meganbmoore | (no subject)

(no subject)

Not that I need more books, but can anyone offer up opinion on Sara Douglass's Wayfarer books, Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel books, Brian Sanderson's Mistborn books, or Elizabeth Hayden's Symphony of Ages books? (Yes, I know those aren't the official titles for some...)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've read the first trilogy of Kushiel books twice--loved it the first time, had critiques the second. Of the second trilogy, I bought the first book, read it, left it on the shelf for a while, and then read it again because I thought I hadn't finished it the first time. Seriously, I would finish a chapter, think, "oh, I guess I got this far," and then discover I'd read the next one--all the way to the end. Come to think of it, that was only a few months ago and I can't now remember what the plot was.

The first trilogy is still lots of fun for me. Yes on what people have been saying about the kinky sex and the prose. Especially in the first two books, I'm content with the sex, because they're told from the POV of the person who's being hurt during sex in such a way that we're absolutely clear she likes it, and it's taking place in a world that makes a really big deal of consent. (Rape is, literally, heresy--which makes me happy.) In the third book, Carey steps over some of the limits that she sets in the first two, and which may already be too extreme for some people. I found it hard to read when I read and reread it several years ago, and now after spending a lot of time doing work against sexual violence, I think it would bother me a lot.

A concern that no one (so far) has brought up is how Eurocentric the books are. They're set in an alternate of our world. At the center is Terre d'Ange, which is France. The viewpoint character is extremely patriotic and presents her country as the cultural and spiritual peak of the world. Initially Terre d'Ange is threatened by neighboring barbarians (Germanic tribes) and attempts a friendly encounter with other neighboring barbarians (British Celts). There's a lot of typing by nationality going on, but this is obviously part of the viewpoint character's worldview, and as she matures, she learns to dismantle stereotypes.

The third book is different. The viewpoint character leaves the familiar Europe-region and goes south to an alternate-Africa. While other cultures and religions belonging to the Europe-region have been seen (by the viewpoint character) as different, a little strange, and not really as good as those practiced in Terre d'Ange, she's really viewed them as accessible and understandable choices. However, in the Africa-region (I believe in an alternate Sudan), she encounters a religion that is PURE EVIL, INCOMPREHENSIBLE, and MUST BE DESTROYED. This isn't just the viewpoint character's attitude; it's validated by the narrative structure. While this is a fantasy novel and therefore (I think) can contain things that really are EVIL, I find it really problematic that Carey chose to situate this in her alternate-Africa, whose cultures and religions have already had more than their share of being characterized by Europeans as evil, incomprehensible, and targeted for destruction.

(I have a little more to say but I've just been summoned to eat!)

I believe you don't enjoy characters to whom everything comes easily, and who develop and progress through the plot without real challenges. (I hope I'm paraphrasing your views here correctly!) I'm having trouble deciding where Phedre (the viewpoint character) is according to these criteria--they're not something I think of much when I read; if anything, I like competency, and difficult problems for which a character is ill prepared make me nervous...

This being said, what I do know is that Phedre is a Mary Sue. This is mitigated by her living in a land full of extraordinary and beautiful people, and by the fact that she does develop--while she's clever and creative and charismatic from the start, she also gets wiser in her understanding of her world, so that from the point of view of the end of the second book, her voice at the beginning of the first seems naive.

A major difference between the first and second trilogies (that I actually remember!) is the narration--the first is all by Phedre, the second by another character close to her. In the first, I wasn't bothered by her Mary Sue-ness because I was absorbed by her voice; in the second, the viewpoint character constantly focuses on her from the outside and keeps going ON AND ON AND ON about how perfect and beautiful and good she is.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only