Hatgirl says "Hi"

Among a long list of Comic-Con "Oh, no. What if...?" concerns is "What if I had to admit that I didn't know about a well-known book/comic/film/TV show/blog/thing-I-don't-even-know-the-name-of-because-I-am-so-clueless?" It's like that nightmare where you're sitting an exam that you haven't studied for, except in my case the examiner is Wil Wheaton and he is politely appalled that I haven't read any Lovecraft.

To ensure this nightmare doesn't come true, I have decided to read and watch everything Fandom-related before Comic-Con. Some have suggested this is an unachievable goal. To them I say "pah!"

As part of this education program, I just finished Poul Anderson's "The Broken Sword". It was published in 1954, the same year as Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", and was such an early example of the Fantasy novel that Anderson felt he needed to start it with an explanation about why he was mixing elves and Vikings (awww....). He did a re-write of the book in 1971, but I read the original version thanks to Orion's Fantasy Masterworks series.

I wasn't crazy about the book. It was well written, well paced and groundbreaking for its time. But it was like a Shakespearean tragedy or a slasher film - I wasn't wondering if someone would die, I was wondering if anyone would live. From the very start, Anderson let you know that the best any of the characters could hope for would be a quick death. This seems to be what devotees find appealing about the novel, compared to Tolkien's slightly cheerier (and therefore less "realistic") outlook. What can I say, I like cheery.

I was curious about the differences between the 1954 and the 1971 version and found a great review and analysis of the differences at Black Gate. It has tables!

I'm glad I read it, though. It's certainly not the worst book I've read this year (I'm looking at you, "Dandelion Wine").