Susan Shwartz
Can I review the Library of Congress annotation and the book jacket descriptions of this novel? Well, neither related much to the book. Both say it's set in the 10th century. No, it takes place in the 1070s. I was clued to this fact when the Verangian guards were throwing out insults to each other about leaving their brains at Hastings. Why future Verangian guards would have been at Hastings is quite another question. They have their nerve making comments about arrows in dear Harold's eye when he had just trounced them at Stamford Bridge! But I digress. The description is correct up to the main character's return to Constantinople, after which it bears little to no resemblance to what happens in the novel. I don't mean it was made more lurid or interesting which shouldn't happen in a LOC annotation anyway, but that it outlines a story that just plain doesn't happen in the book.
Ah, but you say, don't judge a book by its cover, not even by its LOC annotation. OK, then I will judge it on its own merits, though it may not come out ahead that way.
Leo is a disgraced son of a great Byzantine family fighting with the Basileus Romanus when almost everyone else but the Verangians and Leo desert him in the midst of battle. He sticks with his emperor who ultimately dies all but in his arms due to burned out eyes that got infected. This is what is meant by Leo being disgraced. A priest who is also a mage is after him now for fear he will try to make himself emperor. So Leo leaves the city for the burbs, the far burbs, to become a hermit. He meets Ashara again, a Jewish woman who had shown kindness to Romanus at his blinding. Wandering about in ancient caves some force draws the two together and they fall in love. The rest of the novel is about Leo preparing the locals for onslaughts of Turks amidst earthquakes and other threats. Oh and there is this cool Verangian guard who affixes himself to Leo and provides both mystery and comic relief. (The Jewish women love that he will eat everything put in front of him.)
It is obvious that Shwartz had a great time writing this novel. I can't say I had as good a time reading it. The word I would assign to this book is "forgetful". Often throughout the novel the author will repeat a sentence or the sense of it just one or two lines later, as if she forgot she already said that. One major plot point, a holy man's suggestion that maybe they should just let the Turks come live in their towns, seems to meet with Leo's and other's approval, but then they gird their loins for war and have a bloody time of it.
And I just don't know why this novel needed a werewolf in it. It did not fit in with the "one from column A and one from column B" mystical backdrop of the novel. In a class I took on fantasy writing we were told to develop the "world" in which a story would take place, a strange world but consistent within itself. In Shards of Empire
I did enjoy the story in spite of its prominent warts. It was full of love, sex and adventure and had a not-overly-heroic hero, a nice difference. I just kept wondering if anyone read it through before it was published.
I downloaded this book from the national Library Services' BARD site and listened to it on my lovely new digital "talking book" machine.
