|
Post by camybaby on Aug 24, 2007 16:04:51 GMT -5
Ok thought I’d start a thread discussing the general likes and dislikes of the first book. I love how the Wooding grips the reader right at the heart of dangerous, exciting action. We start right at the death of one of the main protagonist’s. It’s refreshing starting with high paced action. Most other fantasy books that insist that at least a chapter or two must occur first, purely for info dumping great big chunks of world history that is usually a) unoriginal and b) slows down the plot c) and does nothing to enhance the story, setting and characterization. The fast passed action also works well since in my opinion, since Kaiku is dealing with confusing reality, I’m right there in the confusion with her, it made me feel a lot of empathy for Kaiku. I love starting a book, in an unfamiliar, confusing world, were the character is too busy trying to survive rather than a book telling me what happened six thousand years ago about some backwater country. Another good point is that Kaiku has special powers that are actually pretty dangerous. She almost killed her protector, endangers people by setting things on fire, hurts her self etc. Fire powers seems to be all the rage, yet hardly any books seem to show the dangerous of it (Fire Starter by Steven King is the only other one I can think of). Considering how it’s used in books a lot of the time, half the characters would have died from things like asphyxiation. It really makes you apprehensive when Kaiku uses her powers. She is a real hazard which is verified consistently in the story, rather than most books where I am told by an author that the special powers are particularly perilous followed by a lot of empty threats. I hate that. I hate being told things in a book; I want to be shown things. A small thing that I absolutely love is at the start of the novel, Asara doesn’t tell Kaiku everything that is going on. In a lot of fantasy stories the Gandalf rip off doesn’t tell the Frodo rip off what is happening. The vital information isn’t given to the character for no particular reason. It is just being mysterious for the sake of being mysterious. I’m so thankful Wooding has the sense to never do this. You get the feeling Asara can’t tell Kaiku everything she knows because she knows that will make Kaiku worse than she is(Kaiku died and had her whole universe ripped away, she actually is not mentally capable of processing that kind of info yet). I got the impression that Asara also isn’t telling Kaiku to f*ck with her head for a bit. Yay for power tripping sociopaths I can only think of two major bad points, the first is a personal thing *warning spoiler* The main thing that I hate, despise, loathe, detest is the idea that women are some how more natural than men. Just because a woman menstruates and can give birth doesn’t make them more natural than a man. That women’s power is in the uterine lining that they shed every month, and that men have to resort to evil technology to compensate (though the male equivalent is never used… must ask some Wiccan friends why that is in there religion now that I think about it). In the book it kind of comes across as a cheap deus ex machina for Cailin’s victory. My other dislike was how the omniscient voice which there wasn’t any real need for. Being told about essential things about things like the families of Saramyr, or the way that society is structured, the language and so on, by a mysterious voice comes across as a quick artificial plot device. Thats all I can think of now.
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 25, 2007 2:56:36 GMT -5
Hmm, interesting view. I thought it was saying that women were more subtle than men, not more natural. But why do you hate the idea so much? As a female I always found the idea that women are closer to nature very comforting, because men are stronger, faster and in a battle situation cleverer than women, what do we have? We're better at talking about our feelings. Oh yeah, that's dead useful. It's nice to think that we have some advantage that might actually be helpful. But if you think about it, women lie better than men, multitask better than men, cooperate better and are harder to lie to, doesn't that seem like a set of qualities that would make them naturally better at manipulating the fabric of reality? As for the omnicient narration, I hate books that don't have it, it makes me feel claustrophobic (metaphorically speaking). Usually when an author wants to explain about the political situation using no omnicient voices they have to find a reason for the characters to be discussing it, which in a book where the only child is the heir-empress wouldn't make any sense. But that's only my personal preference. I hope that hasn't come across sounding too confrontational.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 25, 2007 7:00:19 GMT -5
Hmm interesting points I hate any idea that kind of that just assumes some one is more natural based on gender. In some stories ive seen it comes across as flat out sexism. It’s just a personal thing for me. Im a feminist but a 100% equal opportunities feminist. It annoys me when my friends don’t want equal rights but special rights but that’s a whole different story. A lot of what we assume is down to gender, isn’t really, just gender roles that societies place on individuals. Like assuming that all males or promiscuous and all women are totally monogamous. Or those women aren’t violent and only men are As for your points made on men and women, there are historically a lot of women who were good military rulers or who were great warriors, like Joan of Arc and Bodica. Naturally men are stronger yes but women naturally have a higher pain threshold (which Im currently reading about Japan invading China, and how the torturerers tend to hate having to deal with women because generally they wouldn’t talk) which would be really useful in battle. Look at female dominated sports like ballet, which requires a hell of a lot of strength and stamina with out having great big bulging muscles. Women are just as aggressive and violent as men. When a person is trained for battle they will a lot stronger against the average sex. Kaiku’s childhood in the book, gives her a lot of stamina and strength. I really hate fantasy books which give there main character 6 months of training and all of a sudden they have the endurance of a marathon runner, usually with combat skills equal to some one who has practised all there life. No side needs a handicap and in the book that’s how it comes across, which kind of makes the victories cheap. Well the narration is down to personal preference, so I see your point; I just think it works more organically with out the mysterious voice. To me it pulls me out of the story. Sorry if im rambling or incoherent I’ve just woken up
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 25, 2007 7:35:08 GMT -5
Women have always been considered closer to the earth than men. I mean, it makes sense; nature is all about the cycle of life, right? The man's part in that is (at its most basic) to supply some sperm. Even whittled down to the bare essentials the woman still has to carry, birth and feed the child. We have a much bigger role in the whole thing. While there have been warrior queens and female military leaders, the reason everybody has heard of Boudicea and Joan of Arc is because they were atypical. There are many times more men who have lead armies than women, largely because they are better at it. I've never met any sensible person who assumed that all men are promiscuous or that women were incapable of violence. But there's a reason why those gender roles appeared in the first place; left to their own devices most people will assume those roles by themselves.
Women in fact only have a higher resting pain threshold than men. When men are doing something active it raises their pain threshold much higher than a woman's, but then it drops again when they stop. So yes women withstand torture better, but in an actual battle it would be the other way round. (Violet's a science nerd.)
Ballet is an art, not a sport. It's also a poor example because it's dominated by women because there are more female parts (I mean, look at things like Giselle, you need a maximum of 10 men and more like 50 women), and if you look at male ballet dancers they do have big muscles. Also, men and women are trained differently in ballet, women's roles don't require big muscles, whereas men's roles do, so it's hard to make a comparison.
I don't think the Weavers had a handicap, it was the Red Sisters who had an advantage, just because women are more subtle by nature. You never get two sides that are perfectly balanced, one has to have an advantage. besides, women may be just as violent as ment, but it doesn't change the fact that on average we're physically weaker.
|
|
|
Post by zemira on Aug 25, 2007 17:54:41 GMT -5
Time for my 2 cents.
I can't say I liked the narration about the families too much (mostly because in the first book, it just confused me. There were suddenly too many characters to keep track of). But I did like the explanations of the language, because that's pretty cool--having a higher and lower form and all that. I didn't really feel pulled out of the story by it, but I can definitely see how it could have that effect.
Ok, now for men vs. women, round 709,839,875,904 (give or take). I agree with shy in that the reason Joan and the other women are famous is because they were out of the ordinary. It's true. Maybe not because women couldn't do it, but because the society had placed boundries preventing them from trying.
*Spoilers for the end of the FIRST BOOK and a tiny itty bitty spoiler for the Second Book below*
I'm hesitant to call myself a feminist, but I have a feeling I may be. Yes, there are differences between men and women, but most of them can be overcome with training. Women can become stronger, faster, etc. Men can become more subtle, gain more finesse, and all that. I don't think Chris meant to divide the genders too much. Look at Asara and Kaiku. Chris has stated that they were not gay, not bi, nothing of the sort. Asara happened to prefer women, yes, but who knows if she was actually born as a woman or a man. The relationship between the 2 was beyond gender. So, it seems kind of strange to think that Chris made a point to put that in there while also tearing it down by making women better at weaving.
And it wasn't that women were better. It's that they had a natural affinity for it. Men had to work to conquer it, but at the same time, so did Kaiku. That natural affinity is a huge leg up for the women, but it's not that it was really that much of an advantage. Vyrrch and Cailin were almost evenly matched. Sure, she won, but Vyrrch managed to get a message out. But it's also implied that Cailin is possibly the best Sister out there. At the least by this point in the series, she's the best the readers know about.
At the same time, there's other things that support camy's viewpoint. The women don't go insane, they can see the REAL weave, etc. That does seem kind of sexist, but I don't think it was meant that way. I'm not claiming that I have sufficient knowledge of the workings of men's minds compared to women's, but maybe women are just born with a higher chance of being immune to insanity. But at the same time, it could be the society. We don't know everything about Saramyr. We know what Chris told us, but there's still so much that we don't know. Maybe it has to do with the toys that girls played with as children. Maybe it's in the way they were raised.
Plus, consider that the Sisters were different, mutated, however you choose to say it. They had this mutation that made them better. Maybe men had the mutation too, but we just don't know about it. It was said that it lay dormant for quite some time. But yes, Chris did say that the Weavers knew that women were naturally better at it.
Whooo, long reply. Sorry if it seemed like I was jumping down your throat, camy. I see your point. I guess it's because I like the Sisters a LOT more than the Weavers that I just naturally support them, regardless of gender. Or, maybe like I said, I am a feminist. Either way, sorry if it seems like I was ganging up on you. Friendly debate, right? ^_^
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 25, 2007 18:59:43 GMT -5
Ok my point is that just because a woman can bear children doesn’t make them more a part of nature than men. If we go back far enough. Men were the hunters in some societies; they actively took part in the whole circle of life. The killing of animals not only allowed the survival of the tribe, but also controlled animal populations, and aided things like the ground and plants, due to the nutrients gained by the carcasses. A point to be made is that t implies that sterile women are inferior (that because they can’t conceive they are not as much a part of nature as other people etc). We also have more than two genders. Gender like sexuality, is not a concrete thing, its more fluid. On ballet, I know it’s an art, but I would also class it as a sport (and it darts can be classed as a sport anything can ). Yes women historically have not been ALLOWED to be involved in war, that doesn’t not say they are inferior in that regard they just have never had much chance to be involved in fighting in wars. When women have fought in wars they have been shown to be capable. But can see Shy’s points made as well. And you have interested me in the science behind the whole pain thing. Damn you A note on mental health in our world, mental illness is complicated and society plays a huge part in it (from my own experiences psychiatry is still in the dark ages and unethical). Women are more prone to mental illnesses such as depression and at least 1 out of a hundred have one of the most deadly mental illnesses, anorexia nervosa. But that’s our society, not Saramyr of course. Maybe like what zemira that how women are brought up does shield them from psychosis. Iwish that was explored in the books. Though I can’t imagine the court politics would be good for any ones mental health, you have to be very strong to be able to deal with it, which is why I actually liked Mishani. She may be physically weak, but her mind is like the mental equivalent of an Olympic athlete. I wonder what a red sister Mishani would be like *cackles* *spoiler* In regard to Mishani am I the only one that wished she hated Kaiku longer than she did? I wish it was played out more. Were there actually any male abhorrent shown? I can’t remember. *spoiler* Asara I won’t class as female but she can’t be classed as male either. Though can I ask what people’s opinions of Asara are? She was my favourite character in the series. zemira I think that’s another fault of the book that you mentioned that there are a lot of secondary characters especially with the families that it’s hard to keep track of them all, though at least Chris keeps these characters tied to the story lines. It makes things hell of a lot easier. Actually zemira you have made an interesting point about Kaiku, I wonder if it was intentional to make Kaikus approach to the weave a lot similar to the weavers, in that she was trying to conquer it. I wonder if that was intentional. Or maybe it was an effect that her creepy mask had on her? I liked how the mask had a very sinister personality, and that it was portrayed by its actions and not in long prose of how evil it was and how it was trying to control Kaiku. Some times being subtle is a lot more effective than in being over the top. That worked really well in the boy on the barge, one of the worst moments for me in the novel. I was glad that what happened to him was implied, but in a way was worse as well, since I imagined all sorts and ended up feeling very ill. I should sue Chris for emotional distress lmao *spoiler* I did get that Kaiku’s and Asara’s relationship wasn’t a lesbian thing. Didn’t they want each others soul back? Though I wish they had more of a toxic, love hate relationship, would have been lots of fun.
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 26, 2007 2:18:07 GMT -5
I thought they didn't go insane because they had a natural ability for it, and the Weavers went insane because
[SPOILERS FOR ALL 3 BOOKS]
they had to use the masks which were layered with the powdered remains of a dead, psychotic god.
The idea behind women being more natural than men goes like this: you plant a seed in the ground, while a human has planted it, it grows in the ground, is fed by the ground and, while many plants can seed themselves, they usually cannot survive without soil. There's an obvious parallel between that and human reproduction, and in that parallel the woman is the ground, i.e. the earth, therefore closer to nature. You see? I'm not saying it's right to assume that men are enemies of nature or that they only use technology to compensate, but the whole view of women being closer to nature does make sense. That's why it appears in so many religions.
And ballet is not a sport! (I feel quite strongly about this, ballet dancing is one of my favourite passtimes.) Nobody wins in ballet. You learn the dance, you perform the dance, do it well you get applauded, do it poorly you don't. No dancer in the company wins against the others, and no company wins against any other company.
haha, I have interested you in science! I feel very proud. ;D I hated Asara, but that was because she kept killing my favourite characters dammit! She was still a great character.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 26, 2007 8:35:37 GMT -5
Giving birth is just one aspect of being a part of nature. And Mother Nature kind of royally screws women over in the regard to menopause, and women are more at risk of getting autoimmune diseases. Ballet is a sport. I’m saying it partly just to be contrary Asara killing was so much fun plus she was played in a sympathetic light, well partly. I did feel sorry for her as the novels progressed. She wasn’t a very happy person. I wanted to hug her. As for the enemy’s in the book I did find the weavers very appealing. I generally don’t like EVIL characters but I did accept the explanation of how they got so twisted. The only down side of them was that the weavers kind of take a step backwards as the books goes on, rather than stepping in to the spot light. It would also have been great to have seen more weavers in an individual sense. I would also have liked to see the good that the weavers have did for the empire, it would have been great if the tendency to just have naked hatred for them was made a tad more complicated. It is a depressingly common theme in Wooding’s books, the nature of the human condition. The weavers could get away with all there evil acts because they were essential to the nobles way of life. Its’ an eerie echo to our world, were our society is based on exploitation, (nature and other people). We may hate the negative effects that our way of life has on others, yet we don’t change the way we live. Our comforts mean too much to us, like the people of Saramyr. So I didn’t actually hate the nobles in general I could identify with them in a way. The weavers are scary to me since they show humans just completely surrender to addiction and psychosis. I think all of us have a primal fear of loosing complete touch with reality like a lot of the weavers did, in our world diseases like Schizophrenia, or Alzheimer’s are terrifying as well as becoming a complete drug addict. Can you really hate them though? I mean maybe a lot of the weavers were once innocent children, can you really blame the Weavers since *spoiler* They were under the influence of an evil God. What about the innocent children that were made to be weavers against there will? Is it fare to hate and feel revulsion to some one who was made in to a monster and forced in to addiction? It would have been great if we got to saw the new recruits in a weaver monastery, children just brought there. There are a lot of ethical questions here
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 26, 2007 10:35:10 GMT -5
Yeah, if you look at the whole planet there's more to being part of nature than giving birth, but the idea that women are closer to nature was around for centuries before we had any concept of the vast ecosystem so it's based around a highly simplified view. And what's so bad about menopause? All animals reach an age when they can no longer reproduce.
[MINOR SPOILERS]
I do feel sorry for the children that were forced into being Weavers, but it doesn't excuse what they do once they are. I can feel sorry for someone and hate them at the same time, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I mean, sure, it's not fair that they were forced into it, but it's also not fair that they torture and kill other people.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 26, 2007 10:59:49 GMT -5
Menopause at the least looks very uncomfortable, and at the worst allows for things like osteoporosis (yes men get it too but its “overwhelming prevalent in post menopausal women”) due to lower levels of oestrogen (the hormone which helps stop bone resorption. That’s why a loss of period for female anorectic’s is a sign for concern for weakening bones).
Any who back to the topic at hand, yeah I did feel hatred but deep sympathy for the weavers, and a lot of complex emotions. It’s like when people who were abused as children become abusers themselves. But how much of the actions of weavers are there own actions? How can some one who has never grown up and developed normally be responsible for the bad things they do, since they are amoral? The line between victim and victimiser can get very blurry.
Also *major spoiler*
Lucia ends up being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people by getting the aid of the spirits. I’m just curious as to how people ended up feeling about her. She had to make the choice between the lesser of two evils but it was still evil. Most of the time when Asara killed she killed for self preservation which I think can be mostly excused.
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 26, 2007 11:07:46 GMT -5
[SPOILERS FOR ALL 3 BOOKS]
Really? I think killing for self-preservation (especially as much as she did) is less excusable than what Lucia did. If Lucia hadn't got the help of the spirits the feya-kori would have destroyed everything, as it was only a few hundred people died out of potentially most of the planet. Besides, what other choice did Lucia have? They had no other way of fighting the feya-kori.
There is such a thing as willpower. I still have more hatred than sympathy for them; for each child who becomes a Weaver, dozens of people, often children, are tortured and killed. Whether it's their fault they're addicted or not doesn't justify what they do.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 26, 2007 11:17:42 GMT -5
Well we all kill for self preservation; it’s a strong and natural instinct, which is why killing in self defence is excusable. Lucia knew and calculated that people would die, which is worse. Asara didn’t so much. This in my opinion is worse. As for Lucia, she had a choice, and the “wrong thing for the right reason is still the wrong thing.” I mean she was an accomplice for the calculated death of people who put their trust in her. She exploited people. Though she did pay with her life so she is slightly redeemed.
Well not all weavers committed great atrocities, it just depended on what there particular post weaving fetish was, wasn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by shyviolet on Aug 26, 2007 11:41:12 GMT -5
[SPOILERS FOR ALL 3 BOOKS]
Killing in self-defence means the other person attacked you, Asara sucked the life out of innocent people while they slept! As far as she knew they had never done anything to deserve that, and she didn't even know them. Killing someone else when they're trying to kill you is very different.
Usually I would agree that the wrong thing for the right reason is still the wrong thing, but the alternative was to basically let their whole world get destroyed. Would you rather she preserved her moral integrity and everyone died? Or that she made a difficult choice and comparitively few people died?
And yes, some of them did things like hallucinate, but it was more usual for them to have violent rages. I would have more sympathy for the ones who didn't hurt people.
|
|
|
Post by camybaby on Aug 26, 2007 12:20:25 GMT -5
*spoilers*
My allegory of self defence was just used to illustrate that a persons will to live is incredible strong, we will kill when necessity dictates. Necessity dictated that Asara had to kill. It was the way she was designed. It wasn’t her fault that nature designed the way that she fed.
Yeah Lucia did make a difficult choice (I would have made them same myself), but her actions and crimes really can’t be ignored. That’s why I love this series and why a lot of writers can learn from this, which you can’t just group things into good or bad. No world can operate in such black and white absolutes. It’s a whole spectrum of greyness.
|
|
|
Post by zemira on Aug 26, 2007 13:55:09 GMT -5
Agh, spoilers for the third book. Please, please, mark those. >_< I have only read the first 2 books so far, and I've started the third. Besides, this the board for the first book only. Sorry, I just have read tons of spoilers about this series. :-(
|
|