The Wolf of Winter

for people who've yet to read it, with responses to other reveiws: it takes place mostly in a nation marked by the severity and length of it winter. the main characters are all of the royal family, though one of spend time in a forced role/identity elsewhere. as mentioned in other reviews the antagonist is complex, sympathetic, and both logical and generally well-meaning-- aside from activities (mostly necromantic) to secure and keep the throne. the storyline revolves around surving (for the protagonist and her brother, Cerrov), the time spent as prisoner to a library (protagonist), and the ascendancy to/ maintance of the throne (antagonist, Cerrov). drawbacks: if you prefer to know the definition of every word you read, you may have to look up alot of words (mostly latinates from greek, or french). I don't think her use of esoteric vocabulary is quite as extensive here as in some of her other books. There is too much similarity in the thinking styles of her characters.... Repetious is too harsh a word, and it may not be very noticeable if you don't decide to read 4 of her books in a row. In defense, this 'thinking style' is her own creation, and it is something that i noticed in the original Dune series, but it really does little to diminish my enjoyment of these books. One of the other reviews (the one who read it at the gym) said something that I took to mean th he prefered books that were more action packed. This isn't a book isn't in the 'action/thriller' catagory. If you looking for an adventure style fantasy, this isn't it. general style: Her books tend more revolove around the interactions of who, when, and where, and she not only develops rich characters, but similarly develops a richness of time and place... as though they too, were important characters. The interactions can be (for the character, or groups) slow and nuturing, ennervating, character-building, or the high drama that marks the storyline... As far as its lack of transcending moral purpose, i think that the trancendential morality the marks Lord of the Ring (where the form rnabled it to work) is generally geared towards a childishly simple moral/social paradigm that has value for being comforting, but is a plague (upon both literature and society) if people really buy into into it. It has a quality much more real, and highlights a question much more relevant to thinking about moral judgement, instead of just calling it like 'heads or tails.' On the ending (reveals as little as i could.... but still...): The complexity seemed lost on some of the reveiwers. There is the implication that er... surving necromancer may or may not use necromancy again, and may even, one day, go for the throne (unlikly, but who knows what time can bring?). I did think the ending a little abrupt, and think that is she added an epilogue (online or for the next printing) I'd like to see it. (I've created my own, if anyone's intersted). sorry this was so lengthy. (al

I dont know how the other reviewers could mistake this great ending for anything else but that. The ending of this book symbolizes regret for choices made and the wishing that things were different. The scene where the girl was standing in the castle with everything that she ever wanted within her reach staring at the moon and thinking of Varis was so sad. She had everything she wished for, but she lost her heart to the "villian". And when Varis went outside to stare at the moon with tears down his cheeks, he was thinking of the girl and how things could have been different. its so sad. And what about when Varis threw the locket at the girl instead of dragging her back to be his wife? this book showed me the meaning of true love, when your willing to give up everything that you ever worked for just so the other person could be happy. Besides, how in the world could Paula Volsky write a sequel when she left Varis half-dead, living in his own filth and forgetting everything that ever happened to him?

Ok, I'll admit it, I'm hooked on Paula Volsky. I'm also hooked on Richard III, which is one of the many reasons I love this book. Think Richard III in Russia with Necromancy. And once you've done that, realize that Volsky makes it work. It's an amazing read. Do you sympathize with Varis? Yes. Do you loathe him? Yes. Do you want him to win? Yes, kind of. Do you want him to be defeated? Not really... but he deserves it. Don't let the other reviews fool you, either. The ending is perfect. It may not be the reader's ideal ending, but it is the perfect result of the excesses of blood and power that the amazingly sympathetic yet bloody Varis deals in. No sequel or rewrite needed; Volsky hits it perfectly.

Many fantasy novels present concepts of magic, and _The Wolf of Winter_ is noteworthy for the originality of its scheme (drug-enhanced necromancy). Its settings are also refreshing. But what is really distinctive about this book is that it tells a powerful story. It is the closest thing to a great tragedy that I have found in the fantasy canon. Prince Waris sticks in my mind and bothers me like Macbeth.

Paula Volsky cannot write a bad novel.I'm pretty sure she tried to with Gates ofTwilight, but her distinctive writing style won't allow it.This novel, in a class of its own, details the inexorible deterioration of a man too smart for his country. Unable to cope with the society he's born into, he is drawn into the temptation of necromancy -- a practice that actually has some basis in being a taboo, as we find over the course of the novel.From hero to anti-hero, Prince Varis remains oneof the more interesting protagonists today. Not often are we allowed to view a change from potential good to evil over the course of a novel. The rationalisation, the need to cover up, everything is covered with an uncanny detail