over the land (a phenomenon that gets a great deal of description throughout the book) and empty dialogue between Tuck and Galen. Nothing of immediacy happens to either character as they set out in search of missing companions, feared to be captured by the enemy. Let me reiterate this point. A large chunk of the book's end is just two characters and a horse riding through deserted lands talking to each other about things we've been given no reason to care about. No immediacy. No threat. Just two guys and a horse. Until the last page, when a "twist" (re: foreseeable) occurs that places Galen between two competing choices. The cliff hanger, of course, is which of the two decisions he will choose. That will presumably be addressed in the next book.
Now to characterization. There isn't a single character in this book that I can relate to or that I find interesting in the least. The story follows Tuck and is mostly told from his perspective, with an occasional allusion to another character's thoughts or perceptions. Tuck's physical abilities and martial prowess are sufficiently established so that within the context of the story, they are believable. Provided intense training on the use of his bow, there is little reason to question his ubercoolness with it. This is true of his Warrow companions as well, for they have all been trained to a sharp edge to be angels of death from afar. But that's where the believability ends. Tuck is provided a stock romantic interest whom the reader meets briefly at the very beginning of the book. His best friend is a one-dimensional character defined by his moodiness and anger. (Given the predictability of the characters, I'm also assuming there is some buried rivalry between the two characters, of which Tuck is completely unaware. I won't be surprised in the least if it turns out that part of the rivarly has to do with this female Warrow we know nothing about.) Tuck's relationship with Laurelin is so forced and shallow that his emotional expressions over the princess are laughable. Tuck is also an emotional Warrow, who tears up and cries over nearly everything. To be fair, this could be an exaggeration of a cultural characteristic, since most of the Warrows in the book where their emotions on their sleeve. Although Tuck's general motivation--to fight and defeat the forces of evil--provide plenty of impetus for his actions vis-a-vis combat, his more personal motivations are predictable, stale, and unbelievable. His reasons for joining Galen in the prince's quest to find Laurelin hold no emotional merit, since there is nothing presented in the body of the story to support them.
As mentioned above, Danner--the primary character's best friend--is one-dimensional. His entire character is defined by his obsessive need to express moodiness, most often the gloomy and angry kind. My assumption is that the author intended Danner to be a foil to Tuck's pluckiness and youthful idealism. Intended being the operative term. Danner essentially comes across as a three-foot emo, and has few if any redeeming qualities, other than being Tuck's best friend and a member of the author's preferred species (re: Warrows).
If Danner is one-dimensional, than Laurelin is no-dimensional. The only characteristic provided this character is her excessive beauty. And because she is beautiful, she is good and everyone loves her more than life itself, including Tuck. Nearly every time Laurelin speaks, she carries on about her betrothed, to the point where I'm sure if the characters were talking about paint drying, she'd find a way to fit Galen into the conversation. No seriously, Laurelin is defined one hundred percent by her constant repining for Galen. And everybody loves her for it. Yeah, makes no sense. Basically, she's a representation of perfect good and is meant to provide emotional imperative to the actions of the book's male characters. I'm no feminist, but even I have to roll my eyes on this one.
Galen is an idiot. And the successor to the throne. I weep for the people of Mithgar. My guess is that Galen is based on Aragon, given the former's military prowess and "leader's bearing." Three fourths of the book are devoted to talking about the guy, but we don't meet him until the end. That's fine. It's a time-proven writing technique and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. And provided that this is a fantasy story, I also cannot fault the author for using this technique to only define the character's military abilities and nothing more. Hey, it is what it is. But once we meet Galen, it becomes apparent quickly that the guy is lacking in wisdom and intelligence. Just as Laurelin's definition is inextricably tied to Galen, Galen's motivation is nothing without Laurelin. To put this into context, we have the successor to the throne abandoning his people to go on a wild chase in the midst of an apocalyptic invasion, pursuing an unknown enemy force, with paper thin evidence that said force is holding Laurelin and Igon hostage. Oh, and this happens when Galen is fully aware that his father, the high king, likely died in combat. So what is this character's motivation? Is it to rise to his status as leader of liberty and good? To command the armies of light against the hordes of evil? Nope. His motivation is to place himself at great mortal risk to rescue a princess whose social and militaristic role is so inconsequential to render her pretty much useless. And he is surrounded by morons who reinforce and even encourage his behavior. Leave it to the predictability of the plot to ensure that his decision to place every living man, woman, and child at the mercy of evil will play a crucial role in the story's resolution. Some plot coupon or vital piece of information will be found along the path to rescuing Laurelin.
Finally, the book's faux-names and so forth fail to provide texture and depth to its world building effort. Do we the readers really gain anything from having a "wagon" called a "waggon?" I found it more distracting than anything else. Or having a wawgon train called a wain? (I believe that is the term. I'm away from the book at the moment.) I realize that this criticism must be tempered by the type of genre the book belongs to. It is also important to further temper the criticism by reiterating that this is a Tolkien fascimile. Still doesn't mean I found little value to the technique.
So this is the first of three books that make up the Iron Tower trilogy. I own all three (compiled into a single book, as it was originally intended to be) and have committed myself to reading the entire story. I've little reason to believe that my opinion of the story will change from now to the end, but I may find myself surprised. This is particularly true when considering that the characters' development may improve as the story unfolds, since this book is truly only the beginning as far as the three-act format is concerned. I'm not holding my breath though.
1) This is a LOTR facsimile out-and-out, and it was intentionally written to be so. Those who actually take the time to learn some of the history behind the book know that it was originally written to be a sequel to the LOTR trilogy, but the green light for publication was never given by Tolkien's family. The book was thus published after some edits to make it "its own story."
2) This is epic fantasy. In that vein, it is by nature slow in developing its story.
Okay, now that we have the foundation, let's move into the review. Some spoilers are sprinkled into the review. Oh, and I'm sure there will be some typos as well, since Goodread's review box is acting funny right now. You've been warned.
Unlike many fantasy fans, I'm not attached to the LOTR trilogy. (I must admit to having only read The Hobbit.) Thus, the many blatant and veiled similarities between this novel and LOTR don't rile me as much. I give the author more of a pass on his borrowing of ideas, than others such as Paolini, precisely because he is upfront about why he did what he did. He doesn't try to take any credit away from Tolkein. I'm cool with that. Put all of that to the side.
What I don't like about the book is the tedious pacing and needless ponderous descriptions. Characterization is also a significant problem. And while I understand the world-building purpose behind it, the faux names to objects (sometimes multiple to a single one) are cumbersome and detract from the story.
The pacing is atrocious, even for an epic fantasy. For most of the book's middle section, it felt as though more attention was given to developing the relationship between Tuck and Laurelin than to the impending doom surrouding the whole land. It is difficult to care about the gravity of the danger posed by Modru's forces when the primary character spends his waking hours speaking with a teenager who's only thoughts and expressions are in regards to her bethrothed prince, whom the reader has not yet met. Let me put this another way. Most if not all of the middle section consists of characters we don't care about talking to each other about characters we have yet to meet, and thus don't care about. (I'll address the characterization problem in short order.) Compared with the amount of space devoted to the aforementioned empty conversations, the final battle scene was rushed and formulaic. Tens of thousands of enemy troops surround the king's castle, lay seige, attack, and through successive waves overrun each of the walls to the last one. The success of the enemy, as far the plot is concerned, is largely premised on the idiocy of the castle's defenders. The pacing gets even worse following the primary characters' desperate attempt to escape the fallen castle, when the reader is forced to endure endless pages of description about the dark cloud that has fallen over the land (a phenomenon that gets a great deal of description throughout the book) and empty dialogue between Tuck and Galen. Nothing of immediacy happens to either character as they set out in search of missing companions, feared to be captured by the enemy. Let me reiterate this point. A large chunk of the book's end is just two characters and a horse riding through deserted lands talking to each other about things we've been given no reason to care about. No immediacy. No threat. Just two guys and a horse. Until the last page, when a "twist" (re: foreseeable) occurs that places Galen between two competing choices. The cliff hanger, of course, is which of the two decisions he will choose. That will presumably be addressed in the next book.
Now to characterization. There isn't a single character in this book that I can relate to or that I find interesting in the least. The story follows Tuck and is mostly told from his perspective, with an occasional allusion to another character's thoughts or perceptions. Tuck's physical abilities and martial prowess are sufficiently established so that within the context of the story, they are believable. Provided intense training on the use of his bow, there is little reason to question his ubercoolness with it. This is true of his Warrow companions as well, for they have all been trained to a sharp edge to be angels of death from afar. But that's where the believability ends. Tuck is provided a stock romantic interest whom the reader meets briefly at the very beginning of the book. His best friend is a one-dimensional character defined by his moodiness and anger. (Given the predictability of the characters, I'm also assuming there is some buried rivalry between the two characters, of which Tuck is completely unaware. I won't be surprised in the least if it turns out that part of the rivarly has to do with this female Warrow we know nothing about.) Tuck's relationship with Laurelin is so forced and shallow that his emotional expressions over the princess are laughable. Tuck is also an emotional Warrow, who tears up and cries over nearly everything. To be fair, this could be an exaggeration of a cultural characteristic, since most of the Warrows in the book where their emotions on their sleeve. Although Tuck's general motivation--to fight and defeat the forces of evil--provide plenty of impetus for his actions vis-a-vis combat, his more personal motivations are predictable, stale, and unbelievable. His reasons for joining Galen in the prince's quest to find Laurelin hold no emotional merit, since there is nothing presented in the body of the story to support them.
As mentioned above, Danner--the primary character's best friend--is one-dimensional. His entire character is defined by his obsessive need to express moodiness, most often the gloomy and angry kind. My assumption is that the author intended Danner to be a foil to Tuck's pluckiness and youthful idealism. Intended being the operative term. Danner essentially comes across as a three-foot emo, and has few if any redeeming qualities, other than being Tuck's best friend and a member of the author's preferred species (re: Warrows).
If Danner is one-dimensional, than Laurelin is no-dimensional. The only characteristic provided this character is her excessive beauty. And because she is beautiful, she is good and everyone loves her more than life itself, including Tuck. Nearly every time Laurelin speaks, she carries on about her betrothed, to the point where I'm sure if the characters were talking about paint drying, she'd find a way to fit Galen into the conversation. No seriously, Laurelin is defined one hundred percent by her constant repining for Galen. And everybody loves her for it. Yeah, makes no sense. Basically, she's a representation of perfect good and is meant to provide emotional imperative to the actions of the book's male characters. I'm no feminist, but even I have to roll my eyes on this one.
Galen is an idiot. And the successor to the throne. I weep for the people of Mithgar. My guess is that Galen is based on Aragon, given the former's military prowess and "leader's bearing." Three fourths of the book are devoted to talking about the guy, but we don't meet him until the end. That's fine. It's a time-proven writing technique and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. And provided that this is a fantasy story, I also cannot fault the author for using this technique to only define the character's military abilities and nothing more. Hey, it is what it is. But once we meet Galen, it becomes apparent quickly that the guy is lacking in wisdom and intelligence. Just as Laurelin's definition is inextricably tied to Galen, Galen's motivation is nothing without Laurelin. To put this into context, we have the successor to the throne abandoning his people to go on a wild chase in the midst of an apocalyptic invasion, pursuing an unknown enemy force, with paper thin evidence that said force is holding Laurelin and Igon hostage. Oh, and this happens when Galen is fully aware that his father, the high king, likely died in combat. So what is this character's motivation? Is it to rise to his status as leader of liberty and good? To command the armies of light against the hordes of evil? Nope. His motivation is to place himself at great mortal risk to rescue a princess whose social and militaristic role is so inconsequential to render her pretty much useless. And he is surrounded by morons who reinforce and even encourage his behavior. Leave it to the predictability of the plot to ensure that his decision to place every living man, woman, and child at the mercy of evil will play a crucial role in the story's resolution. Some plot coupon or vital piece of information will be found along the path to rescuing Laurelin.
Finally, the book's faux-names and so forth fail to provide texture and depth to its world building effort. Do we the readers really gain anything from having a "wagon" called a "waggon?" I found it more distracting than anything else. Or having a wawgon train called a wain? (I believe that is the term. I'm away from the book at the moment.) I realize that this criticism must be tempered by the type of genre the book belongs to. It is also important to further temper the criticism by reiterating that this is a Tolkien fascimile. Still doesn't mean I found little value to the technique.
So this is the first of three books that make up the Iron Tower trilogy. I own all three (compiled into a single book, as it was originally intended to be) and have committed myself to reading the entire story. I've little reason to believe that my opinion of the story will change from now to the end, but I may find myself surprised. This is particularly true when considering that the characters' development may improve as the story unfolds, since this book is truly only the beginning as far as the three-act format is concerned. I'm not holding my breath though.
May 6, 2022
I am new to this author. Not being familiar with Dennis L. Mckiernan, or his world of Mithgar, I wasn't entirely sure how I'd take to The Dark Tide (book one of The Iron Tower trilogy, published in 1984). Reading many people's thoughts, I was expecting a flavourless retread of The Lord Of The Rings.
What I got instead was a whimsical, fast paced, and beautifully written fantasy adventure. The author himself acknowledges his debt to the works of Tolkien, but who in this genre isn't influenced by the master in one way or another? But I didn't find this a carbon copy at all. I felt that the writing and the world reminded me a lot of Arthurian legend, and I was taken by the antiquated style of prose, the sense of myth that reminded me strongly of Lloyd Alexander's The Chronicles Of Prydain, and, yes, the works of Terry Brooks (also unfairly maligned for his Tolkien influence, which he grew out of after ONE book).
I don't want to give anything away about the plot. But if a beautiful land marred by the growing presence of a mysterious, evil darkness filled with nightmarish monsters and unnerving magic should interest you, give this a go. I felt moments reminded me of Tad Williams Shadowmarch series, only more tightly written here, so if you're a fan of that, try this.
This won't change anyone's life, but if you're a fan of classic, early eighties fantasy, Arthurian adventure, beautiful, old fashioned prose and dashing heroes and dastardly villains, this is one of the superior choices.
I can't wait to continue.
What I got instead was a whimsical, fast paced, and beautifully written fantasy adventure. The author himself acknowledges his debt to the works of Tolkien, but who in this genre isn't influenced by the master in one way or another? But I didn't find this a carbon copy at all. I felt that the writing and the world reminded me a lot of Arthurian legend, and I was taken by the antiquated style of prose, the sense of myth that reminded me strongly of Lloyd Alexander's The Chronicles Of Prydain, and, yes, the works of Terry Brooks (also unfairly maligned for his Tolkien influence, which he grew out of after ONE book).
I don't want to give anything away about the plot. But if a beautiful land marred by the growing presence of a mysterious, evil darkness filled with nightmarish monsters and unnerving magic should interest you, give this a go. I felt moments reminded me of Tad Williams Shadowmarch series, only more tightly written here, so if you're a fan of that, try this.
This won't change anyone's life, but if you're a fan of classic, early eighties fantasy, Arthurian adventure, beautiful, old fashioned prose and dashing heroes and dastardly villains, this is one of the superior choices.
I can't wait to continue.
April 7, 2009
I read McKirnan’s Iron Tower trilogy many years ago. I was looking for something like The Lord Of The Rings, as I recall. Boy, did I get it. Sort of. I remember having a difficult time getting through the trilogy, perhaps that I didn’t finish it.
Now I know why. Reading this again, the best word I can think of to describe McKiernan’s writing is “tedious.” This guy describes everything. What clothes the characters are wearing, what they eat, what they’re thinking, what they’re not thinking, what they think about what they’ve been thinking about. He describes not only a castle but what it’s sitting on, all the people in the city around it, who built it, their favorite books, color, food, what was on the radio at the time, who was big in sports, etc. Dennis! It’s a castle! Leave it!
And he does all this describing with a whole lot of screwy use of the language. He uses the word “whelm” and variants of it as often as spotty faced teens and submornonic frat boys say, “dude.” He misuses it slightly but I wouldn’t recommend checking that by looking up the definition then reading this book. Not worth the time. Another one is “blench,” which means to flinch. Everyone in this book does it and I did it, too, about 3,632 times while hacking my way through the dense underbrush that is McKiernan’s writing. Oh, and he misspells words on purpose, claiming that’s the “old way” or “old spelling” or something. I think he’s trying to be “quaint” or “authentic” but it just comes off highfalutin’ and it’s difficult to stomach, let alone read.
Then there’s the repetition. I likes me some repetition in music. Actually, I like a lot of repetition in music. Alright, Lemmy era Hawkwind! But in writing? No thanks. Tell me once! Any more than that and I have to assume you think I’m stupid, which I do not appreciate. Sometimes McKiernan's repetition comes off like a children’s author repeating a moral lesson. If this book were less than a third the length and didn’t have the occasional “adult theme,” I’d think it was written for unimaginative eight year olds.
Let’s see, what else…
Oh, yeah! I almost forgot! The whole Tolkien rip off angle! You might ask, “How bad could it be?” Bad. Real bad. It’s like he took Lord Of The Rings, wrote up an outline of the story then changed about six things to make sure he didn’t get sued. Maybe seven things. Certainly not as many as ten. Then he flipped the events around for good measure. I mean, there’s no great wizard leading this fellowship, for example, but there is a balrog (called something else) in a dwarven mine (again, name change from Tolkien’s) from whence the dwarves were all driven away by the evil forces of the dark lord Sauro… er, Modru. Or is it the other guy? I can’t remember. The siege of the big city happens at the beginning of the story instead of the end, but it’s in there, too. There’s even a battering ram with a name. Tolkien’s not the only victim. I detected “borrowing” from Lloyd Alexander and I’m willing to entertain the idea that there are far, far more stolen goods that I am too ignorant to recognize.
But I’ll tell you this; I do find that I care about the characters. Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli… wait, wait, wait, wrong book. Yes sir, McKiernan has gotten even me to be concerned with these characters (whatever their names are) and what will happen to them and it only increases my disappointment in him for delaying my finding out with all these WORDS. Goddammit, Dennis. Not cool.
Now I know why. Reading this again, the best word I can think of to describe McKiernan’s writing is “tedious.” This guy describes everything. What clothes the characters are wearing, what they eat, what they’re thinking, what they’re not thinking, what they think about what they’ve been thinking about. He describes not only a castle but what it’s sitting on, all the people in the city around it, who built it, their favorite books, color, food, what was on the radio at the time, who was big in sports, etc. Dennis! It’s a castle! Leave it!
And he does all this describing with a whole lot of screwy use of the language. He uses the word “whelm” and variants of it as often as spotty faced teens and submornonic frat boys say, “dude.” He misuses it slightly but I wouldn’t recommend checking that by looking up the definition then reading this book. Not worth the time. Another one is “blench,” which means to flinch. Everyone in this book does it and I did it, too, about 3,632 times while hacking my way through the dense underbrush that is McKiernan’s writing. Oh, and he misspells words on purpose, claiming that’s the “old way” or “old spelling” or something. I think he’s trying to be “quaint” or “authentic” but it just comes off highfalutin’ and it’s difficult to stomach, let alone read.
Then there’s the repetition. I likes me some repetition in music. Actually, I like a lot of repetition in music. Alright, Lemmy era Hawkwind! But in writing? No thanks. Tell me once! Any more than that and I have to assume you think I’m stupid, which I do not appreciate. Sometimes McKiernan's repetition comes off like a children’s author repeating a moral lesson. If this book were less than a third the length and didn’t have the occasional “adult theme,” I’d think it was written for unimaginative eight year olds.
Let’s see, what else…
Oh, yeah! I almost forgot! The whole Tolkien rip off angle! You might ask, “How bad could it be?” Bad. Real bad. It’s like he took Lord Of The Rings, wrote up an outline of the story then changed about six things to make sure he didn’t get sued. Maybe seven things. Certainly not as many as ten. Then he flipped the events around for good measure. I mean, there’s no great wizard leading this fellowship, for example, but there is a balrog (called something else) in a dwarven mine (again, name change from Tolkien’s) from whence the dwarves were all driven away by the evil forces of the dark lord Sauro… er, Modru. Or is it the other guy? I can’t remember. The siege of the big city happens at the beginning of the story instead of the end, but it’s in there, too. There’s even a battering ram with a name. Tolkien’s not the only victim. I detected “borrowing” from Lloyd Alexander and I’m willing to entertain the idea that there are far, far more stolen goods that I am too ignorant to recognize.
But I’ll tell you this; I do find that I care about the characters. Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli… wait, wait, wait, wrong book. Yes sir, McKiernan has gotten even me to be concerned with these characters (whatever their names are) and what will happen to them and it only increases my disappointment in him for delaying my finding out with all these WORDS. Goddammit, Dennis. Not cool.
February 1, 2021
Many reviewers have compared this series to Tolkein's epic, and their are parallels to be sure, but I see it more of a homage than a cheap knockoff. TDT is classic high fantasy; a good versus evil struggle, with a diverse group of allies defending the world against an ancient evil that has returned. The story starts with 'Tuck', our main protagonist, learning/honing his archery skills. Tuck is a Warrow, a 'wee folk', something akin to a Hobbit. Evil tidings have made the rounds at pubs, and a harsh winter has set in. The Warror have a defensive army so to speak to guard their lands, and Tuck is just a part of a greater mobilization. Soon, however, he is sucked into a greater battle...
McKiernan writes well and the story flows nicely. The ancient evil had been banished at great cost around 4000 years prior, and the various races that populate Mithgar have been settled into their ways for countless generations. Besides the wee folk, we have Elves and Men, and we also hear of Dwarves although we never meet them. The evil forces are nasty of course. They, since their banishment, are killed via sunlight, consigned to live in the darkness, but the evil mastermind behind their reawakening has used some sort of magical means to create an expanding 'cloud' of darkness which flows from the North. TDT is obviously the first in a trilogy, and sets up the epic struggle to come, although some pretty epic struggles take place in this one!
TDT is not a deep story, but a classic adventure tale. I rank this as much better than Terry Brooks work, although the good versus evil theme has become a little overused. 3.5 stars rounding up.
McKiernan writes well and the story flows nicely. The ancient evil had been banished at great cost around 4000 years prior, and the various races that populate Mithgar have been settled into their ways for countless generations. Besides the wee folk, we have Elves and Men, and we also hear of Dwarves although we never meet them. The evil forces are nasty of course. They, since their banishment, are killed via sunlight, consigned to live in the darkness, but the evil mastermind behind their reawakening has used some sort of magical means to create an expanding 'cloud' of darkness which flows from the North. TDT is obviously the first in a trilogy, and sets up the epic struggle to come, although some pretty epic struggles take place in this one!
TDT is not a deep story, but a classic adventure tale. I rank this as much better than Terry Brooks work, although the good versus evil theme has become a little overused. 3.5 stars rounding up.
April 10, 2010
As noted in other readers' comments, this is a truly awful Tolkien ripoff. Of course,it is part of a trilogy and its multiracial cast of los...I mean heroes, is in conflict with the ultimate evil. It is a triumph of ripoff and redundancy, but that is not the worst. The totally tedious writing style is intended to be medieval and chivalrous, but it only succeeds in boring the bile right out of my liver. If you have not yet squandered precious moments of your life on this banal tale, you can bring new meaning to your existence by refusing to waste your time on this drivel.
January 11, 2011
This was lent to me by an acquaintance who found out I'm a Tolkien fan and said, "If you love Lord of the Rings, you'll definitely love this!" A most unfortunate assumption.
I picked up the book prepared to find a certain level of inspiration from the Lord of the Rings, but instead found a mind-numbingly huge number of blatant rip-offs. Accompanied by awful writing. I was prepared to give examples, but there are too many to choose from. I can only hope that this author has come to feel shame for writing this, and has repented.
I picked up the book prepared to find a certain level of inspiration from the Lord of the Rings, but instead found a mind-numbingly huge number of blatant rip-offs. Accompanied by awful writing. I was prepared to give examples, but there are too many to choose from. I can only hope that this author has come to feel shame for writing this, and has repented.
October 31, 2015
I read this book and the entire series many years ago when it hit the book store shelves. While it is somewhat derivative of The Lord of the Rings, many fantasy books of the time were too. However, this was a tale told in the author's own voice and perspective and it was, therefore, unique. I found the characters engaging as well as the setting - even if somewhat familiar in tone. I enjoyed the book at the time and though many newer readers might find it too Tolkien-ish these days, I think that it should judged on its merit in context of time. It was an enjoyable read that I remember fondly.
December 1, 2010
Like Lord of the Rings except it's a better story.
July 18, 2025
An absolute gem! If you like Lord Of The Rings, anything by Ursula LeGuin, or high fantasy in general, then you will love this. Wonderful world building, characters you will instantly fall in love with, packed with action and heart wrenching tragedy and epic heroism in the face of overwhelming odds. Too, there is the ever present choice between Love, Duty, and Honour. When the darkness shadows all, which path will they choose?
March 30, 2020
It gets four nostalgic stars. I read this book when I was 12 or so. Maybe 14. I stumbled across the series at a used books store on the weekend and I had to buy them. I remember bits and pieces of the story so I wanted to re-read them to see if my memory was as good as I hope it is. I thought Merrilee comes back in this one, so I guess I'm a little off.
It's reminiscent of LotR, especially with the little Hobbit-like creatures, but unlike LotR, it doesn't ramble on and on for hundreds of pages. It's definitely attempting to be "high fantasy", what with the way the characters speak and the allusions to absolute good vs. absolute evil. It's quite prescriptive and the characters don't have much depth, but the story moves fast, and the novel is so tiny, that you tend to forget that. The main battle was a little short, and the reason for Modru's war is a little unclear (I'm guessing he's evil and that's what evil does?), but overall it's a fun little book. I intend to read the second and third books too, though probably not right away.
The lack of a strong female character is a little annoying, but given that the main characters have the depth of a shot glass, there is hardly any basis for unconventional gender roles. If I didn't know about Merrilee in the next book (though I can't remember what specifically she does), I would probably be a bit peeved about this.
Overall, a fun little lotR-esque novel. A very fast read. Perfect for summer.
It's reminiscent of LotR, especially with the little Hobbit-like creatures, but unlike LotR, it doesn't ramble on and on for hundreds of pages. It's definitely attempting to be "high fantasy", what with the way the characters speak and the allusions to absolute good vs. absolute evil. It's quite prescriptive and the characters don't have much depth, but the story moves fast, and the novel is so tiny, that you tend to forget that. The main battle was a little short, and the reason for Modru's war is a little unclear (I'm guessing he's evil and that's what evil does?), but overall it's a fun little book. I intend to read the second and third books too, though probably not right away.
The lack of a strong female character is a little annoying, but given that the main characters have the depth of a shot glass, there is hardly any basis for unconventional gender roles. If I didn't know about Merrilee in the next book (though I can't remember what specifically she does), I would probably be a bit peeved about this.
Overall, a fun little lotR-esque novel. A very fast read. Perfect for summer.
November 2, 2010
McKiernan writes prose that flows very easily and frankly just draws you into the story. His characters have depth but not the point that they get in the way of the story. It is in the story that he may stray from excellence (and maybe not as I'll explain later) as he essentially is riding on the same formula as Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". Here is a small list of like elements:
- Great evil one long banished
- Central heroes are some diminutive fairy of small stature.
- great tower in the evil one's lands wherein he rules by fear.
- uses term for world meaning Middle Earth.
- use of simulated languages.
and the list goes on. Now in McKiernan's defense, he does this well and with enough of a change to draw interest back. Also, if taken from a story telling point of view, a good story retold is still a good story, and McKiernan is an excellent story teller.
- Great evil one long banished
- Central heroes are some diminutive fairy of small stature.
- great tower in the evil one's lands wherein he rules by fear.
- uses term for world meaning Middle Earth.
- use of simulated languages.
and the list goes on. Now in McKiernan's defense, he does this well and with enough of a change to draw interest back. Also, if taken from a story telling point of view, a good story retold is still a good story, and McKiernan is an excellent story teller.
November 17, 2011
Too often maligned as a knock-off of LotR, The Iron Tower is really a delightful tale of its own, well done with endearing characters, underlying themes, and great action. If one admits that the story does follow 'the formula' (which has stood the test of time, I might add) one can sit back and enjoy this take on it with relish. Get it.
December 20, 2007
I so love this trilogy. Far better than Lord of the Rings. More passionate and better writing
February 22, 2011
3.75 stars. A really delightful foray into the world of the fey. Tuck, a warrow (hobbit-like creature) becomes a hero in the war against the evil Dimmendark.
August 1, 2011
Though very Tolkeinesque in its scope, it still stands alone as the beginning of a series where the "Little guy" does great things.
Read
October 2, 2015Some people rail on this series. I wonder, would they still hate it if they viewed it as YA Fan Fiction?
December 3, 2023
To the people saying it is like LOTR. I get it. But a million other high fantasy books give the same vibe if you think it. I absolutely love the Warrows in this tale. The Warrows are similar to hobbits but to me seem more like the creatures from dark crystal. They have large sparkling eyes and pointed ears and about 3 ft tall. The big difference aside from looks would be that Warrows are very brave warriors unlike hobbits. And in my opinion this style of character is preferred for me. I like hobbits but dislike their timid passive life style. Warrows in this are respected as established warriors and it’s amazing. The book is an easy read and just over 300 pages so it’s not terribly long. The only thing I would change is the book only has 6 chapters. I personally like to read chapters at a time. And with this book I can’t read from 1 chapter to the next in one sitting. I just don’t have the time. So you have to stop and start mid page. I’m off to start the 2nd book of the trilogy. Thank you Dennis for the adventure. Ready to start the next!
November 24, 2018
I read this book in the late 1980's and really enjoyed it. McKiernan himself says he paid homage to The Lord of the Rings with it using men, dwarves, elves, and a short race of beings known as "warrows" but unlike Hobbits the warrows are trained to fight and are more akin to 3rd edition D & D halflings as opposed to the more rounded Hobbits.
The book sets up the core warrow band who train to become soldiers basically to fend off wolves and the evil Vulgs, who are like worgs. This leads to a call to arms by the King of the land, named Aurion, and the band sets forth to the keep due to a great evil coming their way.
I always found these books to be more digestible than Tolkien's more verbose and heavy LOTR series and McKiernan does an amazing job with his characterization of the main characters and using the war to really hit these characters with reality and immediate danger.
The book sets up the core warrow band who train to become soldiers basically to fend off wolves and the evil Vulgs, who are like worgs. This leads to a call to arms by the King of the land, named Aurion, and the band sets forth to the keep due to a great evil coming their way.
I always found these books to be more digestible than Tolkien's more verbose and heavy LOTR series and McKiernan does an amazing job with his characterization of the main characters and using the war to really hit these characters with reality and immediate danger.
December 3, 2022
A fine tale of adventure! Good characters that are easy to remember and a decent story of friendship, love, and war!
January 16, 2017
I picked up the Dark Tide because I'm a sucker for tolkeinesque fantasy and I had no qualms about reading a ripoff if it gave me a similar experience to LOTR, transporting me to a land of Dragons, orcs, dwarves, elves, halflings, and men. Unfortunately, McKiernan couldn't even deliver a proper ripoff.
Now, I had few problems with the plot or the setting, those were ripped straight out of Tolkien: We have our shire in the Boskydells, and our Minas Tirith in Challerain Keep, We have five "hobbits" this time (though two of them die), Aragorn shows up near the end, and we endure a knockoff of Legolas and Arwen as well.
This is all well and good, but there's one problem: characterization. Despite ripping off what is no doubt the most famous fantasy novel series, McKiernan didn't learn any insights on making heroic characters. Tuck, the main character and Warrow (i.e. Hobbit) is highly skilled in archery yet uncertain of himself, even after killing eighty or so orc-like beings. He literally has no flaws save for his lack of confidence, which doesn't stop him from taking action and slaying everything he points his bow at in one shot. By now, he should be feeling pretty good about himself, but he only thinks of his failures to save certain characters, and takes responsibity for everything that goes wrong.
Tuck is also constantly praised by everyone, and everyone is amazed by the Warrow, even though as a group they haven't done much but shown up to help and die in battle. Tuck has unrealistic relationships with several characters, and shouldn't be placed in so high a position as the high king's advisor without doing something much more than he actually does. Yeah he has great eyes, but every other Warrow does to. Most characters have a single driving motivation, and you never see them much deeper than this. They all seem to have their archtypical purpose, and seem like poor versions of their LOTR contemporaries.
This characterization slows down the plot often. We get a long segment of Tuck's taming of Arwen, I mean Lady Laurelin, right before a major battle, and it completely kills the momentum and the tension leading up to the final battle of the book.
After a fantastic battle for a 5-tiered city that is totally a more compact Battle of Pelennor Fields we get a slow crawl ending with Aragorn, I mean Galen, and Tuck escaping and hunting down those undead orc riders who kidnapped Laurelin. Rather than being exciting, it is slow and plodding, and has a weak version of Lothlorien at the end. Then the book itself ends with a cliffhanger, but not an exciting one. Merely a choice is given and that's that. We have to read the next book to see what they choose, but let's be honest. Anyone who reads books or watches movies knows what choice they will take. The predictability of where we are going further weakens the ending.
Finally, shallow characters are one thing, but the prose in this book is terrible. Every few sentences you hear something like "Cold it was" or "Brave was he" and characters switch from speaking normally to going all archaic on the reader. The only reason I can see for this is it's the "High language" of the realm, but it comes across completely lame and annoying when a character switches how they speak suddenly.
Overall, I enjoyed the final battle and it seems darker than even LOTR, with a lot of unexpected Death (Merry and Pippin died early in this one). I can detect the LOTR scenes as they happen, as well as the
plot points McKiernan twisted a bit. Had the book been a better carbon copy of LOTR, I totally would have loved it, but the prose and characterization killed this one for me.
Now, I had few problems with the plot or the setting, those were ripped straight out of Tolkien: We have our shire in the Boskydells, and our Minas Tirith in Challerain Keep, We have five "hobbits" this time (though two of them die), Aragorn shows up near the end, and we endure a knockoff of Legolas and Arwen as well.
This is all well and good, but there's one problem: characterization. Despite ripping off what is no doubt the most famous fantasy novel series, McKiernan didn't learn any insights on making heroic characters. Tuck, the main character and Warrow (i.e. Hobbit) is highly skilled in archery yet uncertain of himself, even after killing eighty or so orc-like beings. He literally has no flaws save for his lack of confidence, which doesn't stop him from taking action and slaying everything he points his bow at in one shot. By now, he should be feeling pretty good about himself, but he only thinks of his failures to save certain characters, and takes responsibity for everything that goes wrong.
Tuck is also constantly praised by everyone, and everyone is amazed by the Warrow, even though as a group they haven't done much but shown up to help and die in battle. Tuck has unrealistic relationships with several characters, and shouldn't be placed in so high a position as the high king's advisor without doing something much more than he actually does. Yeah he has great eyes, but every other Warrow does to. Most characters have a single driving motivation, and you never see them much deeper than this. They all seem to have their archtypical purpose, and seem like poor versions of their LOTR contemporaries.
This characterization slows down the plot often. We get a long segment of Tuck's taming of Arwen, I mean Lady Laurelin, right before a major battle, and it completely kills the momentum and the tension leading up to the final battle of the book.
After a fantastic battle for a 5-tiered city that is totally a more compact Battle of Pelennor Fields we get a slow crawl ending with Aragorn, I mean Galen, and Tuck escaping and hunting down those undead orc riders who kidnapped Laurelin. Rather than being exciting, it is slow and plodding, and has a weak version of Lothlorien at the end. Then the book itself ends with a cliffhanger, but not an exciting one. Merely a choice is given and that's that. We have to read the next book to see what they choose, but let's be honest. Anyone who reads books or watches movies knows what choice they will take. The predictability of where we are going further weakens the ending.
Finally, shallow characters are one thing, but the prose in this book is terrible. Every few sentences you hear something like "Cold it was" or "Brave was he" and characters switch from speaking normally to going all archaic on the reader. The only reason I can see for this is it's the "High language" of the realm, but it comes across completely lame and annoying when a character switches how they speak suddenly.
Overall, I enjoyed the final battle and it seems darker than even LOTR, with a lot of unexpected Death (Merry and Pippin died early in this one). I can detect the LOTR scenes as they happen, as well as the
plot points McKiernan twisted a bit. Had the book been a better carbon copy of LOTR, I totally would have loved it, but the prose and characterization killed this one for me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews