Regina's Song

Rating:
Summary: Great story loses itself in the telling
Review: How frustrating! I was so looking forward to this book. And it started out fine. The characters are likeable, funny and varied, it's a fast read, and there's loads of spooky stuff to look forward to.

After a few chapters, however, the seams began to show. It started with the baby talk. That alone had me climbing the walls!

It was downhill from there.

With rare exceptions, there's one voice, one sense of humor. Information is repeated with eye-rolling frequency. Way too many things go on that make no sense (witnesses being prepped for a hearing include only friends but no family -- not even the aunt with whom the person lives; a top psychiatrist teams up with a psych grad student, sight unseen; a cop discusses a murder case with two strangers; a doctor has time to hear Mark's life story, gives little medical information, yet Mark somehow knows what the doc should've told him but didn't). Characters know things they shouldn't know yet. The same phrases pop up over and over again. Many words are italicized, probably because the vocabulary's too limited and simple to express any depth of feeling. Regardless of subject matter, the tone remains light, airy and superficial. Cheerfulness doesn't mesh well with a story about psychotics and grisly murders.

REGINA'S SONG is an incredible story! What a shame it wasn't given a more worthy vehicle.

Rating:
Summary: Terrible Terrible Terrible
Review: For a supposedly professional writer, this is one of the most amateurish books I've ever read. When I was younger I was a fervent David Eddings fan; despite my profound disappointment with his more recent works (Belgarath the Sorcerer, Redemption of Althalus) I decided to give him another chance with this book. Well, three strikes, he's OUT.

It's hard to know where to begin when bashing this book. First off, the characters are highly unappealing (particularly the narrator, Mark, who has all the charm of a bucket of warm phlegm). All of them talk like smarmy wanna-be comedians who just can't get enough of each other. Their cutesy sarcastic banter makes one's skin crawl. These one-sided automatons never come into their own as real-seeming people, only devices to move the plot forward.

But OH, what a plot it is! As predictable as it is, I found myself ploughing through the final hundred pages desperately awaiting a twist that never came. As another reviewer mentioned, the big "surprise" of the novel is spelled out in black and white in the dust jacket blurb. The courtroom scene near the end was particularly painful, as character after wooden character takes the witness stand only to recount every single thing we've read in the past 200 pages without adding any new information. I had no choice but to skim through that part.

Then there is the pretentiousness. Yes, David Eddings was an English teacher, so I'm sure he has a fairly broad knowledge of literature. But does that mean we have to listen to paragraph after paragraph droning on about Milton this, Faulkner that? Combine that with the fact that Eddings has the audacity to lambast such great writers in a piece-of-trash book like this one, and it just adds insult to injury. Actually, I find it very amusing that Eddings' "About the Author" blurb states that he grew up in Washington, worked as an English teacher, worked for Boeing, etc. So, where does the book take place? Seattle. And what are two of the principle characters' occupations? English teacher and Boeing engineer (though with trademark sophisticated Eddings humor he refers to the company as "Boing-Boing." Get it? Sheesh.) I know the old axiom states "write what you know," but I get the sense that Eddings chooses to include these details of his own life just so he can go into exhaustive detail and add a sense of authenticity. Well, sorry buddy, it just comes across as a lot of detail for detail's sake; if you want authenticity, try writing characters who actually talk like real people.

Which brings me to one more point: the colloquial first-person writing style. This is what cements the amateurish feeling of the book. Instead of choosing a simple, elegant style, Eddings peppers the writing with annoying colloquialisms like "You guessed 'er, Chester." It just gets in the way, and wears on the reader's patience.

So, I would suggest not wasting your time with this book. It'll just annoy you, especially if you are a long-time Eddings fan. Sorry David, I loved your old stuff, but if this kind of stuff is all you've got left in you, I think it's time to throw in the towel.

Rating:
Summary: The amazing libido-less college students!
Review: rating 3.5;

I am a serious fan of david and leigh eddings work (the fact that I bought this book in a bookshop in Emmen, Netherlands and lugged it around europe and then home before reading it should testify to how much I wanted to like this book). Reading it, I separated this book from edding's other works of fantasy, and thought more along the lines of High Hunt and the Losers.

I Have to say yes, it was an okay book. I Liked the idea of the houseful of graduate students (would have been nice if there was some conflict and drama there- put a house full of smart poeple in a room and see if they just get along like a bunch of sixth graders...no chance! They argue and discuss, explore ideas and cut them down...I know because I was one! And me and my friends often found like cats and dogs over some issues! Smart people have opinions and typically like to express them!) and thought the dialog and characterizations were a little weak for what are supposed to be group of upper echelon students. Of course none of them swear or have a libido! Seriously they have a house rules that there is no hanky-panky...cool...but nobody goes elsewhere either. The repression should have blown the roof off! That aside, the story of one twin truggling to maintaining her sanity after the rape/murder of her sister was an interesting one, though I think eddings could have dropped the serial killer angle and just explored the remaining twin struggling to rebuilt her life without the schlock. It would have made a very agreeable story I think. Don't get me wrong, I like reading horror/serial killer books at times as well. It just didn't seem to be necessary here. There was already enough possibility without it.

That said I think the exploration of the killer angle was quite suspenceful at times and did add some edge to the story. But, as in the losers and high hunt, I don't think eddings needs to resort to cheap devices to built a credible story. I do think this story is overlong, some of the banter between characters a little weird and the Charlie's brother being a cop in the know just a little too convienient (as is his willingness to tell them everything he knows in a public bar).

By the end I was just glad I had finished. It's a hard book to read continuously. I did like eddings occasional academic observation/idea from the mouths of his characters. Just that there wasn't enough push in the story: let's face it we've probably all read lots of serial killer books and compared to say Primal Fear, William Diehl, this book really just doesn't do it, espiecally with the hardy boy-esque murder investigation by the main character (the narrator). Probably the most annoying aspect is the remaining twin is WAAAAY too schmaltzy and cute and two-dimensional. She needed greater exploration. I felt at times like the wholesomeness was just too much. Makes we wonder what's in the water i if everybody in Seattle (where to story is set) is just so nice (this the place that gave the world Nirvana and the Green river murderer).

I think eddings did miss an opportunity here to create something outside the usual.

Overall an okay book. Pleasant and unforced but won't keep you up at night turning pages. I guess it's just too nice for me.

Rating:
Summary: intriguing
Review: David and Leigh Eddings are masters of the fantastical world but this time they take a stab at the thriller genre. Regina's song is about a set of Twins. One of them is rather brutally murdered and the other is so traumatized she must be instituitonalized. Well this is background you can get from reading the description of the book...but the book itself?

I bought this book at 3:30pm this afternoon, and by 9:30pm I was finished. I never do this with a book. David and Leigh Eddings put much emphasis on banter and personality quirks in their novels. This is no different. While reading this your almost forced to like the main carachter, Regina, and her care-taker/big brother Mark. For me, this was the reason I couldn't stop reading...I wanted know what happens to that girl, and you want everything to be all right for her. The dialogue maybe a bit childish, and the science behind the story a bit unresearched (i think they would have done well to make this book much bigger), but the story line is heartbreaking and you want to keep reading it. It is a great read. And you come away feeling emotional.

Rating:
Summary: Eddings surprised me.
Review: I bought this book because of the author. I am a big fan of David Eddings' fantasy novels. When I heard this book was going to be released, I put in on my wish list, and then ultimately pre-ordered it. I didn't think it was going to be that great, since Eddings is pretty much a fantasy author, and his two normal "fiction" novels are usually forgotten when speaking about his bibliography. I put it aside when it arrived, figuring that I'd read it when I was done with summer school and had nothing better to do.

Well, I decided to read it a few days before summer school ended, and I couldn't put it down. I spent hours reading it when I should have been doing my final project. I finally finished it this morning, my first day of true summer vacation, and I loved it.

True, Eddings is a fantasy writer, and maybe shouldn't have wandered into this horror/mystery genre. Besides the witty sayings that are characteristic of Eddings' other novels ("I thought I noticed you noticing," "Be nice," etc.), I almost forgot it was Eddings writing the story. I was so caught up in the story that it didn't bother me that it was not fantasy.

The story line is pretty basic: there are two identical twins that are more than best friends. They are so identical that no one could tell them apart. When one of them is raped and murdered, the surviving twin lapses into their secret language, "twin-speak," and is committed to an asylum. After six months of babbling, the twin wakes up, forgetting who she is and why she was there. She forgets her parents, but remembers Mark Austin, a family friend seven years older than she is. She begins to recover, and then convinces everyone that she is on the road to recovery, and should be allowed to audit classes at the University of Washington, where Mark is a graduate student. Everyone assumes that this twin is Renata, the less-dominant twin, and that Regina was the one murdered (conveniently, the twins' footprints taken at birth were lost, and since they have identical DNA, no one can be sure which twin survived).

The story takes a different turn when Renata (who insists on being called "Twinkie," Mark's petname for the twins, and pushes the murder of her sister, or that she even had a sister, as far away from her reality as possible) arrives to take classes at U.W. She begins to have nightmares, and, finally, during the second half of the book, Mark realizes that these nightmares might be connected to a serial killer in Seattle. (All of this is described on the book, so I'm really not spoiling anything.)

So, what's wrong with the book? The only thing I could complain about is how the twins conveniently cannot be told apart. I think that perfectly identical twins are pretty near impossible, and only thing that can tell them apart (their footprints) are lost. Hmm. But then again, I don't really know. The second problem is that the plot about the murderer really isn't discussed until the second half of the book, therefore making the first half of the book completely different from the second. The first half may not have as much "plot" as the second half, especially for people looking for those horror/mystery books. I don't think this was a major problem, but some may.

I strongly recommend this book, both to those who are Eddings fans, and those who just want a good book to read this summer.

Rating:
Summary: wasted potential
Review: the idea behind this book is very interesting, however, Eddings has to bog it down with his "clever" dialogue. THere are characters who serve no function in the book than to allow themain character to showoff his witty banter. Which isn't as witty as it is annoying. All the characters use the same expressions and add "ie" to everything, like bugsies and normies etc. which doesnt reflect the dialouge of today in any way shape or form even tho it has a modern setting. Also, the living arrangments Mark finds himself in, just doesn't exsist. No busy college women would cook and clean a house for men, they would either hire someone to do it or expect everyone to clean up after themselves. This out of date sterotyping was extremely annoying and hard to believe. I doubt that this book would have been published had the famous Eddings' had not been the authors.

Rating:
Summary: Not a fantasy, but still a good read
Review: This is so NOT a fantasy, but a darned good mystery & psychological drama, so if you want magic and dragons, put this one down. An interesting look into the world of identical twins. Yeah yeah...you know who done it, but the mystery is will the murderer get away with it? As in the Belgariad & Mallorean, part of the charm of the book is the rapport between the characters. I almost didn't pick it up because I haven't cared for the other Eddings' non-fantasy titles, but I'm glad I gave this one a chance. It was a fast read and a good escape.

Rating:
Summary: Don't Waste Your Time!
Review: I have read, and loved, every fantasy book David Eddings has written. Ignoring the tepid reviews, I bought this book and looked forward to another (albeit different) Eddings adventure. Sadly, I was bored to tears by the wooden characters and their elementary school dialogue. I didn't care about any of these people and most of what happened made no sense. I'm usually sorry to see a book end, but this time I was thankful when I finally turned the last page. Personally, I think David Eddings should stick to fantasy and leave murder mystery/thrillers to the experts.

Rating:
Summary: Don't bother. Seriously.
Review: I would like to open with a protest of having to give a star at all.

No, I take that back, I admire the lack of glaring grammatical errors.

That being said, I'm quite disgusted that I wasted my money on the hardcover edition. The plot was vapid and obvious, with no spectacular surprises, but I can sometimes even forgive that if the character development is strong and the dialogue witty. Sadly, this book failed on both counts. There are many prominent characters in this novel, but only one (yes, ONE) actual character type. This is a completely static character type, I should point out. All characters tend to use the same dialogue in the same literary tone, and fit into the all-too-similar mold of being intelligent, slightly quirky, and possessing a good sense of humor while remaining well-grounded in their work. Yet, the thing that got to me the most was the constant "cutesy" speak and attitude. Almost everything seemed to have gained the suffix "-y," "-ie," or "-poo" (eg - "Dockie-Poo" rather than "doctor"). This is not something I want to read now that I am past the age of three. Heck, I doubt I could have stomached the consistency of the cute-speak even at that age.
I was also quite bothered by the general chauvinistic attitude that was found in some basic assumptions throughout the book. The female characters fell into only two categories: the mother figure or the cute girly type. The older female characters all spent their time cooking and serving the males coffee, while the men worked on the plumbing, carpentry, or the automobiles. The men all had an innate presumption of protecting the women, and the women allowed them to do so, particularly when reverting to "cutsey-girly" mode. It all just seemed ridiculously archaic in its gender presumptions.
I will, however, speak well of the ideas presented (in what hardly deserves to be called subplot) by the main character's search for a masters and doctoral thesis. That, at least, got me interested in real works of literature, rather than what I suffered through with this.

Don't read it. Really, simple as that.

Rating:
Summary: If you're thinking about reading this book, THINK AGAIN!!!
Review: Ok, I picked this book up in the bookstore, and like most other people was very intrigued by the whole murdered twin idea. As I was reading it I became annoyed with the main characters, the boarding house group. It seems that all of their dialogue was recycled throughout the book.

Finally I got to an interesting part of the book, (spoiler ahead) after Twinkie had killed the last guy, in the church Mark and the priest see two twins. They could have gone so many different ways with that plot twist, but no, Mark and the priest decide NEVER TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! The story just goes downhill from there.

If you are even thinking about reading this book, DON'T. You might get more fulfillment from watching paint dry.