Skip to main content

A pun-ishing yet pleasant read

There is a long tradition of humorous fantasy that has followed two broadly diverging paths - a more sophisticated route in the UK (typified by Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams, whose writing, though apparently science fiction could probably be more accurately classed as fantasy) and a rather less subtle approach in the US.

This American genre varies from the hugely entertaining Amber stories of Roger Zelazny (which are primarily adventures, but maintain the wry humour of a noir detective story) to downright silly but fun romps like Bring Me the Head of Prince Charming (also by Zelazny). But I had not realized quite how far these books could go in intensity of groan production until coming across Board Stiff.

The book was written by Piers Anthony, a long standing member of the SF and fantasy community who may never have been quite in the first rank, but has turned out many readable tales over the years. It was, I admit, with some trepidation that I approached the book when it was offered to me as it is number 38 (no, not a typo) in the Xanth series of novels. It really is hard to imagine someone reaching that number without churning them out (with the exception of Pratchett), but I was willing to give it a go, having been assured that no previous knowledge of Xanth was required.

Overall the experience was surprisingly pleasant. What we have here is a classic quest story, with a likable cast of characters and some impressive tasks to achieve and obstacles to be overcome. I particularly liked the character Astrid, a basilisk in human form, struggling with the conflict of wanting to taste humanity while being deadly to the species. But there is a price to payment which is coping with the numerous puns that litter the book. Practically everything we meet is a pun of some sort, from the strong drink boot rear, to the central character Irrelevant Kandy, who is either ignored if known by her full name, or lusted after if known as I Kandy. Even the central arc of the story concerns puns and their importance to Xanth.

Kandy's name also brings out the other slightly cringe-making aspect of the series, which is a 1950s-esque coyness about sex, which has been codified into a complex running joke. (Babies, for instance, really are brought by the stork, and the sight of a girl's panties causes any man to freeze in his tracks and remain comatose until snapped out of it.) Combined with a very simplistic writing style this will put a fair number of readers off, though I found it tolerable as long as the book is read with the same sort of 'dated approach' mental filter you have to apply now when reading, say, Asimov's Foundation series.

Overall, an enjoyable, lightweight way to spend a few hours. Unless you are true pun-head it is unlikely to give more than passing amusement, but it is, in the manner of the Earth in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, mostly harmless.

Board Stiff is available from 6 January 2014 and can be pre-ordered before then on and
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope