Chimeras of Estmer by Heather Marsh

Peppa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2024
Messages
180
This is my first review, and I ask everyone who reads it for patience and leniency. Maybe I shouldn't have written it at all. But the book I read is so well written and interesting that I wanted to tell other people about it. There are strange nations with bizarre customs, political intrigue, unusual magic, Chimera warriors who make Frankenstein's monster look like a regular guy, living ships that look like drakkars with horse heads, and a talking cat as one of the main protagonists.

chimeras.jpg


Chimeras of Estmer is an amazing book that seems to be both an epic fantasy in the most traditional style and a completely crazy read with no analogue in world literature. I don't know how to explain it. Reading this book is like suddenly discovering a chubby Pikachu lurking at the royal feet in an old portrait of Elizabeth I.

Like most epic fantasy books, Chimeras of Estmer is set in a very well-constructed world. The geography, the history, even the economy are all very well explained. For example, the book mentions silver coins that have copper added to them by order of the King Ossian, and it's a real medieval version of inflation. Nowadays when governments run out of money they just print it and have inflation, but in the Middle Ages rulers had to add cheaper metals to the silver and gold coins they minted.

It seems that many of the characters in this book are also historically based. For instance, the prototypes for chancellor Gyrodus were probably the all-powerful Enguerrand de Marigny (who built a magnificent gallows in Paris, only to be hanged on it after his downfall) and a medieval Spanish lord whose name I can't remember. But this lord was accused of plotting to use dark magic to kill his king, marry his daughter and become king himself. With such prototypes and a very mysterious past, Gyrodus is a far cry from the traditional evil chancellor trope.

But if I were to list all the historical associations that come to mind, it would take a lot of words. Suffice it to say that this book contains two parodies of Henry VIII, King Ossian of Estmer (in whose service the aforementioned Gyrodus is) and his colleague, King Blandamour IV of Auralond. The prototypes of Lord Siwald, who in a distant province created an army of monstrous chimeras by combining humans, animals and even household utensils with his alchemy, must have been Gilles de Rais and Dr Frankenstein at the same time. And I still can't figure out how many ancient leaders of nomadic tribes the well-informed author used as prototypes for Kemlilin.

In addition, there are several storylines in Chimeras of Estmer. For example, Gyrodus is plotting his intrigues in the capital and once again trying to kill Prince Roderick (unlike his Spanish prototype, Gyrodus tried to kill the prince first and then the king). At the same time, a country girl called Tessa rebels against her foster mother, for whom she has worked like Cinderella, and leaves home. The same day, her cat (called Smokey because of his grey fur) suddenly starts talking and tells Tessa that he is actually a man and a former apprentice of a great mage. His enemy killed his old teacher and turned Smokey into a cat. This robbed him of his human form, his memory and his magical powers. After a certain incident, Smokey's memory has returned, so now he must regain his human form, magical powers and find his enemy to kill him and get back the important thing that belonged to Smokey's teacher.

The problem is that neither Tessa, who left home penniless, nor Smokey (cats don't usually have bank accounts, even in the craziest fantasy books) have any money. So the ever resourceful Smokey suggests that Tessa should travel around Estmer, demonstrating him as a trained cat and putting on funny shows. This should help them both make money and get on the trail of a mysterious murderer.

Meanwhile, King Ossian is sending his heir Roderick on a campaign against Lord Siwald (the villain who's holed up in his castle and is about to take over Estmer and some neighbouring kingdoms with his monstrous army). This is rather unfortunate, as Roderick and some of his friends (including the multi-talented Kemlilin) are beginning to suspect that the same person is behind the attempts on his life. So it's up to his clever sister Tristana to investigate the assassination attempts in the capital. She is assisted by Kemlilin, with whom she communicates via a talking mirror (i.e. the magical version of a smartphone).

So there are several stories in this book, seemingly unconnected at first, but then converging like streams flowing into a mighty river. In this way, Chimeras of Estmer is reminiscent of books by George R.R. Martin and Ted Williams, or the lesser known Gregory Keyes, who use a similar technique to create their stories. The only difference is that Heather Marsh has somehow managed to cram so many characters, plots and adventures into one book. Most writers would have needed at least a trilogy to do the same.

Despite this cramming, the book is very well written. When you read it, you can almost see with your own eyes cities and high castles, blue seas and deep forests, beautiful ladies and ugly chimeras. It's like watching a good movie. The author really paints bright pictures in your brain with her words. Maybe it's because she chooses her words very well to describe what happens in her book. For example, she compares the bright green eyes of the cat-turned-wizard to polished shards of malachite, or calls the tumultuous sea the princess sees through the window "the restless twin of the blue sky".

Moreover, all the characters, whether good or evil, major or minor, have their own personalities and seem to be living people. Gyrodus can even be sympathetic at times. After all, it can be hard for an intelligent man to be in the service of a crowned idiot who is mainly interested in hunting and the tits of court ladies. And when you read about the misfortunes of a kitchen boy who inadvertently witnesses another attempt on the prince's life, you feel sorry for him and start to think that this book is sometimes too realistic.

In short, it is a great book, on the level of George R.R. Martin or Tad Williams or the lesser known Cate Elliott or Gregory Kees. It's like a historical novel set in an imaginary world, with political intrigue, great battles and a little drop of half-forgotten and forbidden magic. You just read it and enjoy the style of writing.

But then suddenly there's a chubby Pikachu peeking out from behind the embroidered skirts of Elizabeth I. In one chapter, for example, King Ossian is consulting with his advisors on how best to launch a military campaign against the rebellious Lord Siwald. This episode is very George R.R. Martin-esque. But then the council ends, and Gyrodus (who was also there) returns to his chambers and begins training his aqua spy. It's a little puddle of water that he's read spells into so that it can crawl and also become sentient and spy on people. Who's going to pay attention to a little wet spot in a military camp in the northern province where it always rains in the summer?

The little puddle starts calling Gyrodus "Daddy" and behaving like an unruly child. At first, you don't pay much attention to this episode. What's the big deal? The warlock chancellor creates a magical tool for his crimes, that's quite normal in a fantasy book. But after a few chapters, the former puddle rebels against its creator, becomes human and even one of the main characters.

Gradually, the level of madness increases. The talking cat Smokey, initially seen as the protagonist's animal companion, eventually pushes Tessa aside and becomes another main character in his own right. Plants and animals turn into people, a beautiful princess becomes a pretty good detective, a barbaric pirate becomes a political and military genius, and Prince Roderick (i.e. Prince Charming of this book) happens to be someone's toy. Literally.

And then it begins to look as if the author has carefully collected all the clichés of classic fantasy, only to turn them inside out. Or maybe just to show the world what a fantasy book can be when a talented writer lets his or her imagination run wild.

However, Chimeras of Estmer is certainly not a comic book or a parody. Sure, some of the characters sometimes get into silly situations, but this novel is too well written and original, and the imaginary world in which the action takes place is too vividly described and well explained, for this book to be considered a parody. The magic system is also very interesting and unusual. Moreover, the funny episodes are constantly interspersed with the scary ones.

This novel is also very serious in some ways. In my opinion, there are two ways to make a fantasy book serious and realistic. The first is to add detailed scenes of sex and violence to make the book seem more "mature". The second is to have a good writing style and include a certain amount of psychology and philosophy in your book to make the reader think. After all, thinking is also quite mature.

In the case of Chimeras of Estmer, the author certainly chose the second way. At times the book seems to turn into a real satire, and the author starts to laugh at people's desire for power at all costs and their inability to use that power properly. For example, in one of the episodes, Smokey makes a rather venomous remark about Gyrodus, saying that he doesn't know any good trades, has never known much about science or magic, but has always been very ambitious and therefore had no choice but to pursue a political career. Some of Kemlilin's comments, such as "the dead don't pay taxes", are also great in their cruel irony, but difficult to understand out of context.

There are also some rather interesting definitions of who can be considered human and who can't. For some characters, due to their somewhat unusual nature, this is indeed a serious problem. The words of some of the characters, such as "You will be free when you stop being afraid" or "You are human when you act human", could even be described as inspirational.

All in all, Chimeras of Estmer is a near-perfect book that has a little bit of everything a good fantasy book should have. There's great adventure, and magic, and humour, and even a bit of philosophy, and the characters are rather unusual and yet like real people.

Perhaps the first few pages can seem a little dull. But from the end of the first chapter, when Smokey suddenly starts talking, the novel becomes much more interesting to read. When he tells Tessa his story at the beginning of the third chapter, the story becomes a real page-turner, and after another chapter, when Kemlilin defeats the mounted knight without even laying a finger on him, you can't put the book down. In fact, I am sorry that it is only a single volume and that there is no sequel.
 
Wow! Now that's a review. Maybe too much review? It certainly conveys an impression and it gives an impressive amount of detail. It might light a fire under people who are looking for something different, but it could also work the other way for people who want a by-the-numbers Fantasy book.

In any evert it must feel great to be read and understood so well.

As for myself, I've read only a few Fantasy, including both classic Fantasy and "modern" Fantasy books in my life. I've never read one that I didn't have to slog my way through. I only finished them because I felt an obligation to finish. So your book is likely not for me, but I think it has a real chance if it can get read enough to build momentum. I've seen this happen a few times to our Chrons crew.

Good luck!

Parson (Doug)
 
I also think I wrote a review that was too long. But I figured that people who read Robert Salvatore and Robert Jordan books are unlikely to be intimidated by an overly long review. :giggle:
If I wrote something like 'hey, I read a cool book with a talking cat and an obese king who looked like Henry XVIII', no one would understand why I admired the book so much. So I tried to explain it honestly.
 
OK, here we go, a review of a review, with the caveat that I very rarely write reviews because I'm not very good at them, don't like doing them and it feels much too much like being back at school doing English Lit.

The first things that really stand out are that you seriously liked this book, that it has the sort of offbeat style that appeals to me, and that I probably ought to put it on my TBR list. Then there is the style of the review, which is full of energy and enthusiasm, and tons of what gets called "voice" in the writing game, all of which conveys your passion for the book and creates a lively read in itself.

It's definitely too long. I probably ought to make suggestions on how to clean it up, but this is where I run into my own lack of skill in writing reviews. The best I can come up with, which is notably useless, is find a way to say everything you said but more concisely, but without losing the energy, enthusiasm and voice...

On a slightly more serious note (not my forte): this is your first attempt at a review, so a few criticisms ought to be expected. Now go and do another one and tell the world why you loved the book, or hated it. Like any other style of writing, the only way to get better is to keep trying.
 
Of course I realise that it is impossible to avoid criticism when you are doing something for the first time. That's fine, and I'm very grateful for all those who want to comment.:giggle:
The next review will definitely be shorter, but I'll try not to lose my voice and enthusiasm. But it seems to be easier for me to praise something with more enthusiasm than to criticise it. If I don't like something, I just say or write that it's rubbish. And rubbish is rubbish, and it's hard to say anything else about it.
 
If I don't like something, I just say or write that it's rubbish. And rubbish is rubbish, and it's hard to say anything else about it.
Rubbish can be a bit more nuanced than that. I got a 3* review on my first book because the reviewer hated the main character, but thought the magic was really cool. To be fair, the MC is a bit lot of a self-centered arsehole, so something of an acquired taste. It probably depends on how well you've coped with self-centered arseholes in real life.

It is not always easy to pin down why a book isn't working. Earlier this year, my partner suggested trying The Goblin Emperor (published 2014, so only running 10 years late) with the caveat that it might not be my sort of book. I loved it, and ploughed through the sequels, and then tried something completely different by the same author, struggling chapter by chapter until I gave up once I finally managed to articulate the problem and realised that it wasn't going to get any better.
 
If you have created a character that real people hate, you must be a really great writer. I mean, your character was so convincing and realistic that your reviewer hated him as if he were a real person and your reviewer was familiar with him.
I think characters you can love or hate are very high quality characters. By the way, what is the title of your book? It sounds very interesting.
As for The Goblin Emperor, I read that book too. :sneaky:
 
I mean, your character was so convincing and realistic that your reviewer hated him as if he were a real person and your reviewer was familiar with him.
He was very much an amalgam of annoying people I have known, worked with or worked for. At the time of writing I was stuck 200 miles from home, so I took my frustrations out on my character and wrote a vulgar urban fantasy. (Vulgar in the sense that it is not at all polite.)
I can understand someone being put off by a character like that. There are books and tv programmes that I've given up on because the main character or the scenario is too close to something I know and hate. There was a UK series called "The Office" which my sister and father found hilarious, but I couldn't watch because it was just too close to some of my own experiences at work. One bad manager can leave enduring scars.

My book is called Hell of a Deal, published under that pesky real name of mine, Mark Huntley-James.
 
I found your books on Goodreads. Although I'm not registered there, I sometimes read other people's reviews and book descriptions there when I come across a new author.

Anyway, I found the Streamrider book there, which interested me even more than the Paul Moore stories. So I'll probably read that first.

As for cases where writers have based fictional characters on real people, I only know of such cases from reading various articles. For example, the prototype for Alice in Carroll's book was actually a girl called Alice Liddell. That seems very interesting!:giggle:

Maybe I'm just making stuff up about the historical prototypes in Chimeras of Estmer. Or maybe not. But it's hard for me to speculate without spoilers.
 
I certainly draw on people I know for building characters, and I don't think that's anything new in the writer's toolkit. I do the same for some plot events, picking things I've seen, or even things I've done as inspiration, magnifying or rethinking as needed. One that always sticks in my mind, and I've used in various forms, was a historical battle enactment we took part in a lot of years ago. The "opposition" were at the far end of the field and had to march up, over the crest of a slight hill, and come down towards us. I know it was just a couple of thousands crazies out playing for the weekend, but the first hint that things were starting was the sound of drums, getting closer, but with nothing to see, but loud enough to feel the beat, and then the tips of the pikes appearing over the top of the hill, drums ever louder, all rising up until the whole battle line was there above us. There was a definite "Oh #####" moment.

(OK, I think that was also a weekend where a storm swept in and we happened to be about twenty miles from my parents' house, so the pair of us went and slept there for one night because everything was so wet - not an option for your average 17th century soldier.)

Really, nicking stuff from history has a fine tradition. I recently read an article about MacBeth, contrasting the real Scottish king with the character presented by Shakespeare, highlighting the differences, and in particular where Shakespeare rewrote history to make it more appealing to the English royalty of the day since James VI of Scotland had recently become James I of England.

If you want to push it further, there was a Roman by the name of Virgil who wrote a Latin epic poem in the first century BC called the Aeneid, which tinkers with the legends of the Trojan wars and casts the hero Aeneis as a founder of Rome. That all draws on epic poems The Illiad and The Odyssey written by a Greek called Homer somewhere around the 7th or 8th century BC.
Homer was working from Greek legends, so he technically stole it from someone else.
 
I've read the Aeneid. If you think about it, this poem is just one big fanfiction of the Iliad. Aeneas is actually mentioned by Homer in the Iliad and in the Hymn to Aphrodite. But because the early Roman emperors worshipped Aeneas as their ancestor, Virgil wrote a whole poem about his adventures. So the Aeneid seems to be the first fanfiction in world literature.
As for Shakespeare, I read somewhere (I can't remember the name of the book now) that he demonised King Edward III too much. This ruler was definitely no fluffy dandelion (it's not very typical for medieval kings to be fluffy dandelions at all), but he wasn't the monster Shakespeare made him out to be either. Judging by his skeleton, Edward III was not even hunchbacked. It looks like one of his shoulders was slightly higher than the other, but that's about it.
I think it's really interesting to be involved in re-enactments of historical battles, and it can be very useful for those writers who write historical fiction and fantasy. Can you tell which battle it was?
 
I think it was the Aeneid that I read a part of, rather than the Iliad, but it was a long time ago and I was studying both Latin and Greek so it's a bit blurred together, but it's all part of that fine tradition of twisting the story to make people happy, and especially the people in charge. (btw, did you mean Richard III?)

That particular battle, Babylon Hill (Battle of Babylon Hill - Wikipedia), was one of a handful where we got to go and play on something at least close to the historical site. The star event in that context was a place called Roundway Down (aka Runaway Down, Battle of Roundway Down - Wikipedia), and our part of the camp site was actually close to the edge of the so-called Bloody Ditch where Parliamentarian cavalry plunged to their deaths. All we had to contend with was a force 5 gale which dictated the final location of our tent, yet more heavy rain, and the battle reenactment in a recently-crop wheat field that was acres of ankle-deep mud.
 
I think it was the Aeneid that I read a part of, rather than the Iliad, but it was a long time ago and I was studying both Latin and Greek so it's a bit blurred together, but it's all part of that fine tradition of twisting the story to make people happy, and especially the people in charge. (btw, did you mean Richard III?)

That particular battle, Babylon Hill (Battle of Babylon Hill - Wikipedia), was one of a handful where we got to go and play on something at least close to the historical site. The star event in that context was a place called Roundway Down (aka Runaway Down, Battle of Roundway Down - Wikipedia), and our part of the camp site was actually close to the edge of the so-called Bloody Ditch where Parliamentarian cavalry plunged to their deaths. All we had to contend with was a force 5 gale which dictated the final location of our tent, yet more heavy rain, and the battle reenactment in a recently-crop wheat field that was acres of ankle-deep mud.
Of course I meant Richard III! I don't know how I managed to type Edward's name twice in a row.

Maybe I should always reread everything I write here. Otherwise, sooner or later, I'll write that Adolf Hitler was a very interesting character in LOTR while thinking of Gandalf and meaning him.

As for Aeneas, he's only mentioned a few times in the Iliad. For example, it says that Aeneas fought Diomedes, and that Diomedes almost killed him. But Aeneas was helped first by Aphrodite (i.e. his goddess mother) and then by Apollo, who miraculously carried Aeneas to his temple.

The Aeneid was written much later by Virgil, and this poem is entirely about Aeneas' travels and adventures after the fall of Troy.

As for the re-enactment of the Battle of Roundway Down, fighting in the rain and ankle-deep mud is not much fun. But I suspect that real soldiers have a lot more on their plate than that.

By the way, this book (i.e. Chimeras of Estmer) has a couple of episodes involving Prince Roderick's army, summer rains and great mud. But I can hardly quote the relevant passages here. It would be a spoiler, or even copyright infringement. But it's definitely very funny to read, believe me.
 
Of course I meant Richard III! I don't know how I managed to type Edward's name twice in a row.
It's easy - once you've done it the first time the mistake then gets locked in. I've had it happen that I accidentally rename a character half way through writing, and having made the mistake once it just perpetuates until my partner reads it and queries the mysterious new character.

As for the re-enactment of the Battle of Roundway Down, fighting in the rain and ankle-deep mud is not much fun. But I suspect that real soldiers have a lot more on their plate than that.
Modern life often insulates us from the effects of weather and it's easy to miss the point that no more than a couple of generations back it could have a huge impact. The history of Europeans wars, as I recall, was that fighting had to stop for the winter. There are all those various conflicts now known as the X Years War (where X seems to be any number between roughly 7 and 100) which were really the X Summers War because everyone had winter off.
More recently, my parents often mentioned the "Winter Of 63" when a weather system put exceptional sub-zero temperatures across the UK for 3-4 months. My parents drove from Sussex to Bristol (with a kitten!) at the start of January 63 and only made it because they literally followed the snow ploughs. The kitten didn't experience ground soft enough to dig a hole until Easter 63, and my parents were without running water for a lot of that time because the pipes froze.
Now, of course, we have named storms popping up, just as a reminder that the weather can really mess with your life.

By the way, this book (i.e. Chimeras of Estmer) has a couple of episodes involving Prince Roderick's army, summer rains and great mud. But I can hardly quote the relevant passages here. It would be a spoiler, or even copyright infringement. But it's definitely very funny to read, believe me.
No, I don't think the moderators would look too kindly on those sorts of quotes.
 
I don't think the moderators would like that either.

It's easy - once you've done it the first time the mistake then gets locked in. I've had it happen that I accidentally rename a character half way through writing, and having made the mistake once it just perpetuates until my partner reads it and queries the mysterious new character.
Apparently that is why proofreaders and editors exist. ;)

Modern life often insulates us from the effects of weather and it's easy to miss the point that no more than a couple of generations back it could have a huge impact. The history of Europeans wars, as I recall, was that fighting had to stop for the winter. There are all those various conflicts now known as the X Years War (where X seems to be any number between roughly 7 and 100) which were really the X Summers War because everyone had winter off.
More recently, my parents often mentioned the "Winter Of 63" when a weather system put exceptional sub-zero temperatures across the UK for 3-4 months. My parents drove from Sussex to Bristol (with a kitten!) at the start of January 63 and only made it because they literally followed the snow ploughs. The kitten didn't experience ground soft enough to dig a hole until Easter 63, and my parents were without running water for a lot of that time because the pipes froze.
Now, of course, we have named storms popping up, just as a reminder that the weather can really mess with your life.
I know that wars in Europe stopped during the winter. But some peoples used winter to their advantage. For example, the Mongols deliberately waited until the winter of 1237\1238 to invade the north-eastern principalities of Kievan Rus'. These lands were covered in forests, and Batu Khan's cavalry would have found it difficult to penetrate such dense forests. But when winter came and the rivers began to freeze, they became excellent roads for the Mongol cavalry.

Even earlier, in 558, an army of Kutrigurs (also nomads like the Mongols) crossed the frozen Danube and invaded the Byzantine Empire. Their leader, Zabergan, almost took Constantinople itself, and it was only the Byzantine general Velizarius who prevented him from doing so.

But it seems that the winter of 64 was the real apocalypse.
 
Back
Top