It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The book for me did a fine job of bringing across the feel of different landscapes. How did the use of landscape affect the moods of the book, and its themes?
That was probably the highlight of the books for me. She did a real nice job with landscapes.
It was OK for me, but not really a noteworthy feature. The language was very nice, and yes, there are good descriptions. Some places stood out more - Badon (and maybe this in part is due to @RichardAbbott 's pictures, the flatter and more marshy east, and the area around Eildon, which I can relate to having climbed two of the three hills. But I'm not sure about the rest. I hold no memory of her descriptions of Narbonne or Chester, and didn't really get much feel for the Celidon wood, or Eburacum.
I think mainly it was she paid attention to the land. Most authors don't do that. I mean Tolkien is the master here, and she's not in his league, but she did a good job not just describing, but making the action fit the land.
I wish wish wish she had included a map! I only discovered the placename glossary at the end after finishing the book, and often read descriptions of long journeys with a yeah whatever feel, as I couldn't place many of the movements - despite living here and probably having visited many if them. Hence my excitement and picture-posting about Uffington / Badon. So yes, I found the descriptions of land to be good and interesting, but also vague and a bit formless.
My version had a map, though sadly not all the named places were on it.
Probably took it out so folks wouldn't think it was a fantasy novel...