Is it just me or...

Does 1634 really suck?
I loved all the prior books in the series, they were highly silly and over the top and generally...good. '34 though...Its just a bunch of priests talking for chapter upon chapter. Does it pick up or is this assessment accurate for the whole book?
 
It wasn't bad, I imagine that 1634: The Baltic War will be a bit better. According to the author there is going to be several 1634 books (1635 also IIRC) that deal primarily with certain regions (i.e. what's going on in the British Isles, Eastern Europe, etc. in addtion to what is happening in Germany/Central Europe)..
 
It was OK, although yes, it has quite a focus on religion. You have to remember that religion was of primary importance in that time. I wasn't all that thrilled with his focus on the Stoner kids - they should only be fairly minor characters.
I guess with the series being broken up into almost separate parts (ie. this one, then war in the Baltic,etc), everyone gets a little bit of what they want to hear about!
 
It's not just you... I thought it sucked too. Too much talking. I really wish FLint would stop writing his books with other people, and do them himself... 1632 was a fun read, 1633 was not so fun, 1634 was just bad...
 
It wasn't that bad, just inferior to the earlier vols. There's usually something wrong when younger writers collaborate. I think they tend to add their worse features to the partnership. Mind you, I think it's even worse when an older writer collaborates with a younger. One tends to supply the name, the other the work.
 
I would not say that 1634 was bad. It was different, and certainly had less action and fewer scenes of the "20th century beats the hell out of 17th century mercs/thugs/whatever" type.:) However, the insights into Venice of the 17th century are certainly worth reading.

Overall, I think that the 1632 series has evolved to a better, more sophisticated stage with 1634:The Galileo Affair.
 
Top