Yes, it's one of these again. I wanted to add my review to the pile of reviews on this book that are already on this sub and elsewhere for a specific purpose. I read a lot of reviews about The Library before I read the book and several more reviews since I finished it, and I want to give other people considering the novel a heads up about how to interpret those reviews.
Sidenote - I will endeavor to avoid spoilers and use spoiler tags on this post, but I make no promises.
First, let me say that I enjoyed the novel. It's a fun ride with compelling characters and a well constructed narrative. It's very creative. But it also has its flaws and I can understand why it's polarizing. The good and bad of the novel is already well-trod ground, but I will say that I especially enjoyed three aspects of the work:
The characters are, with only a few exceptions, extremely well done. The overarching theme of the book seems to be that "hurt people hurt people," and you have to have good characters to convey that theme effectively. The protagonists and antagonists both have reasons for their actions and we get to understand their motivations better as the novel goes along. Author Scott Hawkins did a great job of slowly revealing more and more about the characters and his method of feeding information to the reader at just the right time is flawless. I mentioned an exception to this part of the novel, and that exception is named Erwin. Hawkins tried so hard to make this guy a badass but with feelings that he jumped the shark. The character himself would have been more palatable if he had been used more sparingly, but alas we get a lot of Erwin. The worst scene in the entire book is when Erwin meets the president and is just so badass that the president invites Erwin to regularly attend the president's poker game, much to the consternation of all the other uptight politicians at the meeting. It was fucking ridiculous and painful to read. Bear in mind - children are burned alive and a woman is raped and murdered, but this scene was the worst scene in the book.. That being said, the characters are still the novel's main strength. Even small characters and side characters are rendered in 3D. Their backstories are provided or implied with few words, but those words convey a fairly complete picture.
The setting, world building, and system of "science" (really magic) are all creative and I don't think I've read any fantasy novel in a modern setting that was quite this ambitious. There is a lot of exposition, which I tend to dislike, but I never got tired of it. It helped flesh out the characters and their world, and was always meaningful to the plot. Put differently, there was a lot of exposition but not too much. It was handled well by the author. The plot goes back and forth in time a bit to show how the world came to be the way it is, and Hawkins was remarkably consistent in his world building from start to finish. Things that seemed like errors turned out to be both intentional and smart.
The plot has an unconventional structure. What traditionally would be considered the climax of the novel happens about two thirds of the way through, and some critics I've read referred to the final third of the novel as a "chore" or a "slog." If you are really just reading the novel for the action, then I can see their point. But so much of the plot and character development comes in the last third of the novel. Mysteries are revealed and questions are answered. And this wasn't just Hawkins "tidying up" loose ends, the revelations are critical components of the plot and character development. The novels true themes are expressed in that final third, but the reader has to be patient enough to keep going with an open mind. The slowing of the plot is deliberate and warranted by the narrative. To be clear - there's nothing wrong with liking action or wanting a book that has been moving at a riveting pace to continue doing so, but that's not how this book works. And I don't think the book should be discounted for not being what the reader wants - Hawkins wrote the final third of the book with real purpose, and it deserves to be considered on its own merit.
Second, let me say that the novel's critics have valid points. At times I was really frustrated with the book. Never enough to put it down, but at least tempted to skip a few pages here and there. I can even understanding hating this book if someone didn't appropriately warn you about some of its content. There are graphic depictions of violence, including violence against children. There is sexual assault and rape. The rapes are more alluded to than described, but the allusions themselves are pretty horrible. But I didn't consider it any worse than what I've read in some of the rougher Stephen King books, and I don't think it should put off any veteran horror reader. That being said, the following are my top criticism of the book. If any of them are a deal breaker for you, consider skipping The Library.
The book doesn't neatly fall into any one genre. It has horror elements, but is clearly not a horror novel. It skews much more into fantasy, but is more violent, nihilistic, and grim than fantasy usually is. The novel is often funny, but not really fun or adventurous in the normal sense. I've head it described as dark fantasy, but I think that is still misleading. It is simply not a happy book, and if you are used to reading The Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice and Fire, this will be somewhat disappointing. I've also heard the book described as "YA" and that is absolutely ridiculous. I don't have any problem with a book defying genre, but I also think it leads to people being recommended this book for the wrong reasons. If you love horror but don't like normal fantasy books, this will probably have too much fantasy for you. If you love fantasy but don't like your horror with too much grit or grime, this probably isn't for you either.
The writing often seems unpolished or unsophisticated. Not like Hawkins is an actual amateur, but more like this was his first time writing without a good editor looking over his shoulder. I mentioned Erwin above, and I think most good editors would have reigned in the use of that character. There are some scenes that felt disconnected from the rest of the novel in terms of how hamfisted or superficial they were. I'm especially thinking about when David, Carolyn, and Margaret rescue Naga and Dresden from the rapper's compound. The rapper was a ridiculous character who felt both underdeveloped and overdescribed. I get it - he's a shitty guy and we shouldn't feel bad for him. I don't need to know what he's thinking or that he shat his pants. There's also a weird focus on "ass pounding" and sticking things up people's asses. I'm not a prude, but when it gets mentioned every other chapter it starts to feel like I'm having the author's fixation inflicted on me. Finally, some of the dialogue needed work - too often it sounded like actors in a b-movie were talking. This even happened with otherwise good characters who, for the most part, had realistic dialogue.
Finally, there were some real pacing issues. I'm not talking about the third act / unconventional structure, I mean throughout the novel. Some scenes seemed to linger much longer than they needed to and other scene felt rushed. Again, I think a good editor would have helped with this. Not a huge issue, but it was enough to break my immersion on a few occasions.
So that's it - my review of The Library at Mount Char. It's a good book, and definitely a must-read for anyone who like a blend of horror and fantasy (but mostly fantasy). But it has its flaws and you shouldn't expect perfection. I think the issues with the novel are vastly outweighed by its creativity, unusual system of magic, and compelling characters, but the issues are pronounced and I can see them ruining the novel for some people.