The game of kings

I had a lot of trouble getting into this book. It begins with a series of episodes where Francis Crawford of Lymond gets the better of various lords and lairds in mid-millenium Scotland. It's repetitive and eventually boring, since in each case Lymond (as he's called) easily outwits or outfights his opponents. There isn't much drama.

Toward the middle of the book the plot picks up, and becomes one of those soapy adventures where former friends misunderstand one another and become enemies, the fates of nations hang on the outcome of a sword duel, and characters switch from hero to villain in the space of a monologue. There's even a damsel in distress or two. It's more entertaining than the first part (I finished the book after all, surprising myself).

Lymond is a difficult character to enjoy reading. He's the handsomest, the smartest, the best musician, the best sword-fighter, the best wrestler, the best everything. It's dull. The most interesting thing about him is that he speaks in dense lectures studded with literary and classical allusions, to the point where even the other characters in the novel have trouble understanding him. It's almost a speech impediment, and I found it perversely more entertaining as the novel wore on.

Despite the repetitive and overwordy descriptions and the direct ties to historical events, I don't feel like this book really captures the period. It could be transplanted to just about any other setting without much change (it reminded me of nothing so much as the TV show Empire). It's a sometimes-compelling adventure, but not what I'm looking for in historical fiction.