Great reading

Mathew Harffy is a name to know if you enjoy historical fiction o the dark ages. His in depth research really pays off for we the readers. ( )

‘Killer of Kings’ features a blend of quality battles, tense encounters, and some decent drama.

I liked it in the most part, but as with many historical novels, the author puts so much effort in getting the history elements correct that essential creative writing skills are neglected. Main problem being too much ‘telling’ and not enough ‘showing’. Don’t tell the reader that King Penda was ‘seemingly amused’– show his amusement with action, or body language, or a facial expression.

Adverb overuse is another evil, and the biggest problem with adverbs is they ‘tell’. For example, when a male character ‘made his way quietly”, this tells us how the character got from A to B but we don’t see it. He ‘crept’, for example, not only ‘shows’ the action, it flows better because it’s more concise.

Adverbs are at their most superfluous with this kind of thing: ‘more quickly’ and ‘more loudly’, whereas ‘quicker’ and ‘louder’ convey the meaning with a concise verb.

Adverbs and ‘telling’ are blatant in instances like this: ‘walked slowly and stealthily’, which could be ‘shown’ with ‘crept’ or ‘stalked’. There’s always a stronger verb than ‘walked’, none of which require any help from adverbs.

To tell the reader that a king was ‘clearly shocked’ is ‘telling’ at its worst. In fiction, if you use ‘clearly’ or ‘obviously’, be assured that you’re not ‘showing’ the reader anything.

Two other style issues that irritated me are the overuse of ‘then’ (to state what happens next), and ‘had’ (past perfect).

To keep using ‘then’ is lazy and unimaginative. It’s fine in children’s books, but for gritty historical fiction I expect more imagination. Most can be cut, the rest replaced.

The frequent use of ‘had’ in the past perfect tense is something all authors should avoid, as it reports on the scene as opposed to taking the reader into the action as it unfolds. The odd one is inevitable, but in this book it’s consistent, even though it’s easy to cut them down.

For one thing, this narrative is in the past tense, so ‘had’ should only be used if a sentence sounds odd without it. For example, ‘He had said’ works fine as ‘he said’ because ‘said’ is in the past tense. ‘She had sat down’ works better as ‘She sat down’ because ‘sat’ is past tense. If a scene that’s past is being recalled, all that’s needed is to inform the reader that these events have already happened, after which the frequent use of ‘had’ is unnecessary.

In this novel, we get the likes of ‘had seen’, which annoys and baffles me when ‘saw’ is available.

This is also one of many novels across all genres that describes a character as shedding ‘silent tears’. Are tears ever loud? You can cry at different volume levels but tears themselves aren’t known for making a noise.

On the plus side, this author uses some excellent similes. I was impressed with his creativity in this department. Also, he recreates the period well, making me feel like I’m in the seventh century.

Despite the criticisms, I liked this novel well enough to read the next in the series. ( )