Pretense reviewed Midwinterblood by Marcus Sedgwick
Review of 'Midwinterblood' on 'Goodreads'
2 stars
It had an interesting premise, but the narrative and the plot was... stagnant. If you've read the blurb, you know that it chronicles seven different time periods and lives. I thought this would be an interesting touch, but no. It ended up being repetitive. I loved Sedgwick's other book, White Crow, so I'm at a loss as to why this one didn't work for me. Maybe I needed to be more of an angsty teen like when I read the other, but really, this one isn't much of a YA at all. There aren't many children involved, and that's one of the plot points, even. The premise could have been taken a lot further, but it just seemed like so much was to be done in such a short book.
There was also the narrative problem of switching from present tense to past tense and then back to present time. …
It had an interesting premise, but the narrative and the plot was... stagnant. If you've read the blurb, you know that it chronicles seven different time periods and lives. I thought this would be an interesting touch, but no. It ended up being repetitive. I loved Sedgwick's other book, White Crow, so I'm at a loss as to why this one didn't work for me. Maybe I needed to be more of an angsty teen like when I read the other, but really, this one isn't much of a YA at all. There aren't many children involved, and that's one of the plot points, even. The premise could have been taken a lot further, but it just seemed like so much was to be done in such a short book.
There was also the narrative problem of switching from present tense to past tense and then back to present time. Some might argue that this works as narrative style, with the consideration of the story and the time periods, but to me it just seemed tacky and confusing. Present tense books rarely ever work for me. The numerous mentions of gore and 'spooky' things also didn't do it for me, because the narrative was sprinkled with short sentences like "The others talk." or "The flowers." or "Thousands." Please stop doing this, it doesn't give your story depth, it just stutters the storytelling. Oh, and the main 'whoa' factor of this book relies on the meaning of the word 'blessed'. I already knew this one before reading the book, so it ended up coming across as bland and overdone. Blessed, apparently, comes from an ancient word, 'blod', that means to sacrifice in blood. I'm serious. The word 'bless' comes from the Old English 'blēdan', to bleed.
Also, the blurb mentions "a love so primal and passionate". Well, that is just hilarious. Yes, there are two characters whose love is one of the plot points, but they hardly ever show why this love is so passionate or primal. There is also no character development to speak of. Just because their love goes through seven periods, which isn't very hard to figure out from even the summary alone, doesn't make it a great story. And that doesn't even consider the fact that they are sometimes reincarnated as old man and little girl, or brother and sister. Sure, love goes beyond the romantic, but this just seemed awkward and too try-hard at being transcendental. The love of Erica/Merle was the only one described in the story as a 'love story', and I have to agree. The original incarnations didn't even explain why they were in love, just that she was the king's third wife and was 'cool' enough. The forbidden Erica/Merle pair was the only one that showed any love at all between the two, but then one of them just had to be mad. Of course. Then at the end, naturally, they "become love itself". What the fuck, are you serious? I cringed.
I would give this 1 star, but the interesting premise and the nice setting of Blest/Blessed/Blod Island and the promising but underdeveloped idea of the dragon orchids were pleasant, at least. Oh, and the library copy I had wonderful smelling pages. Sedgwick can be macabre and fascinating, but not this time.
