On 03/05/16 04:18, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:50:46 +1200, Titus G
> <
no...@nowhere.com> wrote
> in<news:ng77n8$q9l$
1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> I usually like a change of genre or at least author
>> between books in a series but now plan to re-read
>> Ancillary Sword before Ancillary Mercy with a minor
>> concern that I may become Leckied out.
>
>> Have you read Ancillary Mercy?
>> How does it compare to the others?
>
> I liked all three books a great deal. However, I consider
> the nominal trilogy to be a duology whose second volume has
> been split between _Ancillary Sword_ and _Ancillary Mercy_:
> they seem to me much more tightly linked than _Ancillary
> Justice_ is to _Ancillary Sword_, both in the events
> covered and in the nature of the narrative .
Having re-read Justice and Sword in preparation, I have now read
Ancillary Mercy and although it was an enjoyable read, it was not as
compelling as the first two and part of that was its similarity to
Sword. I don't know the technicalities of what defines a trilogy but can
see your point as the scope of book 1 was far wider than the others and
whilst the wrapping up made sense in terms of the plot, it was a very
restricted view with regard to the history and scope of Justice.
One of the techniques that made the trilogy so rewarding were the scenes
where different events were seen simultaneously through ancillaries or
other AIs. Another factor was her writing skills though I sometimes
found her sentence structures confusing and had to re-read paragraphs.
It didn't help to chose Stevenson's Treasure Island as a break between
books where archaic word choices and outmoded expressions caused
similar confusion.
I am now even more interested in reading the other Hugo finalists
assuming they are better than Leckie's efforts.