I'm not a Christian. I'm not entirely sure what my spiritual beliefs are. I'm still searching, but at the moment, I find it unlikely that I'll ever chI'm not a Christian. I'm not entirely sure what my spiritual beliefs are. I'm still searching, but at the moment, I find it unlikely that I'll ever choose Christianity. However, when I came across this book at a place I was staying, I was drawn to it. I started reading and couldn't put it down, and ended up borrowing it. Naturally, I disagreed with a lot of what Kreeft was saying, because he kept saying over and over again: "the only way to virtue is Christianity." However, he writes so compellingly and poetically that I was hooked.
Also, it's an interesting premise and not, I believe, a completely untrue one. Throughout the whole first chapter, when Kreeft was talking about the problems with the currently fashionable "subjective morality," I just kept going YES! at everything he was saying.
The history lesson was interesting too, although I couldn't help but laugh at him inevitably finding the middle ages to be the peak of civilisation.
I do have quite a lot of thoughts about the section where the seven deadly sins are contrasted with the Beatitudes (neither of which I knew much about, as I'm far from an expert in Christian mythology), so let's dive into that:
1) Pride vs. humility
This chapter made it even clearer to me how all spiritual teachings are basically saying the same thing. The "sin of pride" is just Christian terminology for what other spiritual paths might refer to as the ego, which always needs to be overcome.
Reading that pride was humanity's original sin was even more fascinating, because it called to mind another recent read, The Grand Design–II. Reflections of a soul/oversoul. This book's main premise is that the human condition originated from souls losing awareness, which was instigated by the desire to control or be more than other souls. It goes onto say that this is still the central cause of all our suffering, and the key to our individual and collective liberation is overcoming it. Although overall, "The Grand Design" is more forgiving than the whole Christian religion (it rejects the concept of sin and emphasises the importance of self forgiveness in our spiritual evolution), you can't deny that this is basically the fall/original sin reframed using different terminology.
There is definitely a reason why everyone's saying these kinds of things. Pride, or ego, or unawareness, or whatever term you want to use for it, is a problem, and humility is important but rare. However, I don't like the Christian shame culture. Kreeft clears up a lot of misconceptions about pride and humility which take away a lot of it, but some of it still holds, especially when he quotes St Augustine as saying that pride is to "love self to the despising of God," and humility is to "love God to the despising of self."
I have a big problem with self love being portrayed as sinful despising oneself being portrayed as a virtue. Self love is not pride. It's a prerequisite for humility! I don't believe you can love others, or God, fully if you don't love yourself. I also believe that we're all part of God, which Christians everywhere would cry heresy at. In the context of that belief of mine, loving God would not be possible without loving yourself. In fact, self love is the gateway to God.
Even with a Christian belief system, though, love being exclusively reserved for God doesn't fit. Christians preach "love thy neighbour," right? Why not "love God, and thy neighbour, and thyself?" Love everyone! Loving someone doesn't have to mean that they're your "master."
I also thought this paragraph was very strange for several reasons:
Nearly all modern psychologies tell us how to be "adult," "mature," and "take-charge," "responsible for our own lives." When you see these ubiquitous code words in catechism textbooks or sex education programs or religious education courses, remember what they are: the old paganism in new dress. Remember what adult suggests in our culture. Remember what adult books, magazines and movies are like. Remember that Jesus never told us to be adult, but instead said, "Unless you... become as little children, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
Okay, maybe "take-charge" is not always a good thing. It could be controlling or dominating. But maturity and responsibility are not pride. Pride is childish (not the same thing as childlike, which is clearly what Jesus is advocating for in this quote- childlike means innocent, while childish means immature). Maturity is humility. Once you've seen things, it's impossible to be innocent again. You can't remain sheltered forever. But the mature choice is to stay humble and not let the world goad you into trying to make you out to be bigger than you are. I'm pretty sure this is what Jesus meant.
Onto responsibility. I'm going to look at this purely in the context of a Christian worldview here: if God didn't want people to be responsible, he wouldn't have given us free will. He would cook for us, clean for us, wash us, put us to bed, and make all our decisions for us. But he doesn't, does he? He puts us in charge of our own decisions and wellbeing, and what is responsibility? It's making decisions that are beneficial in the long run. Therefore, choosing God is the responsible choice! So is accepting that we sin and striving to do better- that's literally what's called taking responsibility for our actions!
I think there are positive and negative aspects of both the adult and child archetypes. I also think the conflation of the word "adult" with certain types of age-restricted content is deliberate and misleading. I really don't think we should think of that when we hear the words "adult," "mature" and "responsible"- especially since giving into urges in not mature or responsible!
2) Avarice vs. mercy
Overall I thought this was a very good chapter with a lot of wisdom in it. While I have conflicting feelings around the idea of self-sacrifice, which is the central idea of Kreeft's discussion of mercy, it can't be denied that it's good to be a giver rather than a taker. It can't be denied that greed is a problem in the world, and forgiveness is important.
There is one passage in this chapter though, that illustrates the Christian shame culture more clearly than anything:
We need to stop complaining about bad things happening to good people, about injustice. There are no "good people," and the best of us say so the most clearly. Saints agree they are sinners; only sinners think they are saints.
This just reads like it's advocating for self hatred again, for people to think they're not good. Self awareness is important, but it doesn't have to mean thinking you're a bad person! We are all good people. Thinking otherwise is insecurity, not virtue, and is something we need to overcome to heal. Conflating the knowledge that you are a good person with thinking you are a saint is just harmful.
3) Envy vs. blessed mourning
Once again, I could understand what Kreeft was trying to say here and agreed with the general idea of it. I've experienced envy, of course, and resonated with a lot of the things he said, especially how it brings no joy. I also was really interested to see him mentioning that every sin is a counterfeit of a virtue, because I'd been noticing that myself with a lot of things!
Kreeft did lose me a little when he started talking about equality, although I got where he was coming from and I begrudgingly admit it isn't wholly untrue. However, he really lost me when he started talking about our "envy of Eden." I guess because I'm one of those silly utopists he talks about. I actually believe we could create peace on Earth if we all did the inner work.
I'm contradicted about "blessed mourning." On one hand, I recognise that he's talking about resilience, which isn't so common these days but I agree is very important. People can't handle things not being the way they want. Kreeft talks even more about self-sacrifice here than in the previous chapter- I get it, but as I said, I'm conflicted. This passage about love is particularly profound:
Why is it that nothing can make us as sorrowful as love? It is the same reason that nothing can make us as joyful as love. In love we become the other, we slough off our skin like a snake. Underneath that hard, protective coat of otherness and ego, there is new flesh, incomparably more sensitive than the outer skin. The heart is like a newborn baby. It is our spiritual erogenous zone, capable of exquisite joys and exquisite sufferings by its extreme sensitivity. We appropriately cover and protect these privy parts of the soul, just as we do the corresponding parts of the body. But when we love, we expose them, to pleasures or pains beyond imagining.
In addition- interestingly- there is also quite a long passage which sounds like it's talking about the new age concept of "ego death," further illustrating how similar all the religions are.
I do think, though, that to some extent, suffering is a state of mind. We don't have to be unhappy, and it doesn't seem right to me that it's "blessed" to view things as some great suffering or sacrifice. I guess that's part of what he's saying about endurance and resilience, but it just felt like there was too much emphasis on having to be unhappy.
4) Anger vs. meekness
This chapter was pretty interesting. The part about anger makes a lot of sense, although I don't completely agree that you can't choose your emotions. I think most people have forgotten how to choose their emotions, so I guess what he's saying is true in that sense. But according to The Emotion Code: How to Release Your Trapped Emotions for Abundant Health, Love, and Happiness, we actually do choose our emotions.
I get the whole thing about "you've sinned if you're not angry about injustice." I see people say these kinds of things all the time. However, I've also seen some good arguments against this notion. Such as: anger is a low state of consciousness. It's letting the world get to you, and makes you easier to control. Not being angry doesn't mean you condone something, and doesn't mean not taking action (if action is actually possible, which it sometimes isn't).
I liked a lot of what he said about meekness, and how it's actually strength. I agree: it takes a really strong person to submit to the divine.
I was surprised to hear Kreeft literally refer to "the new Earth," which I knew as a New Age concept. This is perhaps the most obvious revelation of how all religions are saying the same thing, because it's literally the same terminology!
5) Sloth vs. hungering for righteousness
Kreeft's description of sloth spoke deeply to me, because it seemed to be describing my own experience. He's right: a disconnection from the divine is the most depressing thing ever. I've come out of it and began to find joy and connection again, but he described so accurately the darkness which is now mostly behind me that I couldn't believe it.
There were a couple of things he said which I didn't think were exactly true. The first wasn't actually Kreeft himself, but he was quoting (and agreeing with) another writer:
The same man who spends so many days and nights in fury and despair at losing some office or at some imaginary affront to his honour is the very one who knows that he is going to lose everything through death but feels neither anxiety nor emotion.
I'm not denying that this is a description of a slothful person. I just think it's a bit of a misunderstanding of how most people are. Yes, there are a few oddballs online who say stuff such as "I find the idea of nothing after death comforting. A nice, comforting darkness." But the idea that people like this are the norm, that most people who believe there's nothing after death don't feel anxiety over it, is utter nonsense.
Has Kreeft never heard the term "existential crisis?" Does he not realise how commonplace this is in modern secular society? Does he not realise that "coming to terms with your own mortality" is supposed to be such a challenge these days? Religious and spiritual people are the ones who don't fear death, and for good reason. They're confident that it's not the end. The idea that we'll all just cease to exist is terrifying for a normal person. People who believe this have to grapple with intense feelings of insignificance and futility. The panic, stress, fear and anxiety these beliefs cause are so crippling that most people find them hard to face. That's why it seems like people don't care- it's an avoidance strategy!
I also wanted to add that to say we don't have a right to depression is not okay. Some people are clinically depressed, and that has nothing to do with whether you or I believe that there's anything to be depressed about.
6) Lust vs purity
Considering how bad a reputation Christianity has for its stance on sex, I was expecting straight-out totalitarianism from this chapter and was pleasantly surprised. I didn't even think Kreeft's stance was that unreasonable! I guess I underestimated this world's addiction to promiscuity and infidelity, which I've always found hard to grasp.
Happiness is a choice that requires effort at times.
Well. I just finished this one and I've got a lot to say.
Since Troubled Blood, the mystery side oHappiness is a choice that requires effort at times.
Well. I just finished this one and I've got a lot to say.
Since Troubled Blood, the mystery side of this series has got way more interesting. While I was already completely in love with Strike and Robin before that and invested in their personal stories and their relationship, before book 5, I wasn't as invested in the cases they were solving. But with both "Troubled Blood" and The Ink Black Heart, I was suddenly really obsessed with the cases! And let's just say "The Running Grave" didn't disappoint in the regard. It's another really fascinating case that had me unable to put it down all day, and staying up all night reading, especially when it was getting close to the end. I was desperate for the final reveal and now I've finished the book, I feel like there's something missing in my life.
Despite all this, I did have some reserves towards this one that I didn't have towards any of the previous books. Let me start by saying that I never thought I would go near a book about a cult, and when I found out that was what this was, I was quite nervous. I've never been one of those people who are obsessed with reading about (or watching movies/TV shows about) cults- I find them too unsettling. To me, the fact that these kinds of themes are so popular speaks to a darkness in the general population.
That being said, this wasn't that bad. As someone who used to be a big dystopian reader, I'm not sure exactly why I drew the line at cults when it's not so different, really. I didn't get particularly scared, but I still found some the content challenging. As someone who grew up with spirituality and still very much considers it part of my life, I'm mainly talking about the way different spiritual concepts are portrayed, appropriated and often twisted. The way the concept of nonattachment was twisted into this horrible anti-family rhetoric was a bizarrely frightening stroke of genius on Rowling's part.
I've got to say a couple of other things though. I don't think chanting has to be a negative thing. I recognised the chant used at the UHC, and I think it can have beneficial effects. Robin even notices that the chanting makes her feel really good, but it was written off as part of the brainwashing. I wish it wasn't.
The other thing, and perhaps the most unsettling thing, was that Jonathan Wace's first speech sounded so similar to the kind of spiritual books I read for inspiration. So similar, in fact, that at one point I forgot I wasn't reading one of those books and just started smiling as I was reading. I had to remind myself that I was not reading one of those books, and this wasn't even a good character speaking. And, well, that realisation was kind of unsettling. I grew up with a lot of these spiritual ideas and they've really helped me in my life. Also, I liked how Robin was more open to spirituality than Strike, but I suspect she won't be after this book!
And in regards to the characters... boy, does Strike get some long overdue character development in this one! Rowling had a tough job with this one, trying to keep us engaged in Strike's POV conducting the investigation as usual alongside Robin's POV in the cult, and I admit I did want to switch back to Robin a lot. But I think it was done really well with Strike having a bit of a crisis with himself, and some of his chapters were really emotional....more
Wow. I really don't know where to start. I already knew this was going to be good from the description on the back, but was totally unprepared for howWow. I really don't know where to start. I already knew this was going to be good from the description on the back, but was totally unprepared for how amazing it was!
It wasn't exactly what I expected, but it was probably better and had everything I love. The fantastical aspect, a good heroic quest but also lots of twisty turns and subverted tropes. Gorgeous prose with beautiful imagery created. The stock standard flowery fantasy names that I'm not ashamed to admit I go crazy over. The spiritual aspect which is something I'm particularly fond of in a fantasy. Amazing characters (I LOVED most of them). And of course, music!
I will admit I expected this book to be all about Lin. Actually, there are four main characters, and a few other significant characters who get POVs as well. And I loved most of them. Even the ones I didn't love I couldn't help at least sympathising with by the end of the book.
Lin: She was the most likable at the start of the story. The typical tough girl on the edge who's had a hard life and is actually secretly a big softie, but she was still a very believable character. She is extremely cool and I often felt sorry for her. I was surprised at how little time was spent on her. It kind of seems like the other characters were more focussed on.
Darien: Oh sweet, cute, impulsive, immature, sensitive, romantic, idealistic, caring, ambitious, charismatic, adorable Darien. I loved him so much! He felt so completely real to me and okay, at first he just seemed like an arrogant prick, but his character growth was monumental and he never ceased to surprise and amaze me. (view spoiler)[In a sense, the ending made me love him even more, but still, I wish authors would STOP KILLING MY FAVES. (hide spoiler)]
Marlen: Okay, he was the one I didn't love. The obligatory anti-hero POV and I'm thinking some girls will fall head over heels, but I just couldn't get past how weak and self serving he was, although at some points I was able to feel sorry for him. Not enough to be super invested in his redemption, though. I guess you could say he sort of redeemed himself at the end, but I still felt it wasn't enough. (view spoiler)[Also, I can't believe he ended up with Marilla, who I hated and thought was supposed to represent his inner darkness. In this regard, I think Myer went a little too far with the trope subversion thing. (hide spoiler)]
Rianna: She didn't turn out at all like I (or I bet anyone) expected, but I loved her too. What an unexpected symbol of female empowerment. I love and deeply resonated with the fact that her arc included the realisation that not all that glitters is gold, and the things (and people) that mean the most aren't necessarily the fancy ones.
Some other characters
Valanir: I liked him a lot too. At first I was crazy about him.
Hassen: I loved him! Probably the purest character in the book, and also a great laugh. (view spoiler)[ And I know he doesn't want to be a tragedy, but honestly, what happened to him is so sad! He's reminding me of Cedric Diggory. (hide spoiler)]
Ned: At first I didn't like him, but by the end I loved him too. He reminded me of Neville Longbottom.
Edrien Letrell: Extremely interesting. (view spoiler)[I love how Myer subverted expectations yet again, by the revelation at the end that he wasn't such a hero after all. (hide spoiler)]
Rayen: Well. (view spoiler)[ Characters like this, especially in books like this one which have really realistic characters, always strike me as out of place and unrealistic, and I have to remind myself that psychopaths exist in real life too. And I feel like Rayen embodies a particular kind of dangerous man that women fall prey to, that you don't often see in fiction. He's charismatic, and good looking. He seems like a good person who cares about others, and can fake vulnerability convincingly.
For a while I was even thinking he'd redeemed himself. In fact, I cried when he called himself a monster. It's now one of the book scenes I most regret crying at. (hide spoiler)]...more
Wow. I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say.
I mean... I have a lot of thoughts. This was just such a world. I completely lost myself in it. FWow. I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say.
I mean... I have a lot of thoughts. This was just such a world. I completely lost myself in it. For the first two chapters it was boring, but once I was in, I was IN. The third chapter swept me up and it just got better and better.
I wasn't a fan of the majority of the characters- especially not Piloo, who's the most hateable character I've read in a good while- but that didn't even matter, because I absolutely loved the three central characters, Rai, Ormus and Vina. All three of them had characteristics I could complain about too, but I'd rather not go into them because overall, it was love. I also loved Mira.
I could probably go on for ages right now, but I don't feel like it. I just want to finish by saying that I wish I could listen to VTO. I'm imagining they might sound a little like Dirt Poor Robins (that's a good thing, btw).
(view spoiler)[ But did our world actually get destroyed??? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret it? Or is it our world that is colliding with theirs at the end and ours will survive or something... (hide spoiler)]
There was one thing about this book that really annoyed me, but wasn't even to do with the story or writing style. Halfway through the book, my copy stopped using quotation marks when characters talked. It was just so weird and made it harder to read, and it took me a while to adjust. I'm thinking it might just be one copy because, for some reason, I don't see anyone else complaining about it....more
Got most of the way through this but unfortunately DNFed towards the end. I don't think I was ready for this book. Will have to reread it at some poinGot most of the way through this but unfortunately DNFed towards the end. I don't think I was ready for this book. Will have to reread it at some point in the future when I'm ready to accept more of the content. A lot of which rings true despite me not wanting it to. I won't lie and say there isn't comfort in some of the ideas presented here- specifically the idea that redemption and bliss is everyone's destiny. But somehow I still found a lot of what was revealed in this book challenging.
There were some things which just rang false too. I think when reading this we need to remember that this soul, although more evolved than us, isn't fully evolved even by their own admission. I thought their treatment of politicians and their motives was far too optimistic. Also, there was one particular paragraph which just struck me as wrong.
To paraphrase, it was an example about someone with a handicap- I think it was blindness if memory serves. Basically, the verdict was that if her blindness is somehow healed and she doesn't find meaning in her life afterward, it wasn't a good thing that she was healed. I don't think that whether or not someone finds meaning in their life has to do with whether or not you were healed from an ailment in the past. You can find meaning at any point in your life, regardless of whether you were healed or not. It certainly was not the fault of the healing! ...more
I finished this last night and I don't know what to think. At all. I mean, there's a lot that I think. But I can't decide what my overall opinion of tI finished this last night and I don't know what to think. At all. I mean, there's a lot that I think. But I can't decide what my overall opinion of the book is, or if I should continue the series.
At times, this was a challenge to get through. Something about Martin's writing style didn't completely work for me. While it was good enough to keep me considerably invested, it wasn't good enough to be immersive all the time.
For me, the selling point is the descriptions. When the style completely works, I can see everything described very clearly. When it doesn't, I just see words on a page. Not that I couldn't see it at all, but A Game of Thrones had a lot of words on a page moments.
Even more worrying, narrative is increasingly becoming a similar problem. I will read whole paragraphs of narrative and not take in what the characters are doing. I'll have to go back and read them again.
So there are three things to clarify here. The first is that I'm not saying that Martin's writing style is bad. I'm only talking about what works for me. Different writing styles work for different people. Some people won't be able to put down books that I find boring, and vice versa.
The second is that I was unfamiliar with a lot of terms used to describe structures. Despite being a fantasy reader, I'm not really a medieval architecture expert. None of this helped with visualising things.
The third is that I'm not saying Martin's writing style didn't work for me at all. It didn't completely work for me, but there were a lot of things that did work. Otherwise I wouldn't be rating this four stars, and I wouldn't be saying what I'm about to say.
I thought I'd be relieved to finish this book, but when I did finish it, I actually felt sad. I realised I was going to miss the characters. I didn't see myself continuing the series, but now I'm considering it.
First things first, and this is another thing that initially got to me: this is not an escapist fantasy. The world presented here is not whimsical or wondrous or beautiful in the ways that I tend to like my fantasy worlds. It's dark, and gritty, and bleak, maybe even a little depressing. At times, it feels even more mundane than real life.
Another thing that I had to get used to: this is not a heroic fantasy. I may have already known this to some extent, but actually reading it made it crystal clear what kind of readers A Song Of Ice And Fire fans are. They're a bunch of hipsters, edgelords and English teachers. They hate traditional morality in stories, and are averse to common tropes. They are obsessed with "grey characters" and "moral complexity," and they probably think that most fantasy is "unrealistic" and "doesn't have anything important to say" (this last claim is one I have a big problem with ... ). Basically, they're not interested in reading about good characters who succeed in what they're trying to do, because apparently that doesn't happen in the real world.
(I should note that I'm exaggerating here for impact. Obviously, not all readers of the series will hold these beliefs to such an extreme extent, but most will probably have them to some extent.)
I suppose the simple fact that Eddard Stark was my favourite character should highlight the differences between me and these kinds of readers. I love heroes. I wouldn't say I'm completely opposed to the tastes of the stereotypical fan I described. I do occasionally indulge in morally complex stories, just for a bit of a change, and I usually find it a breath of fresh air. I have liked plenty of morally complex characters, despite my tendency to love heroes the most.
The closest I've gotten to something as amoral as A Game of Thrones was probably Forest of a Thousand Lanterns, which I loved, and is billed as "perfect for Game of Thrones fans." Xifeng, that book's anti-hero, touched me profoundly in a way I wasn't prepared for and am not sure I completely understand. But even she is defeated by the end of Kingdom of the Blazing Phoenix, the sequel which focusses instead on the more traditional hero Jade. Unsurprisingly, the first book drew a lot of those kind of readers, who all complained about the second.
Point being that this series was tame compared to what I just read. In A Game of Thrones, heroes do not succeed. Villains are more than just temporarily triumphant and waiting to be taken down. In fact, success changes you into a somewhat of a villain yourself. The moral is that to get what you want, you have to be a little ruthless. The question is whether this is worth it? Does the end justify the means? You know, the same universal question that crops up everywhere in literature.
Once I got past feeling depressed, I realised what a brilliant portrayal this is of ruling classes in general. Almost every character in this is a noble or related to a noble. They have their own world, their own society where everyone knows each other, and their own rules. The commoners are only considered in a vague sense, and often spoken of disparagingly as "small people."
The more powerful characters often talk about having people die for them. This struck me as an interesting double standard and not without resonance in the real world. The non-ruling class are still bound by the rules of morality, by ideals such as "heroism" and "valour." The ruling class deliberately construct a culture where it's seen as the ultimate virtue to work, fight, die and even kill for these rulers that actually care nothing about them and view them as disposable. It's like a one sided relationship where your partner expects your complete and unquestioned devotion but doesn't even love you themselves.
Anyway, onto the characters, because that was what I wanted to focus on. There are 8 POV characters. I enjoyed some POVs way more than others. I applaud the complexity of the story, with all its different interweaving storylines, and was able to appreciate most of the POV characters. I've attempted to rank them in order from favourite to least favourite.
1) Eddard Stark. As I said above, I loved him, right from that first scene where he's explaining to Bran about the execution. He is not completely pure or anything—he has done some shady things, fathering a bastard being the most prominent. But it is clear he regrets these things, although not in the sense that he wishes Jon didn't exist. In fact, he's more accepting of Jon than most lords are of their bastards. It's more in the way that he's willing to face up to what he's done wrong and improve himself, which to me, is one of the most admirable character traits ever.
Ned is undoubtedly a good person and the most stable character in the series. He is brave, resilient, caring and has a lot of conviction and integrity. He knows his morals and he sticks by them. These are all my favourite traits in a character. I love heroes. I already said that. And Ned is certainly a tragic hero.
(view spoiler)[ By the time I was halfway through the series, I knew Ned was going to die. Not only because I seem to have an unfortunate tendency for picking favourite characters who die, but the way the story is going, that outcome seemed inevitable. I was bracing myself for it, and deliberately attempting to emotionally detach from the story and make myself not care about it. Honestly, though, I think I did that because what happens to Ned is painfully close to the aspects of real life that I can't handle looking at. The aspects of real life which I attempt to use fiction to distract myself on.
At first glance, at least, it reinforces the idea that heroes don't stand a chance against the system. They will be more than just ridiculed and smeared. More than demonised or even fought. They will be effectively snuffed out of existence. No one will ever know their side of the story. They will never make any sort of impact, and over time they will be forgotten. It will be almost as if they never existed at all.
When Ned died, the truth died with him. Everyone else who knew the truth was committed to keeping it secret. In fact, I bet Joffrey himself didn't even know he wasn't the king's son (not that it makes me like Joffrey any more, mind you). And instead of a hero fighting for truth, the public see an evil traitor. Ned's family, of course, will say they don't believe he is a traitor. But all they can do is speculate. They don't know the full picture. No one does, or ever will. It really makes you wonder how many dark secrets have been buried in a similar way throughout history.
When I looked at exactly how things played out, however, I realised there's a bit more hope to Ned's story than I realised at first. Truth be told, it played out the way it did as a result of his foolish actions. Honestly, how can someone be smart enough to figure out that the "king's children" weren't really his children, but stupid enough to literally go to Cersei and tell her he'd figured it out? If he hadn't done that, Robert would still have been alive! And what was his reason for this ... "mercy?" Whatever, Ned. You could've saved your best friend's life by leaving Cersei out of it.
And then to completely miss his last chance at telling Robert (and thus fixing it all) because "he didn't want to hurt him?" Absolutely ridiculous! You could've saved your own life, saved your family a whole lot of grief and saved the family from a tyrannical rule.
The more you think about it, Ned's case becomes less of a "heroes don't stand a chance" tale and more of a "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Someone could totally succeed at exposing a secret such as this if they were smarter about it! And this is where I think the moral about being a little ruthless rings the truest. Being too softhearted was his downfall and the kingdom's. If only he had done what had to be done, he would've spared everyone a lot of suffering, including himself.
I'm glad he at least did the right thing when it came to confessing. It's sad that the truth died with him, but at this point, he'd worked his way in too deep and he no longer had a choice. If he'd decided to endanger his family, I would've been thoroughly disappointed in him. Thinking about Joffrey, though, and how he decided to kill him anyway, makes me too angry for words.
It really makes you wonder ... what mistake did Jon Arryn make to end up in the same position as Ned? Were the two Hands exactly the same? Isn't it weird, then, Robert's propensity for choosing Hands with that exact same paradoxical smart-but-stupid brand of heroism? It does signify his desire but lack of commitment, doesn't it? Of course, he also grew up with both of them, but somehow turned out rather less brave himself.
Honestly though, I am upset that he died in only the first book. The fact that he won't be in the sequels makes me a lot less interested in reading them. I wonder if they will replace his POV with someone else's and if so, with who. (hide spoiler)]
2) Daenerys Targaryen. She is actually the main reason I'm considering continuing the series. I will say she had to grow on me a little. I never actually disliked her, but at first, her chapters were hard going. I think at first it was a little hard because the other 7 POVs are very connected to each other and in the same place a lot of the time, whereas she's the only POV in her storyline. She's basically just got this whole separate storyline, and while it's connected to the backstories of the other 7 and I'm sure will connect up again honestly, it's also just its own thing and is very cool.
People will inevitably have issues with the representation of the Dothraki. Honestly though, while I can see the issues, I still enjoyed reading about them. I found them fascinating, and their culture rich and colourful and fascinating and beautiful. It was a very different feel from the stiff, cold Medieval England inspired Seven Kingdoms, and there was something that really moved me about it in a spiritual way. I think it was the connection to nature, the celebrations and revelling, the colour and expression and being out under the stars.
All that isn't about Dany herself. But it provides the backdrop for her epic character arc, which is intensely satisfying and deeply beautiful. She starts out very insecure and scared, but over the course of story we see her gaining confidence, and it's beautiful to watch her perspective on the world grow and change throughout the story. She is like Xifeng from Forest of a Thousand Lanterns, but with the potential to be even more amazing. She is still relatively innocent by the end of this book, but I'm expecting she will probably become a villain in a similar way to Xifeng.
The book finishes with her POV, and without spoiling anything, I just wanted to say I was really proud of her at the end, and my final thought on closing the book was: "I LOVE HER!!!"
3) Sansa Stark. Poor, poor Sansa. Aside from her overdramatising everything making her chapters invariably fun to read as there was always some huge, life altering catastrophe, I loved her because I really saw myself in her (especially myself at her age, but even myself now to some extent).
She's a sensitive, naive dreamer who can barely handle the real world. She's extremely judgemental but it's in an innocent, childish and oversensitive way ("i cAnT hAnDlE aNyThInG nOt BeAuTiFuL") rather than a malicious way. And she's a hopeless romantic (emphasis on "hopeless"). Her whole character arc is coming to terms with the fact that the things she loves are nothing like her romanticised image of them. That's traumatic, and painful, and something I deeply sympathise with. She has some awful things happen to her.
(view spoiler)[In fact, when Joffrey killed Ned, it wasn't even Ned I immediately felt sorry for. He's a hero. He'd accepted his own death, plus I'd already spent a lot of time feeling sorry for him and trying to extract myself. No, my first thought was "poor Sansa." What kind of person does what Joffrey did? What kind of person promises to spare his girlfriend's father and then kills him anyway? I already didn't like Joffrey, but this scene made me hate him with a passion. And then to start abusing her afterwards and force her to stay with him? Sansa was so determined to see the good in him even though he'd already shown her what a piece of trash he was, because she really loved him. To her, nothing was worse than the person she loved turning out to be bad.
I'm convinced that Loras Tyrell would've been a way better match for her. She shows interest in him at one point but it's just kind of forgotten about. (hide spoiler)]
4) Jon Snow. Jon was another character who captured my attention right from his first POV. There's something about his POV that just causes you to immediately feel for him (and no, it's not his upbringing, it's his POV—I don't automatically feel for characters just because of their past, the characters themselves have to be likeable). His internal monologue is always interesting, and he seems like a good person despite having anger issues.
(view spoiler)[ He ends up joining the Night Watch, of course, and it pleased me to have a POV character there, especially as the book opened with it. I love how the Watch becomes a family to him, and the way he fits in so well with the other boys. I love how kind he is to poor Sam. Sam's backstory is the most tragic in the whole series to me. When I read it, I experienced this intense reaction that I don't often get anymore. I really enjoyed watching him grapple with his confused loyalties and desire to completely fit in with the Starks, and how he even ran away from the wall, but his friends cared about him so much that they came after him to stop him. (hide spoiler)]
5) Arya Stark. There is a sister war between her and Sansa. I found it interesting how opposite these girls are. Where Sansa is the girly girl, Arya is the tomboy. She doesn't mind getting dirty. She hates being a lady and wants to learn to use a sword ... you know, all the usual tropes. She's also a lot more resilient and resourceful than Sansa.
What's the most interesting thing about her, though, is how much anger she has in her. That's what makes her compelling. I also loved her bond with Jon, and wished they could've spent more time together.
Weirdly, her chapters started out engaging but became less so as the story went on. I'm not sure why, especially as it was only later on that she started having actual adventures.
6) Bran Stark. To be honest, he doesn't deserve to be so low down. I love him. I feel nothing but love for him. I especially loved reading his earlier POV chapters. He's one of those precocious child characters who you can't help but fall in love with.
(view spoiler)[ However, after he had that fall and became a cripple, I found his chapters incredibly difficult to read. I would dread them, even. I think it was just because what happened to him is so devastatingly sad. I even think death would've been kinder. Keeping him alive like this is just cruel, Martin. (hide spoiler)]
7) Catelyn Stark. I'm not sure how I feel about her. Her chapters were always boring for some reason, and as a character I didn't find her particularly interesting. In fact, for a large part of the book I found her incredibly annoying, but I realised she had grown on me significantly while reading her final chapter.
(view spoiler)[ Her last scene, where she's begging Robb & co to make peace, was heartbreaking. It really showed what a sensitive and loving soul she is. The poor woman has lost her husband, is about to lose her father, had one son become crippled and the other beginning to start down a dark path. (hide spoiler)]
8) Tyrion Lannister. Ready for an inflammatory opinion? Okay. I HATED Tyrion. His chapters were a chore to get through. Despite his obvious struggles due to his size, I couldn't make myself feel sympathy for him. As I said above, I have to like a character to find them sympathetic, and Tyrion was just a horrible person. If I decide not to continue the series, it will be because of him.
Other thoughts:
I would've liked Robb's POV. I'm confused why he didn't get one, to be honest. He would've been so interesting.
Also, if this is meant to be the kind of book I think it is, why so few Lannister POVs? We only get Tyrion, who's a bit of an outcast. The vast majority of POVs being Starks (I'm counting Jon here, which would please him), naturally I sided with them. Why not give us at least one other Lannister POV, just to show some perspective? Or maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe I'm supposed to hate Lannisters. I thought we were getting something more complex!...more
I'm at a loss for words at this one. This. Was. AMAZING!!!
I already knew this book was going to be good, but I didn't think topping Troubled Blood wasI'm at a loss for words at this one. This. Was. AMAZING!!!
I already knew this book was going to be good, but I didn't think topping Troubled Blood was possible. Well, this series keeps getting better and better. I'm not sure if I'd say "The Ink Black Heart" was better than "Troubled Blood." But it was at least as good, and it will probably live in my memory for longer.
In this book, Rowling creates an incredibly twisty, immersive and believable online fan community. It feels like a whole world or entity exactly in the way a real fandom would. This is unique in the Strike series and JK Rowling's work. There are probably other books that do something like this, but I haven't read any of them, so it felt completely new to me. And as always, Rowling's razor sharp observations and social commentary lend authenticity to this online world. The comments, tweets, interactions and everything about it just feels exactly like real people on the internet. It's so brilliant it hurts, and I'm at a loss for words to sufficiently describe it.
Add to that Strike and Robin's amazing characters, who have been beloved to me for quite some time now, and their developing relationship... and I just could not put it down. I don't know if I've ever read such well written characters and romance.
Just about every other book I've read involving romance does insta-love. Even the ones that try hard not to do it still do it, because the whole storyline just takes place in such a short space of time. Everyone seems to think they can get away with characters meeting and then already being together by the end of one book, which might not feel like insta-love, but this one book usually only encompasses a few months at the most. Often less. Obviously, not all books are like that, but the ones I've read tend to have characters meeting, developing feelings for each other and getting together within a very short time frame. And I'm not saying that never happens in the real world. But it taking longer is probably more common.
Harry Potter actually comes to mind as an exception, as both Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione didn't officially get together until the end. Their feelings developed over seven years. This shows that Rowling has always been good at exercising restraint in regards to characters' relationships, but it also shows how much she's improved as a writer, because Strike/Robin is a level up from the relationships in Harry Potter. And yes, the pair drive me crazy sometimes with their constant denial that they like each other. But that's also what makes it feel so real, and their little breakthroughs so much more satisfying.
This book is the longest in the series so far, which did make me frustrated towards the end. It didn't drag per se, it just got more and more twisty and I just became desperate to find out who Anomie is. Every night I'd read for hours, stay up too late reading and then force myself to put the book down, even more frustrated: why can't I just know already?
Unfortunately, I'm getting better at figuring out culprits so the reveals are getting less impactful. I didn't actually figure it out this time, but there were a bunch of suspects who were so obvious that I was thinking if it turned out to be any of them, it would be a letdown. At least the culprit didn't turn out to be any of those, but there were a couple of people I suspected who I thought would've made more interesting culprits, and a lead I reckon should've been pursued but wasn't.
(view spoiler)[ I'm talking about Josh suspecting Bram. Now, I don't think Bram should actually have been Anomie, but I was sure that this suspicion wouldn't turn out to be entirely based. Nils was one of the "too obvious" crew, but I think it would've been really interesting if Anomie was Mariam, and she was finding out information by getting Bram to listen in at the door for her.
I also didn't like Katya and thought she seemed more sus than she ended up being. I fancied her as Anomie too, and I think that would've been more interesting than her son. However, I also think having her as an accomplice to Mariam would have worked, feeding Mariam information after the attacks, when neither cartoonist is at North Grove anymore so Bram doesn't have easy eavesdropping access. (hide spoiler)]
Now I just have to wait impatiently for the next book in the series!...more
This was the best Strike book so far. And I say this as someone who was already a fan of the series, and was really invested in Strike and Robin's chaThis was the best Strike book so far. And I say this as someone who was already a fan of the series, and was really invested in Strike and Robin's characters, and the development of their relationship. I took quite a break between Lethal White and this, and coming back to these two characters felt like such a relief. I hadn't realised how much I'd missed them.
We see some significant development in their relationship in this one, of the kind we've all been waiting for. But in addition to that, the case in this one was just more interesting than any of the previous cases they've solved. It grabbed my attention in a way the others hadn't quite done. In the past I would sometimes get a bit bored doing the interviews. This time, the interviews would get me so excited. Such a vivid picture of the victim, Margot Bamborough, is painted, that she feels thoroughly real, and my goodness- what a great character! I absolutely loved her! I also found all the other people involved in the case really fascinating. I would be really impatient to hear their side of the story, and really excited whenever they found another person and got to interview them.
I did, unfortunately, figure out the culprit this time, so the revelation was a lot less impactful then usual. However, I'm pretty sure I was only able to figure it out because I was looking at Goodreads reviews before I got to the reveal, and saw a spoiler of the culprit's gender. They certainly weren't the person I was initially suspecting before seeing that spoiler, but that person was the wrong gender. This was the only thing I didn't enjoy- I love having my mind blown by the culprit reveals, and to have my suspicions confirmed felt disappointing and anticlimactic. Fortunately, though, the book's final scene more than makes up for it.
This book has an extremely complex plot- kudos to JK Rowling for pulling it off! Not only is the central case itself very complex, but somehow Rowling also manages to have both Strike and Robin go through intensely personal stuff, and also include a few side cases which are quite fleshed out themselves. Not only that but she continues to develop the central relationship, and she pulls all these subplots together so well and doesn't leave any loose ends!...more
Well, that was a rollercoaster of a novel. It had me feeling really intense emotions, even crying at least twice. I'm so grateful that I'm not Oona LoWell, that was a rollercoaster of a novel. It had me feeling really intense emotions, even crying at least twice. I'm so grateful that I'm not Oona Lockhart, and that I get to live my life in order!
I also loved all the music that was included in so many meaningful ways. I hadn't heard most of it, but I'm so excited that this book has introduced me to so much new music! Here's a Spotify playlist that I made with all the songs mentioned in the book. It took me a few days to listen to all of it, and it was so rewarding being able to link all the songs to the book! Some of Montimore's music choices were really clever, and the lyrics matched her story so well- in particular, I'm in awe of the way she used "Little Red Corvette." The way it was referenced seemed on the surface to not relate much to the actual story, but the words match the relationship between Oona and the person who mentioned it so well!...more
NO the one suspect that I really didn't want to be the culprit turned out to be the culprit! I loved them and literally didn't care who it was just asNO the one suspect that I really didn't want to be the culprit turned out to be the culprit! I loved them and literally didn't care who it was just as long as it wasn't them- JK Rowling, how could you do this to me? (Yes, I know I technically should call her Robert Galbraith, but I don't care, it's not her real name.) Apart from that, though, I loved this book! I liked it a lot more than Career of Evil, which I wasn't the biggest fan of....more
This was not my favourite Cormoran Strike book. I found it to be quite heavy and some of the subject matter to be quite disturbing, and wanted a breakThis was not my favourite Cormoran Strike book. I found it to be quite heavy and some of the subject matter to be quite disturbing, and wanted a break from the series for quite a while after reading it. I also got really angry with Strike a lot in this one, especially in the last quarter of the book. Somehow I didn't get angry with Robin, though, even when she was making stupid reckless decisions.
There were some things I did appreciate about it, though- in particular, the revelation about the killer. Since we were limited to three suspects in this one and it was very obviously going to be one of them, I didn't think there was any way that J.K. Rowling could surprise me, but somehow she managed to blow my mind with the revelation yet again. Also, we get to learn about Robin and some of the traumas in her past, as well as quite a bit about Strike's tumultuous childhood, and I did enjoy finding out more about these characters....more
This second instalment of the Cormoran Strike series was, in most ways, better than book 1, The Cuckoo's Calling. I'd alrI couldn't put this one down!
This second instalment of the Cormoran Strike series was, in most ways, better than book 1, The Cuckoo's Calling. I'd already fallen in love with Strike and Robin in the first book, and it was exciting to return to these characters for the next instalment. However, the first book was a little slow for me, and this one I got into a lot more. I think my favourite thing about this one is how it delves into the literary world. I really appreciated it because I love books, therefore the literary world is interesting to me. Also, as this book was obviously written by a writer (and an experienced one at that- who believes the nonsense about this being their debut series?), she (yes, she- this was written by J.K. Rowling) knows the world she's writing about, so is able to make it all the more believable.
My only complaint was that I found the actual nature of the killing in this one to be quite gruesome and disturbing. The revelation of the killer didn't blow my mind in the same way it did in the first book either....more
I admit to being an obsessive Potterhead who only picked this up because it's actually written by J.K. Rowling. Although I'm open to reading most genrI admit to being an obsessive Potterhead who only picked this up because it's actually written by J.K. Rowling. Although I'm open to reading most genres, I don't usually read crime. But I'm convinced everything Rowling touches is gold- even though I'm not usually into the genre, I loved this!
I think what drew me in was the characters, in particular Strike and Robin. Rowling's characterisation is one of her gifts- she's written some of the strongest, most real-seeming characters I've ever read, and really knows how to take you into the heads of her protagonists. For instance, there were points during Harry Potter where I fully felt like I wasn't just reading about Harry- I was Harry. I don't think I'm the only Potterhead who felt that way, but people tend to attribute it to Harry being a "blank slate character" rather than Rowling's skill as a writer.
I don't think a "blank slate character" is something anyone is going to call Strike- he has too many distinctive characteristics that will make him unrelatable to most readers. I certainly don't have much in common with him- in fact, you could probably even say I'm the opposite of him in just about every way! I'm young, female, tiny, had a stable childhood, don't have much life experience, eat healthy food, probably would make a terrible detective... the list of our differences could go on and on. But somehow, when I read Strike's POV, none of that matters. Suddenly, I'm not Nurni anymore- I'm Cormoran Strike, private detective. He feels so intensely real to me that I fully inhabit him when I read his chapters, and this wasn't even something that happened gradually- it hit me full force the first time we got his POV. Although I've got to mention that it's weird he's always referred to by his surname, even from his POV. Who thinks of themselves as their surname rather than their first name?
You can probably tell how much I love Strike from that paragraph, which is why it's amazing that this series actually contains another character I love just as much: the other protagonist, Robin. Technically, she's more relatable to me than Strike- she's female, significantly younger with a lot less life experience (not to say that she hasn't been through stuff, though). Despite being able to inhabit Strike so intensely, I also really appreciate that there's also a protagonist who's more like me. She doesn't get much POV in the first book (I'm writing this after having read the next four books instead, because I'm trying to catch up on reviewing a bunch of books I read last year, as I hardly wrote any reviews last year), but in later books she gets it a lot more, and you really get to feel for her. She is such a breath of fresh air and a strong female character- and when I say that I don't mean in the annoying overcompensating kind of way. She's still very feminine and vulnerable, but also very brave and has a lot of strength of character. She feels a lot more real than most other female characters I've read, and is really inspirational to me.
In regards to this first instalment, it was a little slow and boring, especially compared to the later books. However, there was still stuff I enjoyed. Lula Landry, despite being dead for the entire book, was a great, colourful character and a huge presence in the story, and there were a couple of other characters I enjoyed too. Also, the revelation of who the killer was completely blew my mind. As I said above, I'm not that much of a crime reader, so it could just be my inexperience with the genre that lead me to not figure it out, but that doesn't stop it from being the most impactful plot twist of the last several years for me! I seem to remember that Harry Potter also had a lot of these startling revelations at the end of the books. I'm a lot better at figuring out plot twists before they happen than I was when I first read Harry Potter, and I don't get surprised as much anymore, but J.K. Rowling is still great at revelations I didn't see coming....more
J.K. Rowling is amazing at creating worlds. I know that sounds like a weird way to start a review of a realistic novel, but it's true- and just as eviJ.K. Rowling is amazing at creating worlds. I know that sounds like a weird way to start a review of a realistic novel, but it's true- and just as evident here as it is in Harry Potter. She has a strange gift for creating worlds that are completely immersive, feel completely real, and for the duration of the story, you feel like you're living in them. Although, in a lot of ways, there is nothing remarkable about the town of Pagford, we get so fully involved in its culture and social/political dynamics that it felt, to me at least, like losing myself in another world. Don't get me wrong- while I have, like many, dreamed of going to Hogwarts, I wouldn't want to actually live in Pagford. However, I thoroughly enjoyed "living" in these pages.
Perhaps what makes this world so immersive is the characterisation. Rowling has always been amazing at creating characters that feel real and multidimensional. Characters that we love or love to hate. In The Casual Vacancy, Rowling's skill at characterisation is perhaps on fuller display than it's ever been. The characters we meet are deeply flawed but undeniably human. Most of them are not particularly likeable people, and I probably wouldn't like them if I met them in real life. However, I grew to deeply care about and sympathize with the majority of them.
I particularly loved Krystal Weedon. She was so free spirited and resilient. Although most of her choices didn't quite work out, she clearly was committed to bettering herself and her family. (view spoiler)[ Rowling, why do you have to keep killing off my favourite characters? The ending ruined me. It was like Dumbledore's death all over again. (hide spoiler)]
In regards to other characters I particularly liked, I loved Sukhvinder as well. She did do some bad things, but over all she was a genuinely good and sensitive person who cared about others and who most definitely redeemed herself in the end. (view spoiler)[ I have so much admiration for her jumping off the bridge to try and save Robbie. What an unexpected act of heroism. (hide spoiler)]
I also really liked Kay, and don't really feel like she did anything particularly wrong. She was a strong and intelligent woman who wanted to make the world a better place. She was sensitive and a bit of a romantic but also not okay with being taken advantage of, and I hated Gavin's lack of respect for women in general. He kept going on about how he wanted someone more subservient and it was really offensive.
The other character I feel inclined to discuss is Fats Wall. He was not a good person, and there's no denying it- however, I found reading about him to be immensely cathartic. His theories about morality and "authenticity" strongly spoke to some of the darkest parts of myself, and it just turns out that he came into my life at the perfect time, as I've been ruminating on similar themes a fair bit recently.
The only characters who I disliked for the whole book were Howard and Shirley Mollison and Simon Price. I was able to empathise with Shirley a little towards the end (view spoiler)[ when it was revealed that Howard had cheated on her, and when she had to deal with his heart attack (hide spoiler)]- but her reaction to what happened made me not feel as much empathy as I might have liked. (view spoiler)[ She seemed to be mainly concerned with her reputation, as was typical of her throughout the whole book. (hide spoiler)] So I still really, really dislike her. She was basically Umbridge 2.0.
I think this book is hugely underrated. I get some people would have preferred fantasy, but who cares? It's still J.K. Rowling's writing style, and I think it's great that she's showing that she can pull off different genres, and that she has the audacity to experiment and just write whatever she pleases rather than trying to make all her books fit the same market. This time, she's pulled off yet another complex plot, and, as always, got me hanging on to every word....more
Loading...
