Skip to main content

Review: Lavondyss - Robert Holdstock ****

This book is, in effect, a sequel to Holdstock's astonishing fantasy novel Mythago Wood (though the author considered it not a sequel, but rather a story using the same setting with some overlapping characters). It's hard to rate it, as the first half of the book is even better than its predecessor, but then there is a change of gear into part two, which for me doesn't work as well.

Once again, the action centres on Ryhope Wood, a place where ancient woodland has mysterious ties to the past and where interaction between humans and the woodland allows echoes of myth from the far past to become solid and dangerous. The exact setting is unclear - the introduction by Lisa Tuttle says the real world setting is Holdstock's childhood home in Kent - but Mythago Wood puts the location as Herefordshire, while in Lavondyss a local is described as having a Gloucestershire accent. This is even more confusing when Holdstock rather beautifully brings in Ralph Vaughan Williams as a secondary character, but has RVW saying he doesn't know the area, perhaps because Holdstock didn't realise he was born in Gloucestershire (though admittedly he moved away as a young child).

The first part introduces a girl called Tallis in the years up to her being 13: she is deeply fascinated by myth and magic. The way that Holdstock handles her interaction with the local landscape and the importance of names is beautiful. We absolute relate to Tallis's character - but also to the concerns of her parents, who are indulgent of her imaginings but worried by what seem to be growing into an obsession. (It would have been interesting to have seen her story taken in a direction undertaken in one of the episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where Buffy's parents have her sectioned because of what appear to be her dangerous fantasies). We can both empathise with Tallis and sympathise with what the parents would be going through.

At the end of part one, Tallis enters Ryhope Wood, and here we get the disconnect. For the rest of the book she is an adult - we only learn of the intervening years in a few references - and becomes much more of a cipher. She is joined by a character from Mythago Wood who never directly appeared in that book, but part two is very much the same kind of quest story within the wood as the first novel, and fails to link us to the characters. They all become somewhat two-dimensional. It doesn't help that there is a really weird section where Holdstock seems to totally forget the distinction between humans and mythagos, putting Tallis through an experience that could only happen to a mythago if Holdstock had been consistent in his world building.

Tuttle says Tallis's story can be hard going at times - I'd say, I'm afraid that part two simply isn't well written. But part one is so good that it's worth having the book for that alone. Not only does it delve into the nature of myth and the sense of place that is so central to good fantasy, it also explores the twin natures of stories and storytelling - Holdstock gives one of the best reflections I've seen of the way that authors can experience story effectively emerging from the ether, almost out of their control.

So, do read it (after Mythago Wood). And you may have a totally different view of part two - but either way, the first half of the book is near-perfection.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy Lavondyss from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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