Top critical review
3.0 out of 5 starsWhy Eaters Of The Dead?
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on December 22, 2010
EI am a Michael Crichton fan, I read all his stories I can get. However I do run into some I have trouble enjoying and I quit reading until I get over my rejection. "Eaters of the Dead" almost falls into this category. I had expected more from it, not a fact simulating blitz written in almost a diarist style, a journal kept by an observer who bcomes a participant later in time on a quest with his quasi-captors, a group of norsemen or vikings, and the writer is a muslim before the notion of equating territorial extends to nations. Religion is not a factor in the story although mention is made of the differing beliefs between the norsemen and the Arab. The differing beliefs is used as a filler to explain the differing behaviors between the Arab and the vikings, they way they enjoy life, and death.
Crichton explains why he uses the style he does in writing this book. It certainly is far from his normal manner and I find it hard to believe he could do it, and pull it off so handsomely. While I was reading the book I forgot who the author was, I fell into the story as an actual journal and the signing of the entries (my term for the style) was a distraction that makes me downgrade my approval rating. Also the title, "Eaters Of The Dead" did not seem to me to be appropriate, what was the relevance? There were other instances, such as why did the vikings fear the mists? Why fear the (supposed, maybe) Neanderthals? I saw no reason for any fear, they were just another enemy, nothing supernatural nor magical to create fear. Cannibals, or even carnivorous, yes, but fearsome? No way. And eating the dead? We eat dead cattle, pigs, poultry, fish, etc.; we do not living things, not even living plants as a general rule. Crichton is dead, I can get no answer maybe some reader can supply one. And the old crone, the "wendol"? Meaningful to the eaters of the dead, but why? Questions, no answers. Not a good read.
