Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo

How hard is Six of Crows to read?

Six of Crows scores 52 out of 100 for difficulty on ReadingRate, making it quite demanding. The score is a weighted composite of nine measures: four of how hard the prose is to parse, five of how hard the meaning is to extract.

Vocabulary: 60 out of 100

The text introduces numerous invented terms and proper nouns from its fantasy world, such as 'Grisha,' 'Squaller,' 'Kerch,' 'Ravka,' 'jurda parem,' and 'kruge.' While these terms are often clarified by context, their sheer volume and the inclusion of various Grisha orders (e.g., Corporalnik, Fabrikator, Inferni, Tailor, Heartrender) elevate the vocabulary beyond typical contemporary fiction. It sits above 'The Great Gatsby' due to the specialized world-building lexicon, but below 'Moby-Dick' which uses more archaic and deeply specialized real-world jargon.

Sentence structure: 58 out of 100

Sentences are generally well-structured and navigable, but the author frequently employs longer sentences with multiple clauses and descriptive phrases, particularly in action sequences or internal monologues. For example, descriptions of Ketterdam's smell or the characters' internal struggles often involve complex layering, placing it above 'The Great Gatsby' but well below the extreme hypotaxis of 'The Golden Bowl'.

Abstraction: 45 out of 100

The narrative is primarily concrete and plot-driven, focusing on character actions, dialogue, and immediate sensory details. While characters occasionally reflect on themes like morality, loyalty, or the nature of power, these are typically grounded in their personal experiences and the unfolding events rather than extensive philosophical digressions. This places it below 'The Great Gatsby' which offers more social observation and thematic depth through its narrative.

Information density: 68 out of 100

The excerpt is dense with world-building details, character backstories, and intricate plot developments, requiring sustained attention to track multiple ongoing schemes and alliances. Readers must process new terminology, character motivations, and the implications of various political factions (Shu Han, Fjerda, Ravka, Kerch Merchant Council) simultaneously. This density is higher than 'Lolita' due to the constant introduction of new elements and the rapid pace of events, but not as overwhelming as 'Ulysses' which layers encyclopedic references and multiple meanings into nearly every line.

Narrative indirection: 42 out of 100

The narrative primarily tells the reader what is happening and why, with character motivations and plot developments generally explicit. While characters keep secrets from each other, the reader is usually privy to their internal thoughts and the overall strategic goals, requiring moderate inference rather than deep interpretive work. This places it above direct exposition like '1984' but well below the pervasive ambiguity of 'The Great Gatsby'.

Symbolic density: 32 out of 100

The text prioritizes direct storytelling and character development over extensive symbolic layering. While motifs like the Komedie Brute masks or personal items (Inej's knives, Kaz's cane) exist, they primarily serve characterization or plot functions, rather than carrying complex allegorical weight or requiring significant interpretation beyond their literal presence. Its symbolic depth is less pronounced than in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and far from the pervasive symbolism of 'The Great Gatsby'.

Ironic distance: 40 out of 100

The narrative generally presents events and character perspectives with sincerity, without a significant gap between what the text states and what the author implies. While characters possess individual biases and self-deceptions, the authorial voice does not employ pervasive irony or satire, encouraging direct engagement with the characters' struggles rather than critical detachment. This is a more direct approach than the subtle critique in 'The Great Gatsby' or the unreliable narration of 'Lolita'.

Resolution withholding: 72 out of 100

The excerpt ends in the midst of intense action and unresolved conflict, with characters facing immediate threats and uncertain outcomes, such as the Shu attack and the ongoing heist. While the immediate goals of the heist are clear, the broader implications for the characters' futures, their relationships, and the ongoing struggle against powerful factions are deliberately left ambiguous, creating significant suspense and withholding closure. This is a high degree of withholding, akin to 'Crying of Lot 49' in its immediate uncertainty, though not as existentially open-ended as 'Waiting for Godot'.

Structural complexity: 60 out of 100

The narrative employs a multi-perspective structure, frequently shifting between the viewpoints of different characters (Retvenko, Wylan, Matthias, Inej, Jesper, Nina, Kaz) across chapters. This requires the reader to actively synthesize information and track parallel plotlines. While the timeline within each chapter is generally linear, the constant re-orientation to new perspectives and integrated internal flashbacks contributes to a moderate level of structural complexity, more so than 'The Great Gatsby' but without the formal experimentation of 'Flights'.

How Six of Crows is regarded

Six of Crows holds a literary regard score of 28 out of 100, weighing its place in the canon, its critical reception, its influence on other writers, and the standing of its author. Regard is measured separately from difficulty: a demanding book is not necessarily an admired one.

About the author

Leigh Bardugo