War for the Oaks has the distinction of helping mold the subgenre of urban fantasy. Since I’ve already tackled many (many) UF titles, that particular context is lost on me. What can’t be denied, however, is Emma Bull’s talent. War for the Oaks is an excellent example of everything I’ve come to love about the fusion of modernity and magic. The main character, Eddi McCandry, is a blend of all we hope for in a heroine. In the beginning she exhibits a bit of poor judgment and has a tendency to underestimate herself, but over the course of the book she grows and learns. We come to see her as a straight-shooter with an abundance of fierce determination, a woman who tries to fight for what’s right and inspires those around her to do the same. She’s a likeable character and a true friend, a person who believes in free will and accepting consequences. The characters surrounding her are each notable in their own ways, but none moreso than the Phouka. Assigned as her bodyguard, he’s often mischief made real - but it’s clear from the beginning that there’s a lot more to him than clever quips and keen fighting skills. He’s enigmatic and eccentric, but endearing; it’s easy to share in Eddi’s growing trust in him. Many of the powers of the Fae are not clearly defined; Bull picks and chooses which rules to share, so the plot can glide along without the burden of weighty details. She demonstrates respect towards her readers, trusting that we are intelligent enough to pick things up along the way. In light of all the clue-by-fours and info dumps I’ve been subjected to lately, I’m immensely grateful for her polished method of delivery. (I do wonder how this came across to the audience of 1987. Bull uses much of the Fae lore we now find commonplace: the Sidhe lords, the Seelie and Unseelie Courts, the Lady vs. the Queen of Air and Darkness, the talent of twisting the truth yet never lying. Today’s UF readers are accustomed to these beings and the basic rules that govern them. Would this have seemed more ground-breaking, perhaps more confusing, to her initial readers?)Bull’s writing style is pleasant. It’s lyrical and fluid, but never flowery or overcomplicated. Her analogies are marvelous - almost undetectable as they cast the desired atmosphere over a scene. They evoke sensory experiences, drawing us fully into Eddi’s perception and fostering a connection with the settings and characters. Bull understands that small details are often the most significant. She uses this knowledge to greatest effect when describing how two people fall in love: through moments of stillness and unconscious gestures, she recounts the many tiny thrills along the way. This leads to one of my favorite passages:“Every motion she made was slow, as if she’d never before put her arms around a man, and didn’t know for certain where everything fit. When at last they were pressed close, she didn’t think she’d know how to let go when the time came. They summarized the course of passion with kisses: a chaste, half-frightened brush of the lips metamorphosed into something fierce and fast-burning, which in its turn became a more patient, more intimate touch, full of inquiry and shared pleasure.” It’s romance that a person who’s experienced love can relate to. It’s the hesitancy and wonder that washes over us in that moment we decide, “yes…this is the one.” To capture it in such a way makes it all the more sweet and realistic. This down-to-earth style is a defining aspect of the book…which is why I have one complaint about the ending. While every proceeding scene - even those dealing with Fae illusion - is so straight-forward and comprehensible, the final battle lapses into the abstract. We understand what’s happening in the larger scheme, but the particulars are lost amid the frenzy of magic. Having felt so connected to the action until this point, it came as an unpleasant shock to suddenly feel distant from events. I’m not sure if this indicates a hasty wrap-up, or merely my own inability to relate to what Eddi experiences. I wasn’t dissatisfied, but the scene didn’t mesh perfectly with the rest of the story. That one criticism aside, War for the Oaks is a well-executed book. It’s easy to see how its release in the late 80s would have encouraged acknowledgement of the urban fantasy subgenre. Reading it now, 24 years(!) after it was first published, it doesn’t feel particularly dated (even some of the clothes are back in fashion again). Instead, it’s as thrilling a stand-alone as any current title, with an effortless poetic slant and a fluidity that’s missing from many of today’s debuts. It’s touted as an urban fantasy classic - it’s more than deserving of the label.
Neil Gaiman's quote on the book jacket for The War for the Oaks reads: "Emma Bull is really good."I'm with Mr. Gaiman. Good, but not great.I'm not in one of my miserly moods, I swear. The heroine, Eddi, has her own kind of magic that comes from her stage presence when she's playing with her band. Shouldn't she have been more, well, charismatic? I liked a lot all of the parts when they are putting together their new band. Those were really good (again!) life stuff. But what about Eddi? After a whole book I feel like I should have felt like I knew her. I didn't. All I really know about her is that she has a vague sense of morality and puts together nice outfits (if I were girlier this would have been more interesting to me. All I really thought about it was that they didn't seem dated). Guys and audiences alike fall in love with her. Why? Make me fall in love too, Bull. I'm not being a Bully! (hahahah. Stop it, Mar.)The only thing that dates this book in 1987 are the references to Prince. I would say it is dated on the relevance scale. Young me might have only cared that a bland and easy-to-impose-oneself-on heroine found love and her dream job, and that all was right with the world again. Now I've gotta think: is that all?Eddi is chosen by the fae to bring to their war a to-the-death ability. She's chosen because the phouka (it isn't a spoiler to name him as the love interest. I called that from the moment he appeared) feels she's got her own magic from her art. The sidhe have lorded their lordliness over the lesser fae, and he's tired of it. After the war with the unseelie is over he wants to ensure they'll have a seelie to preserve. He feels that Eddi is the figurehead for the job, that the majority would rally behind her as something new. (It was annoying any time that anyone compared their leaders to the supposedly better mortal leaders. Right. No one has ever had any permanently good ideas.)But this isn't about art, love and death, or valour and honour. Not really. It's a little too much about how awesome Eddi is. It is a shame that the story never really took off from under the spotlight on the stage.The War for the Oaks is the "first urban fantasy" novel, depending on who you ask. Some give credit to Charles deLint (Bull's book is MUCH better than DeLints magic and fae book, the Little Country. Talk about your the world is one girl's stage stories!). At least Bull's book makes it nearly to the end before I started getting impatient. This "first" business is (to me) like the debate of who wrote the first story with robots (some say it is The Wizard of Oz) or the first mystery (some say it is Wilkie Collins's snooze-fest, The Moonstone). I'm reading it now. I don't care if David Bowie borrowed or if anyone borrowed from The Pixies, etc. etc. All I care about is if it is awesome. This is good but not awesome.The Good Fairies of New York is awesome. (Not everyone agrees with this. I love it for the qualities that irritated others. It is punk rock! And rock 'n' roll. Fight to the death for love and freedom! I want messiness. If it matters it is.)I was bored with the book by the end and didn't care to read the script sample from Bull and her husband for a movie version of The War for the Oaks. What it really needs is a great star to play Eddi. The most interesting thing about her cannot be how she wears her clothes! Also, reading about music would be boring for those without the frame of reference. I did know about a lot of those '80s bands (not that I'm bragging. I know about '80s bands and not much else). Unfortunately, a lot of them were '80s bands I am now wondering why the hell I liked them. The Psychedelic Furs? Why, Mariel, why? Same goes for Love and Rockets (I loved the nod to the comics. Eddi wanted to name their band that after the comics. I wonder if they'd have given credit to the Hernandez bros, as the real band Love and Rockets did not).I imagine a movie version would be like Times Square or Bandits. Or maybe Nana. I could think of more. I'll stop now.
Do You like book War For The Oaks (2004)?
In my mind, this novel is the forerunner to a variety of urban fantasy ventures that have been written since and gotten more attention (e.g. "American Gods"). It's the Led Zeppelin to Gaiman's AC/DC. Or something like that that makes more sense. As might be expected from a book that drips hip despite its pop culture references now being 20 years old, an allusion to Homestar Runner is one of my favorite ways to summarize it:"Faeries are dragging us into their bloody war!""I don't want to take any chances. We should play in a band just to be safe."And that's precisely what the heroine, a down-on-her-luck guitar player/singer, does.The real magic in this book is not Faerie glamour but Bull's upper-echelon storytelling skills and otherworldly ability to make you like her characters. This book has a permanent place on my shelf and "reread periodically" status.
—Peter
Fairies + a bunch of references to local landmarks + the velvet and lace late 80's inspired by Prince himself = amusement. Heh. The Seelie and Unseelie courts were fighting for control over Minnehaha Falls and Como Park. That made me laugh. A lot.My only complaints are that the book is a little outdated (which made certain "outfit" descriptions uncomfortabley weird) and the lengthy descriptions of how the band sounded were beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I like music, but I don't like music, if that makes sense. Music is like the backdrop to life...not life itself and all the characters in this book (including the fey characters) are the sort for whom music IS life. Otherwise it was a solid urban fantasy. I'm glad I read it.
—Beth F.
So this is the book that kicked off Urban Fantasy? It was OK, just OK. The narration is somewhat annoying, which makes the characters somewhat annoying, but the action sequences make up for that. I can't fault this book too much, though, since it's the first its kind and therefore, like most pioneering writing pieces, reads more like a lengthy writing exercise than a book. The story is about a young woman with great musical aspirations--she wants to start her own band—who stumbles across a fae war and gets recruited. She does get to put a band together all the while helping her fae "friends" take back—and this is where I can't stop laughing—Minnehaha Falls for the fae court. It's one thing to read about other cities getting bombarded with and pillaged by otherworldly creatures, but it's another thing entirely to read about your own hometown as a battleground. Since I mostly read stories set in far off places (and imaginary worlds), it's a little unsettling—in a good way—to dive into a book that features Minneapolis... as a secondary character. I would have to say the experience is similar to a mild episode of meta-awareness; you know you're reading, but you can't believe you recognize every landmark (and street corner) in the book. Who woulda thunk Nicollet Mall is actually a bridge between our world and the fae's? Or that fae factions used to duke it out every night right across the street from where I used to live?Urban fantasy has come so far from its origins that reading this book is like examining a piece of relic recently unearthed from some lost burial ground. It's always interesting to read the book that started it all.
—Mimi
