What do you think?
Rate this book
Regina's Song
'Make them stop,' she pleaded. 'The wolves are howling again. Please make them stop.' Then she suddenly started whispering, her lips very close to my ear - and she wasn't whispering in any language I could understand...
A brutal serial killer stalks the Seattle nights. Regina Greenleaf was one of the victims. Her beautiful twin sister, Renata, is deeply traumatised.
She talks only rarely, and then always in twin-speak, the special language she and Regina made up long before they'd learned to speak English.
Mark, a college lecturer in English and the twins' friend, is the only person Renata will talk to. She agrees to attend his classes, and with the help of Mark's room-mates she seems to be coming to terms with her loss.
But the number of murders in Seattle rises, and Mark has some dreadful suspicions. If he says anything, it's guaranteed to send Renata back to the hospital. But if he doesn't there may be blood on his conscience...
Part murder mystery, ghost story, and psychological thriller, Regina's Song masterfully fuses together elements that elicit our deepest, darkest fears...
A brutal serial killer stalks the Seattle nights. Regina Greenleaf was one of the victims. Her beautiful twin sister, Renata, is deeply traumatised.
She talks only rarely, and then always in twin-speak, the special language she and Regina made up long before they'd learned to speak English.
Mark, a college lecturer in English and the twins' friend, is the only person Renata will talk to. She agrees to attend his classes, and with the help of Mark's room-mates she seems to be coming to terms with her loss.
But the number of murders in Seattle rises, and Mark has some dreadful suspicions. If he says anything, it's guaranteed to send Renata back to the hospital. But if he doesn't there may be blood on his conscience...
Part murder mystery, ghost story, and psychological thriller, Regina's Song masterfully fuses together elements that elicit our deepest, darkest fears...
424 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
19 people are currently reading
927 people want to read
About the author
David Eddings
220 books5,559 followersDavid Eddings was an American author who wrote several best-selling series of epic fantasy novels. David Eddings' wife,
Leigh Eddings
, was an uncredited co-author on many of his early books, but he had later acknowledged that she contributed to them all.
They adopted one boy in 1966, Scott David, then two months old. They adopted a younger girl between 1966 and 1969. In 1970 the couple lost custody of both children and were each sentenced to a year in jail in separate trials after pleading guilty to 11 counts of physical child abuse. Though the nature of the abuse, the trial, and the sentencing were all extensively reported in South Dakota newspapers at the time, these details did not resurface in media coverage of the couple during their successful joint career as authors, only returning to public attention several years after both had died.
After both served their sentences, David and Leigh Eddings moved to Denver in 1971, where David found work in a grocery store.
David Eddings' first books (which were general fiction) sold moderately well. He later switched to writing epic fantasy, a field in which he achieved great success. In a recent interview with sffworld.com, he said: "I don't take orders from readers."
On January 26, 2007 it was reported that Eddings accidentally burned about a quarter of his office, next door to his house, along with his Excalibur sports car, and the original manuscripts for most of his novels. He was flushing the fuel tank of the car with water when he lit a piece of paper and threw into the puddle to test if it was still flammable.
On February 28, 2007, David Eddings' wife, Leigh Eddings (born Judith Leigh Schall), died following a series of strokes. She was 69.
David Eddings died on June 2, 2009 at the age of 77.
They adopted one boy in 1966, Scott David, then two months old. They adopted a younger girl between 1966 and 1969. In 1970 the couple lost custody of both children and were each sentenced to a year in jail in separate trials after pleading guilty to 11 counts of physical child abuse. Though the nature of the abuse, the trial, and the sentencing were all extensively reported in South Dakota newspapers at the time, these details did not resurface in media coverage of the couple during their successful joint career as authors, only returning to public attention several years after both had died.
After both served their sentences, David and Leigh Eddings moved to Denver in 1971, where David found work in a grocery store.
David Eddings' first books (which were general fiction) sold moderately well. He later switched to writing epic fantasy, a field in which he achieved great success. In a recent interview with sffworld.com, he said: "I don't take orders from readers."
On January 26, 2007 it was reported that Eddings accidentally burned about a quarter of his office, next door to his house, along with his Excalibur sports car, and the original manuscripts for most of his novels. He was flushing the fuel tank of the car with water when he lit a piece of paper and threw into the puddle to test if it was still flammable.
On February 28, 2007, David Eddings' wife, Leigh Eddings (born Judith Leigh Schall), died following a series of strokes. She was 69.
David Eddings died on June 2, 2009 at the age of 77.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews
August 5, 2011
There's not much to say about this book. The characters are flat, and story is predictable, the setting is forgettable, and the writing itself is bothersome. The entire work is written in a first person slang, but before you think of Clockwork, you should know that its bad slang. Characters are constantly asking for "the scoop," "hitting the bricks," or being "cutsey-poo." Or going to see Dockie-poo (a doctor), or Markie-poo, etc. The narrator is supposed to be a grad student in ENGLISH LITERATURE and this is how he talks?
The vast majority of the book is given over to describing pointless mundane details in the lead character's life. Daily pointless conversation, what he thinks about a given author, how he gets coffee in the morning, etc. in general, nothing related to the plot, nothing that will come back later in the story, nothing meaningful whatsoever except to characterize the boring narrator. The characters are always amazed at each other's abilities, complimenting one and other on their good work, and just generally getting along. There are no conflicts between any of the characters, except for a single one that is obviously the one we're supposed not to like, but he has a grand total of eight lines or so that show up at the very end.
And the plot had one major twist, if it can be called that at all, and I got the impression that it was supposed to come as a surprise. This is revealed around page 350, and I would guess the average reader would have been waiting for it to happen from about pages 100-150. That leaves a lot of dead space for coffee and bricks and tile flooring and book shelves and other irrelevancies (seriously).
So, if you were to chop this down to a 100 page novella, it would at least be over more quickly. Without changing the writing, I'm not sure the story could be improved any. I often wondered throughout if it were actually a book written for the teen crowd, or middle school students. That would actually explain a lot.
The vast majority of the book is given over to describing pointless mundane details in the lead character's life. Daily pointless conversation, what he thinks about a given author, how he gets coffee in the morning, etc. in general, nothing related to the plot, nothing that will come back later in the story, nothing meaningful whatsoever except to characterize the boring narrator. The characters are always amazed at each other's abilities, complimenting one and other on their good work, and just generally getting along. There are no conflicts between any of the characters, except for a single one that is obviously the one we're supposed not to like, but he has a grand total of eight lines or so that show up at the very end.
And the plot had one major twist, if it can be called that at all, and I got the impression that it was supposed to come as a surprise. This is revealed around page 350, and I would guess the average reader would have been waiting for it to happen from about pages 100-150. That leaves a lot of dead space for coffee and bricks and tile flooring and book shelves and other irrelevancies (seriously).
So, if you were to chop this down to a 100 page novella, it would at least be over more quickly. Without changing the writing, I'm not sure the story could be improved any. I often wondered throughout if it were actually a book written for the teen crowd, or middle school students. That would actually explain a lot.
May 12, 2011
From the description, this book sounds like a zinger, right? I mean, what more do you want? Identical twins so identical that they frequently swop roles without anyone knowing! Their personalities so entwined that it's impossible even for them to say where one ends and the other begins! Then one of them is murdered!
I mean, the possibilities here for good, compelling fiction (with or without supernatural elements - although I obviously prefer with) are virtually endless.
To my vast disappointment, however, the book is not only composed entirely out of stale prose, canned dialogue, pre-packed stereotypes and cardboard flat characters, but there is just about no plot at all. The surviving twin gets released from a mental hospital because she wants to attend university; suddenly a mysterious spates of killings with victims that are known for their criminality turn up. Whodunnit?
That's basically it, I'm very sorry to say.
The premise and mystery of the twins and their twinhood and how the loss of it affects the one left behind is just not explored at all. Instead, it's basically a revenge story (which you already knew, right? I mean, do you need spoiler tags to know that the "murder mystery" part of the novel is the surviving twin hunting down the dead twin's killer, killing anyone she thinks it may have been coz they deal drugs sometimes until she actually gets the right guy?) told from the incredibly distant point of view of a person who is a family friend of the parents of the surviving twin.
So through the eyes of Mark we follow Renata, the surviving twin, as she attempts to reintegrate in society. Mark is a postgraduate in English Lit, and at the beginning of the story he finds a student house filled with FIVE PEOPLE JUST LIKE HIM.
I'm dead serious.
Sure, three of them are girls and they all study different thingies, but they all agree on everything all the time, they use the exact same dialogue and phrases as the other characters, and even the same conversational tone! Constantly! It's like one person talking to himself, that person being the Prototypical Eddings Creation Tee Em, which is a smart-ass wannabe comedian with... no, that's about it.
They all hold exactly the same views on just about everything, although it's just damn convenient that one of them is a philosopher, who can ask very deep, yo questions about the nature of personality and morality without ever really discussing these things, since everyone agrees with everything instantly.
Also, luckily one of them is a lawyer, who can help Mark and the Surviving Twin(TM) out when legal troubles arise in a way which everyone agrees with and is perfectly happy with, despite it being, in my view, ridiculously unethical and immoral. Also, luckily one of them has a brother on the police force, very handily getting all the inside info that help them figure out who's committing the murders and how to get that person out of this damn mess they made.
Also, one is a psychology major, so we handily have analyses on hand, all of them uncontested, naturally, explaining everything Renata goes through and the why the who what and etc. These things don't need to make sense or have any kind of underlying logical structure, because what this psych major tells us is what we all already know from living in the "real world" and its obsession with Pop psych and easy explanations, so obviously it's the true and only answer possible.
Alright, I'm letting my snark get out of hand, but I was truly aggravated by this book. Not only are there no actual characters at all and no plot to speak of, there are no supernatural elements! No horror! No nothing! I mean, the cover of the hardcover version I have says right there, very explicitly: "A chilling story of a nightmare come true." The blurb has hints of wolves howling. I don't feel that an expectation of chills and/or explanations of the wolfy howlings are unreasonable here. Instead, we get none of those with a huge side-serving of Nothing Much Happening for Most of the Goddamn Book.
We're just told that wolves and dogs howl when the murders are committed, and that Regina listens to some freaky music with wolves howling.
Rage! Frustration! But back to the review.
Even though the authors employ first-person narrative, readers are constantly kept at an oceanic distance from the main character (or who the main character, the one doing the action and driving the story, is supposed to be, at least) and you feel at best a bit of sympathy for the poor surviving twin while getting constantly irritated at the narrator and his incessant lame joking. You're also told by our narrator that yes, losing her twin was so horrible for Renata that she went mad and so on so he'll keep an eye on her now and again, all very sad, but hey, English Paper due and class to give, mysteries of Milton to talk about exploring, lame-ass comedy to perform. I'm trying very, very hard to think of what else the narrator does, but I honestly can't add anything to it.
I'm so extremely disappointed in this novel mainly because I have such a soft spot for David Eddings. When I was something like 13, I saw a novel of his at the library and the cover so enthralled me that I picked it up. It was the middle book of a series (the Elenium, if I remember correctly), and that hooked me on fantasy for life. So I wanted this book to be good, and I was willing to like it even if it was just mediocre or slightly bad.
It wasn't even that. It was awful. Truly, soul-wrenchingly awful. The only redeeming quality I can think of is that there are no spelling or grammar errors.
Please avoid. Trees shouldn't have to die for this crap, and there are so many actually good books to read out there that you don't even want to waste the 5 or so hours that it takes to read through this book. That's time you'll never get back!
I mean, the possibilities here for good, compelling fiction (with or without supernatural elements - although I obviously prefer with) are virtually endless.
To my vast disappointment, however, the book is not only composed entirely out of stale prose, canned dialogue, pre-packed stereotypes and cardboard flat characters, but there is just about no plot at all. The surviving twin gets released from a mental hospital because she wants to attend university; suddenly a mysterious spates of killings with victims that are known for their criminality turn up. Whodunnit?
That's basically it, I'm very sorry to say.
The premise and mystery of the twins and their twinhood and how the loss of it affects the one left behind is just not explored at all. Instead, it's basically a revenge story (which you already knew, right? I mean, do you need spoiler tags to know that the "murder mystery" part of the novel is the surviving twin hunting down the dead twin's killer, killing anyone she thinks it may have been coz they deal drugs sometimes until she actually gets the right guy?) told from the incredibly distant point of view of a person who is a family friend of the parents of the surviving twin.
So through the eyes of Mark we follow Renata, the surviving twin, as she attempts to reintegrate in society. Mark is a postgraduate in English Lit, and at the beginning of the story he finds a student house filled with FIVE PEOPLE JUST LIKE HIM.
I'm dead serious.
Sure, three of them are girls and they all study different thingies, but they all agree on everything all the time, they use the exact same dialogue and phrases as the other characters, and even the same conversational tone! Constantly! It's like one person talking to himself, that person being the Prototypical Eddings Creation Tee Em, which is a smart-ass wannabe comedian with... no, that's about it.
They all hold exactly the same views on just about everything, although it's just damn convenient that one of them is a philosopher, who can ask very deep, yo questions about the nature of personality and morality without ever really discussing these things, since everyone agrees with everything instantly.
Also, luckily one of them is a lawyer, who can help Mark and the Surviving Twin(TM) out when legal troubles arise in a way which everyone agrees with and is perfectly happy with, despite it being, in my view, ridiculously unethical and immoral. Also, luckily one of them has a brother on the police force, very handily getting all the inside info that help them figure out who's committing the murders and how to get that person out of this damn mess they made.
Also, one is a psychology major, so we handily have analyses on hand, all of them uncontested, naturally, explaining everything Renata goes through and the why the who what and etc. These things don't need to make sense or have any kind of underlying logical structure, because what this psych major tells us is what we all already know from living in the "real world" and its obsession with Pop psych and easy explanations, so obviously it's the true and only answer possible.
Alright, I'm letting my snark get out of hand, but I was truly aggravated by this book. Not only are there no actual characters at all and no plot to speak of, there are no supernatural elements! No horror! No nothing! I mean, the cover of the hardcover version I have says right there, very explicitly: "A chilling story of a nightmare come true." The blurb has hints of wolves howling. I don't feel that an expectation of chills and/or explanations of the wolfy howlings are unreasonable here. Instead, we get none of those with a huge side-serving of Nothing Much Happening for Most of the Goddamn Book.
We're just told that wolves and dogs howl when the murders are committed, and that Regina listens to some freaky music with wolves howling.
Rage! Frustration! But back to the review.
Even though the authors employ first-person narrative, readers are constantly kept at an oceanic distance from the main character (or who the main character, the one doing the action and driving the story, is supposed to be, at least) and you feel at best a bit of sympathy for the poor surviving twin while getting constantly irritated at the narrator and his incessant lame joking. You're also told by our narrator that yes, losing her twin was so horrible for Renata that she went mad and so on so he'll keep an eye on her now and again, all very sad, but hey, English Paper due and class to give, mysteries of Milton to talk about exploring, lame-ass comedy to perform. I'm trying very, very hard to think of what else the narrator does, but I honestly can't add anything to it.
I'm so extremely disappointed in this novel mainly because I have such a soft spot for David Eddings. When I was something like 13, I saw a novel of his at the library and the cover so enthralled me that I picked it up. It was the middle book of a series (the Elenium, if I remember correctly), and that hooked me on fantasy for life. So I wanted this book to be good, and I was willing to like it even if it was just mediocre or slightly bad.
It wasn't even that. It was awful. Truly, soul-wrenchingly awful. The only redeeming quality I can think of is that there are no spelling or grammar errors.
Please avoid. Trees shouldn't have to die for this crap, and there are so many actually good books to read out there that you don't even want to waste the 5 or so hours that it takes to read through this book. That's time you'll never get back!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 6, 2024
I really enjoyed this book, and it is a welcome read for any Eddings fan even though it isn't of the Fantasy genre (which he and his wife were most famous for). The main knock on it is that the words used in the banter (e.g., cutesy-poo) back and forth between the characters was incredibly juvenile and not realistic. No one uses words the way the characters do in this book and it was mildly distracting - if not off-putting -at times.
Nonetheless, the story kept my attention and I'm glad I read it. If you could give half-stars, I think I'd have given this a 3.5 in stead of a 4.
Note: I read the Kindle version of this, and for whatever reason it had very strange formatting. You could not use "Kindle Web" to read it and had to download it onto your Kindle or an App. Also, the ways you could modify the reading font were similarly limited. It didn't affect my enjoyment, but it is notable nonetheless.
Nonetheless, the story kept my attention and I'm glad I read it. If you could give half-stars, I think I'd have given this a 3.5 in stead of a 4.
Note: I read the Kindle version of this, and for whatever reason it had very strange formatting. You could not use "Kindle Web" to read it and had to download it onto your Kindle or an App. Also, the ways you could modify the reading font were similarly limited. It didn't affect my enjoyment, but it is notable nonetheless.
April 11, 2016
This book is just a catastrophe. There's so much wrong on so many levels that it's stunning, haha.
As others have noted, one of the worst thing about this book is the dialogue. It's atrocious, and seems to be mired in the '50s. It sounds like it's trying to be noir at times ("let's hit the streets"), but then it's overly twee at other times (Renata calls the main character "Markie-poo"). I think Mark is trying to be sarcastic most of the time? It's hard to tell from the bland tone. Characters constantly repeat each other's names in dialogue too, which is annoying.
There's a lot of sexism and racism as well. (Asians are consistently called "orientals." The female roommates in a group house cook AND DO LAUNDRY for the male roommates. They even won't let the males pour their own coffee or make their own sandwiches for lunch, omg.) For some background, I am approximately the same age as Mark, the narrator. And I grew up near Seattle, where this book is set (and went to college in Seattle). So believe me when I say that no one lived like this in 1990s Seattle. No one called their female roommates "doll" and "babe" (one of the women is pre-med!).
There's a curmudgeonly tone to this book which does not at all suit the 1990s. Things the author... excuse me. Things the narrator hates:
* Computers (he's a grad student in English?!?!)
* Political correctness
* The abundance of "emotions" of any literature written past the '60s
Now the plot. First, if you read the book's blurb, the huge shocker moment is spoiled there. Nothing else happens in the book. It's very repetitive, there's no suspense, you have to seriously suspend your disbelief about the legal system, and it's just plain boring. (I kept reading because I was hoping for some great supernatural "twin" thing... but no.) And some stuff is unexplained too: You could cut this down to a 50-page novella and nothing would be lost. (In fact, that might make for a somewhat interesting read.)
The ending really pissed me off as well:
There are some continuity/plot errors as well. I like to think the copy editor was too busy crying/drinking hard by the end to catch them. :)
I didn't mean to rant this much, but this book is bad. This is my first book by the Eddings, and I'm disappointed; I'm not sure if I want to read the authors' fantasy series now.
As others have noted, one of the worst thing about this book is the dialogue. It's atrocious, and seems to be mired in the '50s. It sounds like it's trying to be noir at times ("let's hit the streets"), but then it's overly twee at other times (Renata calls the main character "Markie-poo"). I think Mark is trying to be sarcastic most of the time? It's hard to tell from the bland tone. Characters constantly repeat each other's names in dialogue too, which is annoying.
There's a lot of sexism and racism as well. (Asians are consistently called "orientals." The female roommates in a group house cook AND DO LAUNDRY for the male roommates. They even won't let the males pour their own coffee or make their own sandwiches for lunch, omg.) For some background, I am approximately the same age as Mark, the narrator. And I grew up near Seattle, where this book is set (and went to college in Seattle). So believe me when I say that no one lived like this in 1990s Seattle. No one called their female roommates "doll" and "babe" (one of the women is pre-med!).
There's a curmudgeonly tone to this book which does not at all suit the 1990s. Things the author... excuse me. Things the narrator hates:
* Computers (he's a grad student in English?!?!)
* Political correctness
* The abundance of "emotions" of any literature written past the '60s
Now the plot. First, if you read the book's blurb, the huge shocker moment is spoiled there. Nothing else happens in the book. It's very repetitive, there's no suspense, you have to seriously suspend your disbelief about the legal system, and it's just plain boring. (I kept reading because I was hoping for some great supernatural "twin" thing... but no.) And some stuff is unexplained too: You could cut this down to a 50-page novella and nothing would be lost. (In fact, that might make for a somewhat interesting read.)
The ending really pissed me off as well:
There are some continuity/plot errors as well. I like to think the copy editor was too busy crying/drinking hard by the end to catch them. :)
I didn't mean to rant this much, but this book is bad. This is my first book by the Eddings, and I'm disappointed; I'm not sure if I want to read the authors' fantasy series now.
November 14, 2012
Wow.
I've always been a fan of David Eddings' work - I love the Belgariad/Malloreon series to bits and pieces (literally - I've worn out three copies of Pawn of Prophecy) and the Elenium/Tamuli only slightly less so.
However, I never read any of his non-fantasy work, because back when I discovered Eddings, Fantasy is all I would read. My tastes have branched out a lot in the intervening 15 (or so) years, so I was kind of excited about reading Regina's Song when an online book club I participate in decided to read it, and I wasn't disappointed.
The weird thing is, this book both was and wasn't typical Eddings. Anyone who's read any of his fantasy work - particularly as much and as often as I have - will certainly see the similarities in his characterization and his tone. In that regard, it was familiar - it was almost like putting on that old ratty pair of jeans that you can't get rid of, because they're just so comfortable, and they fit.
Set in a more modern time period, with most of the story taking place in the mid- to late-90's, Regina's Song is the story of a pair of twin girls, Regina and Renata, one of whom is murdered. The girls were so identical that no one knew for sure which one was actually murdered - and the surviving twin was catatonic and spoke exclusively in "twin" language, so she couldn't tell anyone which one she was. After being locked in a sanitarium for a long while, the surviving twin finally begins to speak in English - but she's got almost total amnesia, with no memory of having a twin sister, and doesn't even know who she is. She gets labeled as "Renata." The story is told from the point of view of Mark, kind of a surrogate older brother figure to the girls, who early on gave up trying to tell them apart and just called them "the Twinkie Twins." After Renata comes back to herself, Mark usually just calls her "Twink."
This was actually quite a compelling book - Eddings' writing isn't perfect, and the women in this story do suffer mildly from "Polgara syndrome" - I'm sure other Eddings fans will know exactly what that means - but all in all it was a really good book, and I regret that I never read it sooner.
I've always been a fan of David Eddings' work - I love the Belgariad/Malloreon series to bits and pieces (literally - I've worn out three copies of Pawn of Prophecy) and the Elenium/Tamuli only slightly less so.
However, I never read any of his non-fantasy work, because back when I discovered Eddings, Fantasy is all I would read. My tastes have branched out a lot in the intervening 15 (or so) years, so I was kind of excited about reading Regina's Song when an online book club I participate in decided to read it, and I wasn't disappointed.
The weird thing is, this book both was and wasn't typical Eddings. Anyone who's read any of his fantasy work - particularly as much and as often as I have - will certainly see the similarities in his characterization and his tone. In that regard, it was familiar - it was almost like putting on that old ratty pair of jeans that you can't get rid of, because they're just so comfortable, and they fit.
Set in a more modern time period, with most of the story taking place in the mid- to late-90's, Regina's Song is the story of a pair of twin girls, Regina and Renata, one of whom is murdered. The girls were so identical that no one knew for sure which one was actually murdered - and the surviving twin was catatonic and spoke exclusively in "twin" language, so she couldn't tell anyone which one she was. After being locked in a sanitarium for a long while, the surviving twin finally begins to speak in English - but she's got almost total amnesia, with no memory of having a twin sister, and doesn't even know who she is. She gets labeled as "Renata." The story is told from the point of view of Mark, kind of a surrogate older brother figure to the girls, who early on gave up trying to tell them apart and just called them "the Twinkie Twins." After Renata comes back to herself, Mark usually just calls her "Twink."
This was actually quite a compelling book - Eddings' writing isn't perfect, and the women in this story do suffer mildly from "Polgara syndrome" - I'm sure other Eddings fans will know exactly what that means - but all in all it was a really good book, and I regret that I never read it sooner.
Read
April 20, 2012The story idea was great, but the author completely ruined his own idea! First of all, the dialogue is beyond ridiculous and unrealistic, as is the idea that a future lawyer, professor, psychologist, and philosopher all live in a house where there is no drinking, no fornicating, and basically no fun at all on a college campus. Secondly, THE DIALOGUE was beyond ridiculous! I have to say it again! Thirdly, the trial is completely unrealistic. Here's a psychotic girl on stand for MURDER and the trial is to see if she's fit to even stand trial; everyone in the court room says she MURDERED people but really, isn't that what she's on trial for? Do your homework David Eddings, seriously. I will never ever ever read another book you have written ever again. You had such a great idea behind this book and completely ruined it. Along with John Milton's Paradise Lost, this was the only book I literally had the desire to BURN.
Sorry; that's harsh, but it's true. I would never recommend this book to anyone.
Sorry; that's harsh, but it's true. I would never recommend this book to anyone.
May 14, 2022
started a bit slow, but was quite satisfying at the end
February 16, 2023
Re-Read February 2023
I LOVED this book as a young adult. It's not the Eddings's usual genre, but it's got the same kind of group of friends, the banter, etc. And I guess I do enjoy thrillers from time to time.
Anyway, I probably wouldn't recommend someone pick it up NOW, 23 years after it was published--but I still had fun and it can keep its five stars.
I LOVED this book as a young adult. It's not the Eddings's usual genre, but it's got the same kind of group of friends, the banter, etc. And I guess I do enjoy thrillers from time to time.
Anyway, I probably wouldn't recommend someone pick it up NOW, 23 years after it was published--but I still had fun and it can keep its five stars.
September 25, 2016
If you were expecting the Belgariad or the Malloreon, forget it. This is a contemporary thriller with a chilling core. It explores the relationship between friends and the one between twins. I enjoyed it a lot as it combined Eddings' way with friendship with something a bit more disturbing than one normally associates with the brand.
See for yourself if Regina grabs you
See for yourself if Regina grabs you
Read
August 11, 2011Simply the worst book I have ever read in my life. Total waste of time.
October 25, 2021
Originally published on my blog here in June 2003.
Most people are fascinated by the intimate relationship which exists between identical twins, and this forms the basis of the most recent novel from David and Leigh Eddings, one which edges into the horror genre - a new departure for the pair.
Regina and Renata Greenleaf were identical twins, who continued to use a private language between themselves long after most pairs have given it up - right through high school. (I was surprised not to find any references to this cryptolalia - use of a secret language - online; may be it's not as common a practice as the Eddings imply.) Then, on the point of graduation, their car broke down returning from a party and when one of them went to find a phone, she was attacked, raped and viciously murdered. The surviving twin is so traumatised by this, that she reverts to their secret language, and it is only following six months in an asylum that she recognises anyone or returns to speaking English. Even so, she cannot remember the past, making it impossible to tell even which twin she is (or even to tell her that she had a twin sister).
To the chagrin of her parents, the person she recognises is a family friend, Mark Austin - also the narrator of the novel. His is a graduate student at Washington University (the whole novel, like all of the Eddings' non-fantasy, takes place in Washington State). A major part of the novel is about Mark's attempts to help the surviving twin (now insisting on being known, rather nauseatingly, as Twink) rehabilitate to the real world by auditing some of the courses at the university, including the basic English one he teaches. This means that Twink moves away from her parental home to stay with an aunt, who has a job which means that she is out a large proportion of the time - surely a situation which a psychiatrist would be unhappy about for someone only recently released from a mental ward. And then strange things begin to happen...
The main idea is strong, though it could be the basis of a far more bleak novel offering more insight into how it feels to be a twin and the nature of mental illness. (This could be done most easily by improving the essays that Twink hands in, which Mark somewhat bizarrely thinks are brilliant - they're nothing like that good.) Such a tale would be a radical departure for the Eddings, and the impression I got was that his was something they kept moving towards and then shying away from to produce something more lightweight. (After all, they don't want to alienate all their fans.) This desire makes the second half of the novel poorer than the first, and also means that some of the cute phrases and ideas which fill so much of the Eddings' recent writing appear once more. It may also explain an interesting change of attitude: all of the Eddings' fantasy involves the killing or disabling of a god, but here the role of religion as represented by a Roman Catholic priest is overwhelmingly positive.
Regina's Song contains a crime investigation and a (rather unconvincing) courtroom drama as well as the twin psychology and horror elements, and this is something of a mistake from a structural point of view, as it makes the novel seem somewhat overcrowded with strands from different genres. Nevertheless, Regina's Song is consistently entertaining (if you can ignore the cute turns of phrase) and the use of identical twins at the centre of this kind of story is fascinating.
Most people are fascinated by the intimate relationship which exists between identical twins, and this forms the basis of the most recent novel from David and Leigh Eddings, one which edges into the horror genre - a new departure for the pair.
Regina and Renata Greenleaf were identical twins, who continued to use a private language between themselves long after most pairs have given it up - right through high school. (I was surprised not to find any references to this cryptolalia - use of a secret language - online; may be it's not as common a practice as the Eddings imply.) Then, on the point of graduation, their car broke down returning from a party and when one of them went to find a phone, she was attacked, raped and viciously murdered. The surviving twin is so traumatised by this, that she reverts to their secret language, and it is only following six months in an asylum that she recognises anyone or returns to speaking English. Even so, she cannot remember the past, making it impossible to tell even which twin she is (or even to tell her that she had a twin sister).
To the chagrin of her parents, the person she recognises is a family friend, Mark Austin - also the narrator of the novel. His is a graduate student at Washington University (the whole novel, like all of the Eddings' non-fantasy, takes place in Washington State). A major part of the novel is about Mark's attempts to help the surviving twin (now insisting on being known, rather nauseatingly, as Twink) rehabilitate to the real world by auditing some of the courses at the university, including the basic English one he teaches. This means that Twink moves away from her parental home to stay with an aunt, who has a job which means that she is out a large proportion of the time - surely a situation which a psychiatrist would be unhappy about for someone only recently released from a mental ward. And then strange things begin to happen...
The main idea is strong, though it could be the basis of a far more bleak novel offering more insight into how it feels to be a twin and the nature of mental illness. (This could be done most easily by improving the essays that Twink hands in, which Mark somewhat bizarrely thinks are brilliant - they're nothing like that good.) Such a tale would be a radical departure for the Eddings, and the impression I got was that his was something they kept moving towards and then shying away from to produce something more lightweight. (After all, they don't want to alienate all their fans.) This desire makes the second half of the novel poorer than the first, and also means that some of the cute phrases and ideas which fill so much of the Eddings' recent writing appear once more. It may also explain an interesting change of attitude: all of the Eddings' fantasy involves the killing or disabling of a god, but here the role of religion as represented by a Roman Catholic priest is overwhelmingly positive.
Regina's Song contains a crime investigation and a (rather unconvincing) courtroom drama as well as the twin psychology and horror elements, and this is something of a mistake from a structural point of view, as it makes the novel seem somewhat overcrowded with strands from different genres. Nevertheless, Regina's Song is consistently entertaining (if you can ignore the cute turns of phrase) and the use of identical twins at the centre of this kind of story is fascinating.
December 27, 2008
Not a bad foray into Stephen King territory for the fantasy tag-team of David and Leigh Eddings. I particularly liked how well Seattle and the surrounding area is drawn - it's obvious the authors have spent time here and know their way around, which makes the book all the more "real." More creepy than scary, it was a good choice at the library one rainy day.
December 18, 2022
3.25/5
This book seems to get a lot of hate and I'm not sure why. This might be my lowest rated of his books but it was by no means a bad book. Is this book like Eddings' two Fantasy series? No, but it is quite similar to his novels High Hunt and The Losers. This was a slice-of-life, coming-of-age, suspense novel closer in style to Dean Koontz than to Stephen King but with the kind of blunt blandness of James Patterson. The book has four distinct parts to it and there are things to enjoy about each of them. The first part is the story background giving us a summary detail of the three main players of the story, this was my favorite part. 4/5. The second part was the present-day introduction of the rest of the cast and that was decent as well. 3/5. The third part was maybe the most disappointing just because I thought that the potential was wasted. 2.75/5. The final part was quite interesting, I just wish they would've had a better payoff to the twist of the story but oh well. 3.5/5.
David Eddings is still one of my favorite authors and I only need to read The Dreamers series and his standalone The Redemption of Althalus to finish his published bibliography.
The Losers is my favorite single book and two trilogies in the Sparhawk series are tied for my favorite of his Fantasy stories.
This book seems to get a lot of hate and I'm not sure why. This might be my lowest rated of his books but it was by no means a bad book. Is this book like Eddings' two Fantasy series? No, but it is quite similar to his novels High Hunt and The Losers. This was a slice-of-life, coming-of-age, suspense novel closer in style to Dean Koontz than to Stephen King but with the kind of blunt blandness of James Patterson. The book has four distinct parts to it and there are things to enjoy about each of them. The first part is the story background giving us a summary detail of the three main players of the story, this was my favorite part. 4/5. The second part was the present-day introduction of the rest of the cast and that was decent as well. 3/5. The third part was maybe the most disappointing just because I thought that the potential was wasted. 2.75/5. The final part was quite interesting, I just wish they would've had a better payoff to the twist of the story but oh well. 3.5/5.
David Eddings is still one of my favorite authors and I only need to read The Dreamers series and his standalone The Redemption of Althalus to finish his published bibliography.
The Losers is my favorite single book and two trilogies in the Sparhawk series are tied for my favorite of his Fantasy stories.
October 8, 2017
So, I've had this book for about six months now but only just got around to reading it. I originally picked it up because of the author, since I've enjoyed some of his previous stuff and wanted to see how he tackled the modern world.
The result was... well, first off the bat I should say that female characters have never been Eddings's strong suit. His characters always seem to follow traditional gender roles (the only possible exception being Mary.) If that bothers you, don't read this. As it was, it felt... noticeable at times when I was reading this.
Eddings also has this fascination with 'twin-speak'. I have never heard of this before in the real world (granted, I've only taken an intro linguistics class, but I feel like that would have been touched on were it common). It also plays a (very) minor part of Eddings' work Polgara the Sorceress, so I think that's why I wasn't completely confused by it at all. At least in Polgara there is a brief mention of unique verb tenses and meanings... okay, this isn't the point.
The pros:
-Interesting psychological aspects. I don't normally read this genre so I don't know how it compares to everything else, but I found it interesting.
-The connection between murders and bouts of hysteria wasn't completely obvious to the characters at first. (Of course, the reader already knew because of the plot summary on the back, but I digress.)
-The banter between characters was at times amusing. It wasn't quite what we got in some of his fantasy works, and it didn't always have anything to do with the plot, but I still liked it.
-The characters did feel like a family, or at least a well-functioning group.
-The whole Burpee subplot. Even though we only met him towards the end, I had a strong idea about what kind of person Burpee was before he even made a live appearance.
-Coming off that, the whole media vs. police thing in general. There was some good commentary on the media over-sensationalizing things, but I don't know if it was intentional.
-The ending's vagueness. This is both a good and bad thing, but on the good side it's an accurate representation of what the narrator understands (which makes sense being a first-person narrated book).
The cons:
-The infodump in the prequel. Basically we see no representation of what the twins were like shortly before the murder/rape. I would have liked to see a bit of their normal daily life, the murder would have probably had a bigger impact if I had known what the surviving twin was like before she went crazy (and I don't mean when she was a little kid.)
-Mark, the narrator. I don't know what drives him. He's a working man who's getting an English degree and got a sizeable investment with his inheritance. He also likes the twins. Other than that... I get no sense of this guy's personality. What does he like? What does he fear? What drives him? Charlie had more personality than Mark. Hell, Mary did.
-The gender roles. I mentioned this, but everyone has a rigid gender role. It wouldn't have hurt to swap the roles of, say, James and Erika. At times it seemed like the girls were making the guys do everything, just because there was more focus on what the guys were doing with the implicit information that the girls were cooking. At least Mary was female.
-The races. The three girls are introduced right off the bat as two Swedes and an Italian. That might not be bad in a fantasy setting but this is the United States, a place that's pretty diverse. I sure wouldn't be able to tell if someone was Swedish or Italian or not. Oh yeah, and it took me a chapter or two past his introduction to realize that James was black--it was a minor part of his introduction. Contrast that with the girls, and that.... Yeah. Eddings also used the word 'oriental' to describe an East Asian (was it Japanese?) doctor. I'm surprised his editor okayed that.
-Some characters seemed to be only characterized in terms of their job and major. Especially Mark, who went on and on about stuff related to his English major. I don't mind college stuff, most of the book was them going about their lives and all, but it was excessive. I don't know who half the authors he mentioned were, and even then I don't think I've read any of the books and poems he mentioned and frankly I don't care that much. I think this was probably because Eddings himself was an English major and he just had a lot to talk about. This isn't a failing unique to Eddings (Patricia Briggs's Dead Heat comes to mind, and I certainly tend to ramble in my own stuff), but I would have hoped that someone would have stepped in and asked if all that was necessary. Dr. Conrad was cool though.
-The ending. While the vagueness can be both good and bad, it did leave a lot up to the reader... "what really happened?"
-The ending part two:
-The slang could be pretty cringey, but it was mostly delegated to the twin so I chalked it up to part of her characterization.
Anyway. In the end, even though there some issues, I still moderately enjoyed the book. It didn't leave me wanting a sequel, and I didn't particularly care what happened to a few of the characters (Mark anyone?) but the story did keep me still reading a few hours past when I decided I was going to sleep, and it was entertaining, nothing too deep and thought-provoking. I probably wouldn't have read it if it wasn't by Eddings, though.
The result was... well, first off the bat I should say that female characters have never been Eddings's strong suit. His characters always seem to follow traditional gender roles (the only possible exception being Mary.) If that bothers you, don't read this. As it was, it felt... noticeable at times when I was reading this.
Eddings also has this fascination with 'twin-speak'. I have never heard of this before in the real world (granted, I've only taken an intro linguistics class, but I feel like that would have been touched on were it common). It also plays a (very) minor part of Eddings' work Polgara the Sorceress, so I think that's why I wasn't completely confused by it at all. At least in Polgara there is a brief mention of unique verb tenses and meanings... okay, this isn't the point.
The pros:
-Interesting psychological aspects. I don't normally read this genre so I don't know how it compares to everything else, but I found it interesting.
-The connection between murders and bouts of hysteria wasn't completely obvious to the characters at first. (Of course, the reader already knew because of the plot summary on the back, but I digress.)
-The banter between characters was at times amusing. It wasn't quite what we got in some of his fantasy works, and it didn't always have anything to do with the plot, but I still liked it.
-The characters did feel like a family, or at least a well-functioning group.
-The whole Burpee subplot. Even though we only met him towards the end, I had a strong idea about what kind of person Burpee was before he even made a live appearance.
-Coming off that, the whole media vs. police thing in general. There was some good commentary on the media over-sensationalizing things, but I don't know if it was intentional.
-The ending's vagueness. This is both a good and bad thing, but on the good side it's an accurate representation of what the narrator understands (which makes sense being a first-person narrated book).
The cons:
-The infodump in the prequel. Basically we see no representation of what the twins were like shortly before the murder/rape. I would have liked to see a bit of their normal daily life, the murder would have probably had a bigger impact if I had known what the surviving twin was like before she went crazy (and I don't mean when she was a little kid.)
-Mark, the narrator. I don't know what drives him. He's a working man who's getting an English degree and got a sizeable investment with his inheritance. He also likes the twins. Other than that... I get no sense of this guy's personality. What does he like? What does he fear? What drives him? Charlie had more personality than Mark. Hell, Mary did.
-The gender roles. I mentioned this, but everyone has a rigid gender role. It wouldn't have hurt to swap the roles of, say, James and Erika. At times it seemed like the girls were making the guys do everything, just because there was more focus on what the guys were doing with the implicit information that the girls were cooking. At least Mary was female.
-The races. The three girls are introduced right off the bat as two Swedes and an Italian. That might not be bad in a fantasy setting but this is the United States, a place that's pretty diverse. I sure wouldn't be able to tell if someone was Swedish or Italian or not. Oh yeah, and it took me a chapter or two past his introduction to realize that James was black--it was a minor part of his introduction. Contrast that with the girls, and that.... Yeah. Eddings also used the word 'oriental' to describe an East Asian (was it Japanese?) doctor. I'm surprised his editor okayed that.
-Some characters seemed to be only characterized in terms of their job and major. Especially Mark, who went on and on about stuff related to his English major. I don't mind college stuff, most of the book was them going about their lives and all, but it was excessive. I don't know who half the authors he mentioned were, and even then I don't think I've read any of the books and poems he mentioned and frankly I don't care that much. I think this was probably because Eddings himself was an English major and he just had a lot to talk about. This isn't a failing unique to Eddings (Patricia Briggs's Dead Heat comes to mind, and I certainly tend to ramble in my own stuff), but I would have hoped that someone would have stepped in and asked if all that was necessary. Dr. Conrad was cool though.
-The ending. While the vagueness can be both good and bad, it did leave a lot up to the reader... "what really happened?"
-The ending part two:
-The slang could be pretty cringey, but it was mostly delegated to the twin so I chalked it up to part of her characterization.
Anyway. In the end, even though there some issues, I still moderately enjoyed the book. It didn't leave me wanting a sequel, and I didn't particularly care what happened to a few of the characters (Mark anyone?) but the story did keep me still reading a few hours past when I decided I was going to sleep, and it was entertaining, nothing too deep and thought-provoking. I probably wouldn't have read it if it wasn't by Eddings, though.
March 3, 2013
I love David (and the ever-silent Leigh) Eddings. I enjoy every fantasy book he has written. This book, however, is outside of their general genre, and just doesn't work for me. In fact, I was several chapters in when I realized that I may have actually read the novel before, but blocked it out...call it a self-protective fugue.
The story itself has some interesting potential - one of a pair of identical twins is murdered and the other has amnesia, so no one is sure which twin survived. But, oddly enough for such an experience author, the writing is the problem.
First, the voice. The story is told in first-person, and the first person is quite a smartass. Mind you, I happen to be one myself, but *all* the time with the snarky, snide, verbal play-by-play. It gets old. If you've read the Belgariad and the Mallorean, you'll know what I mean when I say it sounded like it was told from Silk's PoV...and remember how Garion pointed out how annoying that was to deal with constantly? Apparently the authors forgot. It reminded me a great deal of the tone of Belgarath the Sorcerer and Polgara the Sorceress - but those books had an advantage because I already knew and enjoyed the character (though admittedly, the snarkiness also got old fast). There's also the jarring effect of a familiar voice in an unfamiliar setting; generally that familiar tone comes in a more archaic locale than downtown Seattle in the late 90s.
Related: all of the cutsy language crap. Mark even uses it on the witness stand. Mommified, normie (which was what he used), and the like. In some ways, it was more painful than wading through "r u thar?" texts from twelve year olds. Who talks like that? And who does it ALL the TIME?
The second complaint I had probably came in part because I skimmed some other reviews, and I realized their authors were correct. The author goes ON and ON about his thesis and his opinion of Milton, Hemmingway, Faulkner, and the like. Congrats, Eddings, you are well read, but I really don't care if you think Milton was a pompous Puritan, certainly not enough to want to hear about it in depth. In some ways, the novel felt like a platform to give the authors a place to discuss their literary biases. Please, go substitute teach at your local college; do a seminar or something.
The direction of the novel was fairly obvious, especially since it was outlined on the cover flap. Beating us over the head with certain references was aggravatingly annoying.
The fact that Twink was totally cool with everyone she interacted with have in-depth discussions about her was also kind of eye rolling. (We'll ignore the fact that her family friend, his roommates, his professor, her aunt, her priest, and her counselor [he gets a slight waiver] were all fiercely intelligent and attentive enough to notice all sorts of details; family might care that much, but for so many intelligent outsiders to want to delve in was odd.) Sure, there was a lot of sneaking around but "I want to do a case study on your craziness..." - she was fine with that?
Speaking of which, let's discuss the trial. Okay, fine, it was a hearing to determine the level of insanity but really. Admittedly, I don't know a lot about law, but there were a lot of things that didn't add up. For instance, the prosecution - and the defense - pretty much laid their entire case out. I don't understand why Mark's housemate's testimony was valid; they barely knew the girl. More time was spent quizzing the girl going for her masters than the actual doctor. And WHAT was up with the DA?! In a high-profile case, where the DA's office is supposidely itching to not go for the "legally insane" defense, who would send a low-tiered, incompetent, non-question asking underlying to the trial? Someone higher up the rung should have been there. The low man DA was almost as ridiculous as "no questions."
Mark's attitude was also annoying. Basically the girl he considers his baby sister - his only surviving family - is on trial for murder, and he's kinda worried about his papers. Who wouldn't give a semester bye for that, especially after he lost his parents? Then, too, having been pretty well raised with Renata/Regina's family and having lost his own, you would think he would identify a bit closer with them, rather than just waiving them off. He doesn't seem to understand why the surviving twin's parents are a mess, but my question is, why isn't he?
The supernatural elements were so minor that they weren't really worth including...either more attention or no attention should have been paid to them. There's a logical inconsistency in the fact that someone blabbed about the convent on network TV, but the reporters can't find it...really? Not to mention the fact that they took the emo raging cop OFF the air despite the likelihood that he would provide more entertainment raging than he would have with the canned speech; what TV station would cut that? Especially after Mark goes on and on about the evil TV people.
I blocked the novel out for a reason, I think. It was annoying and overdone, and Eddings was *way* too self-amused. I might possibly reread it out of loyalty to the author, if every other book on my shelf has caught fire and the city shuts down the library. I'll probably wind up thinking, it can't be that bad. Belgariad! Polgara! Sparhawk! Eddings is an awesome writer, it can't be as annoying as I thought.
It is, future self. It is.
The story itself has some interesting potential - one of a pair of identical twins is murdered and the other has amnesia, so no one is sure which twin survived. But, oddly enough for such an experience author, the writing is the problem.
First, the voice. The story is told in first-person, and the first person is quite a smartass. Mind you, I happen to be one myself, but *all* the time with the snarky, snide, verbal play-by-play. It gets old. If you've read the Belgariad and the Mallorean, you'll know what I mean when I say it sounded like it was told from Silk's PoV...and remember how Garion pointed out how annoying that was to deal with constantly? Apparently the authors forgot. It reminded me a great deal of the tone of Belgarath the Sorcerer and Polgara the Sorceress - but those books had an advantage because I already knew and enjoyed the character (though admittedly, the snarkiness also got old fast). There's also the jarring effect of a familiar voice in an unfamiliar setting; generally that familiar tone comes in a more archaic locale than downtown Seattle in the late 90s.
Related: all of the cutsy language crap. Mark even uses it on the witness stand. Mommified, normie (which was what he used), and the like. In some ways, it was more painful than wading through "r u thar?" texts from twelve year olds. Who talks like that? And who does it ALL the TIME?
The second complaint I had probably came in part because I skimmed some other reviews, and I realized their authors were correct. The author goes ON and ON about his thesis and his opinion of Milton, Hemmingway, Faulkner, and the like. Congrats, Eddings, you are well read, but I really don't care if you think Milton was a pompous Puritan, certainly not enough to want to hear about it in depth. In some ways, the novel felt like a platform to give the authors a place to discuss their literary biases. Please, go substitute teach at your local college; do a seminar or something.
The direction of the novel was fairly obvious, especially since it was outlined on the cover flap. Beating us over the head with certain references was aggravatingly annoying.
The fact that Twink was totally cool with everyone she interacted with have in-depth discussions about her was also kind of eye rolling. (We'll ignore the fact that her family friend, his roommates, his professor, her aunt, her priest, and her counselor [he gets a slight waiver] were all fiercely intelligent and attentive enough to notice all sorts of details; family might care that much, but for so many intelligent outsiders to want to delve in was odd.) Sure, there was a lot of sneaking around but "I want to do a case study on your craziness..." - she was fine with that?
Speaking of which, let's discuss the trial. Okay, fine, it was a hearing to determine the level of insanity but really. Admittedly, I don't know a lot about law, but there were a lot of things that didn't add up. For instance, the prosecution - and the defense - pretty much laid their entire case out. I don't understand why Mark's housemate's testimony was valid; they barely knew the girl. More time was spent quizzing the girl going for her masters than the actual doctor. And WHAT was up with the DA?! In a high-profile case, where the DA's office is supposidely itching to not go for the "legally insane" defense, who would send a low-tiered, incompetent, non-question asking underlying to the trial? Someone higher up the rung should have been there. The low man DA was almost as ridiculous as "no questions."
Mark's attitude was also annoying. Basically the girl he considers his baby sister - his only surviving family - is on trial for murder, and he's kinda worried about his papers. Who wouldn't give a semester bye for that, especially after he lost his parents? Then, too, having been pretty well raised with Renata/Regina's family and having lost his own, you would think he would identify a bit closer with them, rather than just waiving them off. He doesn't seem to understand why the surviving twin's parents are a mess, but my question is, why isn't he?
The supernatural elements were so minor that they weren't really worth including...either more attention or no attention should have been paid to them. There's a logical inconsistency in the fact that someone blabbed about the convent on network TV, but the reporters can't find it...really? Not to mention the fact that they took the emo raging cop OFF the air despite the likelihood that he would provide more entertainment raging than he would have with the canned speech; what TV station would cut that? Especially after Mark goes on and on about the evil TV people.
I blocked the novel out for a reason, I think. It was annoying and overdone, and Eddings was *way* too self-amused. I might possibly reread it out of loyalty to the author, if every other book on my shelf has caught fire and the city shuts down the library. I'll probably wind up thinking, it can't be that bad. Belgariad! Polgara! Sparhawk! Eddings is an awesome writer, it can't be as annoying as I thought.
It is, future self. It is.
October 17, 2013
Alas, everything about this book annoyed me, and I do mean everything. The dialog is flat and artificial, crammed with cliches and bad/outdated slang, despite the fact that the narrator is supposed to be a PhD in English [1]. The characters are one-dimensional and uninteresting, and the male characters consistently demonstrate a condescending 1950s-era attitude towards women (and others) [2]. The plot is full of holes and irrelevancies [3], and a fairly appalling lack of any sort of moral or ethical sense is exhibited across the board [4]. Examples hidden to prevent spoilerage.
Most vexing of all is that all of this derailed an excellent premise that had a lot of potential. The first few pages, with the backstory between the narrator and the twins, is pretty gripping. But it deteriorates pretty fast from then on.
Most vexing of all is that all of this derailed an excellent premise that had a lot of potential. The first few pages, with the backstory between the narrator and the twins, is pretty gripping. But it deteriorates pretty fast from then on.
September 4, 2017
I really enjoyed the story and twists and turns. It was a very exciting journey through the psyche and exploration of twins and agonizing loss.
However, the writing style was terrible. The story closely followed six people people living in a boardinghouse together; three males and three females. Two of the three males (Mark and Charlie) never called any of the three females by their names. Instead, the two used a variety of nicknames, like "babe," "Toots," and "sweet cakes" (capitalization mimicked use in the book). That struck me as condescending and misogynistic towards females. Pretty gross.
Another example of the terrible writing style is found in how much slang Mark and Charlie used. It was as though the Eddingses wanted to prove that they were "cool," so Mark and Charlie never spoke spoke directly. One might think that there is only a handful of ways to announce that one is leaving. Yet, Mark and Charlie used a variety of phrasing, and it was different every time: "hitting the road," "hitting the bricks," "bag up," "bag out," "pack up," etc. It came across as a desperate reach to be accepted by young readers. However, it comes across as clunky and awkward.
So, if you can get past the juvenile and silly phrasing, the story is well worth the read.
However, the writing style was terrible. The story closely followed six people people living in a boardinghouse together; three males and three females. Two of the three males (Mark and Charlie) never called any of the three females by their names. Instead, the two used a variety of nicknames, like "babe," "Toots," and "sweet cakes" (capitalization mimicked use in the book). That struck me as condescending and misogynistic towards females. Pretty gross.
Another example of the terrible writing style is found in how much slang Mark and Charlie used. It was as though the Eddingses wanted to prove that they were "cool," so Mark and Charlie never spoke spoke directly. One might think that there is only a handful of ways to announce that one is leaving. Yet, Mark and Charlie used a variety of phrasing, and it was different every time: "hitting the road," "hitting the bricks," "bag up," "bag out," "pack up," etc. It came across as a desperate reach to be accepted by young readers. However, it comes across as clunky and awkward.
So, if you can get past the juvenile and silly phrasing, the story is well worth the read.
June 6, 2010
What a disappointment. They took a very interesting idea and what could have been an exciting psychological thriller and turned into a boring wishy-washy story. The narrative is so bogged down by useless details that it turns a character's stake out of a would be murderer into about as much fun as reading about paint drying. The characters' dialogue between each other is supposed to convey a fondness and a closeness but instead comes off as dumb and unrealistic and very forced. Then there's the character Renata around whom the story revolves- we're supposed to be charmed by her like all the characters she encounters inexplicably are but to me she just came off as a spoiled brat, which made me care very little about her and her plight with possible multiple personalities taking away any emotional connection a reader would have. Plus the book's moral compass was really skewed in my opinion, the main character has a chance to prevent a murder and doesn't even try because it's for vengence and justified to him and we're supposed to be happy that he helps the killer get free after the murder. Frustrating and pointless!!!!!
April 15, 2011
Oh David Eddings....how I loved your stuff when I was wee and just learning about the wonders of fantasy. Even now I think back fondly on the Belgariad, the sequel series, and that other series with the Sparhawk dude. But it's been many years since I've read them, and now, after reading this ridiculously tepid offering, I'm afraid to ever go back for fear of destroying my happy childhood memories.
The premise itself sounded compelling, but execution was laughable. The characters all sounded the same. They also all were too talkative, speaking in sentences that no person would ever say in reality. They also spoke for way too long each time. They cracked constant jokes that were not funny. I gave up not one quarter of the way in.
The premise itself sounded compelling, but execution was laughable. The characters all sounded the same. They also all were too talkative, speaking in sentences that no person would ever say in reality. They also spoke for way too long each time. They cracked constant jokes that were not funny. I gave up not one quarter of the way in.
March 5, 2024
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this one. I picked it up from the library because I absolutely loved the Belgariad. David's writing is evident. There's some wittiness here and there.
Yup! That's about it.
The whole time I read this book I was expecting something more and sadly nothing delivered. I read one review of this and someone had stated that some of the characters suffer from Polgara-syndrome. Clever, and true.
There's not much to praise. Not much to review. I should give this a one star review... Here's to hoping I have not hit rock bottom.
Yup! That's about it.
The whole time I read this book I was expecting something more and sadly nothing delivered. I read one review of this and someone had stated that some of the characters suffer from Polgara-syndrome. Clever, and true.
There's not much to praise. Not much to review. I should give this a one star review... Here's to hoping I have not hit rock bottom.
December 6, 2010
Ugh. This book is, unfortunately, a waste of a really interesting idea for a novel. The heavy handed, smugly superior male privilege exhibited by all the male characters made me want to hurl. The conversations were often stilted, and characters went on pointless rambles filled with information we didn't need. The supernatural elements were too little, too late, and felt out of place with the rest of the novel. Disappointing.
July 14, 2017
What an interesting idea and a fairly good execution. Identical twins Regina and Renata ... a terrible loss, a psychotic break ... then I enjoyed the story but was never really 'sucked in' so I couldn't put the book down. Then, there's the unexpected and unnecessary introduction of a supernatural element that was quite irritating. I presume it was to tick some boxes and have the book serve several categories in book stores. Pity really.
June 10, 2012
Eddingsien olisi pitänyt pysyä fantasiassa, murhamysteeri ei toimi lainkaan. kieli on omituista (voi olla myös suomentajan syytä) ja töksähtelevää, epäolennaisia asioita kerrotaan ja juoni on todella ennalta-arvattava. Loppua kohden kirja paranee, mutta jää silti kovin köyhäksi. kirja ei kerro mitään, mitä ei olisi aiemmin kerrottu.
October 8, 2014
Definitely not Eddings usual fare. Dark and disturbing, and I promise you this- reading this book alone at night on the Underground.
This is much more straightforward reality for Eddings, with only a hit of the supernatural, and it is also lacking in the humor that so defines most of his books.
This is much more straightforward reality for Eddings, with only a hit of the supernatural, and it is also lacking in the humor that so defines most of his books.
July 10, 2016
Very different Eddings... yet I liked it as much I remember from it.
owned-copy
October 10, 2016Could see what was happening in what was unfolding, but then found it good to follow how the characters in the book came to the same conclusion, and that it was more of a thriller than expected.
July 26, 2017
Got off to a slow start, but I'm glad I kept going. Well written, interesting topic and follow through.
August 11, 2017
Suspenseful read, but very early predictable with narrow-focused narrative and long in the tooth over the five-limo charade near the end.
February 19, 2020
SPOILER ALERT!
I started this book, not really wanting to, as I'd just finished The Losers/High Hunt and, while entertained, wouldn't be reading them again, but, as is my rule, if I own a book, I should read said book - if only the once!
While I enjoyed Regina's Song, there were aspects to it that really niggled as I read it:
Although set in the 90's, the dialogue, and social behaviour, of the characters seemed more fit for something from the 50's, with that same moral, and social, compass (and it really made me curse when the work in the house was so neatly divided - as was the house itself - into 'boy' territory and 'girl' territory, too! Grrrrr
Although I found the plot fairly gripping in places, it was obvious to me, fairly quickly, that it was the twin who was the killer - and why.
I also found the constant use of literary language to be soooooo pretentious - especially in the use of first person narrative, the frequent descriptions of the narrator's view of the literary greats, and with the use of musical terms when naming the chapter titles - yes, it's called 'Regina's Song' - so, 'aren't I the clever one to use those terms as chapter titles?' :(
Like I said - pretentious!
We are meant to assume, I suppose that, because our authors are well read, have a taste for classical music, and can reference so many of the greats in literature, then this book must be in line with the classics - sorry, but no! It just gave me the uncomfortable feeling of it being out of it's time - as if, like the twins in the story, two seperate books had been forced into one!
That was a good plot twist there, and it got me hooked for a while but, like the previous two fiction books I've read from the Eddings team, the ending just felt too pat, and too contrived, for my comfort, or taste.
The sad thing is, that I love the Belgariad, Malloreon, Elenium & Tamuli books ( they are like slipping into a pair of comfy slippers, after you've been on your feet, in heels, all day), to the point where I'll re-read them every few years or so - but I just can't get my head around the fictional books that were produced both before, and after, them :(
So, this is another book that'll be going to the charity shop, rather than staying on my shelves!
I started this book, not really wanting to, as I'd just finished The Losers/High Hunt and, while entertained, wouldn't be reading them again, but, as is my rule, if I own a book, I should read said book - if only the once!
While I enjoyed Regina's Song, there were aspects to it that really niggled as I read it:
Although set in the 90's, the dialogue, and social behaviour, of the characters seemed more fit for something from the 50's, with that same moral, and social, compass (and it really made me curse when the work in the house was so neatly divided - as was the house itself - into 'boy' territory and 'girl' territory, too! Grrrrr
Although I found the plot fairly gripping in places, it was obvious to me, fairly quickly, that it was the twin who was the killer - and why.
I also found the constant use of literary language to be soooooo pretentious - especially in the use of first person narrative, the frequent descriptions of the narrator's view of the literary greats, and with the use of musical terms when naming the chapter titles - yes, it's called 'Regina's Song' - so, 'aren't I the clever one to use those terms as chapter titles?' :(
Like I said - pretentious!
We are meant to assume, I suppose that, because our authors are well read, have a taste for classical music, and can reference so many of the greats in literature, then this book must be in line with the classics - sorry, but no! It just gave me the uncomfortable feeling of it being out of it's time - as if, like the twins in the story, two seperate books had been forced into one!
That was a good plot twist there, and it got me hooked for a while but, like the previous two fiction books I've read from the Eddings team, the ending just felt too pat, and too contrived, for my comfort, or taste.
The sad thing is, that I love the Belgariad, Malloreon, Elenium & Tamuli books ( they are like slipping into a pair of comfy slippers, after you've been on your feet, in heels, all day), to the point where I'll re-read them every few years or so - but I just can't get my head around the fictional books that were produced both before, and after, them :(
So, this is another book that'll be going to the charity shop, rather than staying on my shelves!
January 23, 2018
The idea of this book is good, but there's lots of things to improve. Seems like the writer(s) want to impress us by combining different sciences (like psychology), but it works clumsily when they try to fit them all together, and certain kind of naivety makes this both embarrassing and touchingly funny murder mystery. Its ending is so over-the-top that it made me laugh out loud. Despite all of its flaws*), or maybe exactly because of that, this was very entertaining book to read, and I read it in three days which is very fast for me especially considering how long it is.
*) They could have left the unnatural element out, it didn't fit for this book. Characters could have talked more naturally. Things happen sometimes too easily but also on the other hand they waste so much time on things not really relevant or just make things longer even they're relevant. They are also unbelievably stupid in their behaviour. We know already in the halfway of the book (or was it sooner) who the murderer is while the characters are for some unbelievably reason still fascinated about certain essay (normal people would freak out or at least be concerned about it and Regina's condition, but not them), they are just like "wow what an essay!" This list could go on and on.
*) They could have left the unnatural element out, it didn't fit for this book. Characters could have talked more naturally. Things happen sometimes too easily but also on the other hand they waste so much time on things not really relevant or just make things longer even they're relevant. They are also unbelievably stupid in their behaviour. We know already in the halfway of the book (or was it sooner) who the murderer is while the characters are for some unbelievably reason still fascinated about certain essay (normal people would freak out or at least be concerned about it and Regina's condition, but not them), they are just like "wow what an essay!" This list could go on and on.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews