[Re-]reading: The Game of Kings
Sep. 10th, 2018 06:09 pmI was trying to decide what the appropriate thing to read on a walking holiday in Scotland would be and picked The Game of Kings off the shelf to flip through the first couple of chapters while I thought about it. Inevitably, this led to deciding that obviously, Dunnett is the right thing to read while on holiday in Scotland, and re-reading an old favourite might be a good thing given how exhausted I was likely to be in the evenings of a long-distance walk, so I might as well just re-read it properly.
Reading The Game of Kings for a second time, knowing how the plot of the novel and of the whole Lymond series will work out, is a very differente experience to reading it for the first time. I spent at least the first third of the book utterly bemused first time round, though I was intrigued enough by the characters to want to persevere and eventually the shape of the plot became clear; this time, I knew where the narrative was going and could appreciate the way Dunnett sets things up at the start of the book with a throwaway line, only for them to become deeply significant several hundred pages later on, as well as the way she constructs Lymond's character entirely from the (biased and usually just plain wrong) viewpoints of the people around him and still manages to gain a certain amount of sympathy for him alongside the urge to slap him with a codfish. I enjoyed some of the set-pieces, such as the duel scene, more for being able to read them at leisure rather than just wanting to get on and find out what was going on, though oddly I found the final dénouement, with its series of revelations which cast everything in a different light, less successful when I knew what was coming. Or maybe it's just that, having now read all of the Lymond and Niccolò books, re-reading The Game of Kings it's more obvious that it was Dunnett's first book and, for all its artistry, it doesn't live up to the accomplishment of her later works.
Reading The Game of Kings for a second time, knowing how the plot of the novel and of the whole Lymond series will work out, is a very differente experience to reading it for the first time. I spent at least the first third of the book utterly bemused first time round, though I was intrigued enough by the characters to want to persevere and eventually the shape of the plot became clear; this time, I knew where the narrative was going and could appreciate the way Dunnett sets things up at the start of the book with a throwaway line, only for them to become deeply significant several hundred pages later on, as well as the way she constructs Lymond's character entirely from the (biased and usually just plain wrong) viewpoints of the people around him and still manages to gain a certain amount of sympathy for him alongside the urge to slap him with a codfish. I enjoyed some of the set-pieces, such as the duel scene, more for being able to read them at leisure rather than just wanting to get on and find out what was going on, though oddly I found the final dénouement, with its series of revelations which cast everything in a different light, less successful when I knew what was coming. Or maybe it's just that, having now read all of the Lymond and Niccolò books, re-reading The Game of Kings it's more obvious that it was Dunnett's first book and, for all its artistry, it doesn't live up to the accomplishment of her later works.