The Review

And not after all that anticipation I bring to you my very important opinion of the book Conspiracy of Kings by Megan Whelan Turner.

It was great.

Oh, wait, you want more specifics? Are you sure about that you could be opening a never ending gush here. OK. Specifics it is. Without spoilers. O dear. I shall try.

As usual for Megan Whelan Turner there are a lot of things that aren't stated outright in the narration but are revealed later. For example that one significant detail in Sophos's dreams and what he plans to do at his final confrontation with his would be usurpers. Most of them are pretty easy to guess at though. There isn't any "OH MY GOD WHAT!?!!" moment of revelation but it is still fun to be kept on your toes and be left to figure things out for yourself.

Sophos's character was a very interesting perspective to see the story from. He's much more honest than Eugenides for one thing --though one might argue not quite as clever. But not to be underestimated either. In the space between this book and The Thief --the last time we saw Sophos (or should I be calling him Sounis?)--and even more during the course of Conspiracy of Kings he goes through a lot of changes. There is no mistaking him for the same boy who slept late and let Gen steal his food but he also becomes quite fierce. On more than one occasion he is called 'lion'. He still blushes. I love that he still blushes. It is a true mark of Turner's genius that she is able to grow him up without loosing that sweet self-conscious boy that he was. It is the extreme contrast of him being entirely one thing but also entirely the other that makes him such a multi-layered human being, struggling through different stages of his life. I think this contrast in identity is what makes all her characters seem so real instead of characterized plot points.

The book is partly told in first person and partly in third. I love how the voice is so different for both but also consistent for Sounis' (shall I call him Sounis now?) character. Turner is not afraid to play with the format but the switching of narrative isn't a gimmick either. It contours to the needs of the story. In the beginning if we have been reading the other books we want an immediate connection with Eugenides and even promise of the role he's going to play before we're ready to plunge into what has been happening to Sophos -sorry I mean Sounis-- all this time. There are also some things that need to be to be expressed from inside the minds of other characters toward the middle of the story. Having him relate where he has been to another character is the obvious solution.

The story is exciting and intriguing and it ends happily (oops is that a spoiler?) but even though Sophos gets everything he's after I'm left feeling a little sad for him. He's just so convenient to everybody. His dad, Eugenides, the magus, Edis. They don't ask him if he wants to do things for them. He does of course but they don't ask. I don't know what that will do to their relationships in the next books. (there are supposed to be two more but, alas Ms. Turner takes so long to write her books)

In conclusion. Read this book. It is fabulous.

One

One

Two

Two

"The King of Attolia" 15 Days.

15 days. This time I'm sure. I promise. March 23rd is the day. (the one good thing about not actually having any readers is I don't have to be embarrassed about counting almost all the way down to the wrong date.)

Its been almost a week since I finished The King of Attolia so some of my enthusiasm will have worn down. Sad but true. I do, however, think it was a fabulous book. The first time I read it I remember being frustrated that it was from Costis' point of view mostly instead of Eugenides but, maybe because I was forewarned this time around I liked it.
In the first book Turner tricks us by not telling major pieces of information about the character even though it is first person. As fabulous as that was she can only get away with it once. So, the Queen of Attolia is told in third person. All very well. That way you have more characters' heads to sort out and we are still surprised. Still, after those surprises we know more about those characters as well and can sort out what they'r really thinking much faster. It King of Attolia she needed another angle to come from because even if we aren't entirely surprised with all of Eugenides' escapades Costis is and we can enjoy his confusion. it also helped to show Gen proving himself --which is mostly what the plot is based around. If we were in his head the entire time we would never have seen him as the whinny little guy who doesn't want to be king and at the end, because so much of Eugenides' character is a mixture of extreme vulnerability and amazing prowess, we wouldn't have seen the strong leader that his guards learn to recognize him as.
That said, I don't think the book is quite as amazing as the first two. Don't get me wrong. It is good, and a necessary link between the Queen of Attolia and, I'm guessing, Conspiracy of Kings. We need to see how he gain the loyalty of his subjects, but most of the book is more antics than a heavy plot. Not to say for a moment that those antics aren't entertaining or that there is not plot at all. Still, it is not quite the riveting compilation of events that just fit together so perfectly by book's end that The Thief and The Queen of Attolia are.

The Queen of Attolia: Countdown 8 Days

Wow. Eight days. One day more than a week. You know the transition from *I-am-excited-because-I-know-this-will-be-great-and-it's-coming-up* to *Oh-my-god-oh-my-god-oh-my-god-oh-my-god-its-so-close-I-can-already-see-it-and-its-gonna-be-better-than-great*? I've just made it.

I think this largely has to do with the fact that I just finished re-reading The Queen of Attolia and am now almost done with the King of Attolia (but I will hold comments on that until I've given 'The Queen'a good run through). I'm wondering if I ought to have put off reading them another couple of days because now I'm going to have a whole week to suffer through in fresh suspense. But I've survived FOUR YEARS of that suspense right? What's another eight days?

A life time. That's what.

It is odd the things I remembered from The Queen of Attolia and the things I forgot. I remembered the scenes in the dungeons, and the 'calve's love' scene on the stairs and the kidnapping of the magus and Gen's excessive sulking, the eatings, his divine message of "stop whining". I completely forgot about the betrayal of the gods and the shattering glass. Him visiting the wounded. Mostly I forgot how much he grows up in this book. How fierce he becomes. How much pain he goes through. How crazy he is.

Before when I read this book I though it was a good story but I also got tired of listening to Gen sulk because I wanted to more involved in the action of the story. Now I realize that that IS the action. The irrepressible thief gets caught. He looses his hand. He looses his livelihood and possibly who he is is destroyed and he has to find a way out of that. Maybe its because I've done some growing up myself since I was sixteen (despite all the measures I've taken against it). I don't know, but I've found his sulky, bitter behavior not only understanding but also entertaining and in many ways moving. And the betrayal of the gods at the end --just when you think that everything is finally resolved and working itself out --hit me like a lightning bolt.

Well done Megan Whelan Turner. Well done. (because you know . . . be approval matters . . . and stuff)

The Thief. Countdown: 17 days

I finished The Thief last night. I forgot how good it was . . . or maybe I never actually realized that. I read it seven? years ago after my sister read it, sequel first, and thrust it upon me, proceeding to thrust it on two of my good friends at the time (also sequel first) and it became one of those things we were constantly talking about, posting "Eugenides is mine" all over our message boards, giving each other nick-names from the book (I got to be Attolia because I was the evilest even though I was the only one NOT in love with Eugenides) etc. so I've always loved it. Of course I loved it . . . without ever having paid that much attention to the book itself. I read so many books, so fast at that time that I seldom took the time to digest them.

The most obvious thing that sets this book apart is the surprise ending but I don't know if that is the most outstanding thing about it. It was well done to be sure, everything subtly in place, but I think there is also a lot to be said about the over all tone of the book, the unusual characters of both Eugenides and the magus, the mixture of invented Greek history and mythology that feels so legitimate. I've noticed an advent of a lot of mediocre YA fantasy lately and am glad to be reminded that there is actually some genius out there as well. It's just good. An adventure story with a little philosophical contemplation, a lot of character, a beautiful setting and brilliant ending. What's not to love?

Oh yes. And I may be guilty of being just a little --a little --in love with Eugenides this time.

Instead of Three Wishes. Conspiracy of Kings countdown continues.

Really? Only 49 days left? That doesn't give me much time to read the rest of her novels does it? (I am excited though! Only a little more than a month and I can find out what's been happening to Sophos all this time. . .)

I FINALLY picked up Instead of Three Wishes at the library this week and it was SIGNED by none other than Megan Whelan Turner herself. If it didn't say, quite plainly 'for the librarians at ---- library' I would probably just keep the book and consider being forever banned from the library for fear of them realizing I'm the one who took it worth the exchange.

Ok. Maybe not. I would have to get books from somewhere. But still. Its tempting.

I've only actually read one of the stories so far (I fear I got a bit distracted with Juliet Marillier's Foxmask. Fabulous book --and I was convinced I would never like Marillier) but it WAS very amusing. Short stories have never been something I could master. I can manage a 'tale' in a page or two so long as all the events and characters are just a little vague and summery-like but once I really get into a character's head --or describing the setting or any other detail that makes it all tangible . . . oh dear me. I've got another half finished novel on my hands. Half finished novel. If I could sell those I'd be a millionaire . . . but I degrees.

Instead of Three Wishes. First story: A Plague of Leprechaun

(O dear, the little people heard me didn't they? And I not even Irish. They'll curdle me milk for sure)

A cute story. Clever. The plague of tourists I can understand, Irish or no. And the sanctity of art even if I can't draw anything more than a stick figure myself. I don't suppose there is much one can say about a short story without giving everything away but the characterizations were quick and vivid and the pacing quick, the details colorful and original. Charming. Now if only I can unlock the secret to such mastery myself.

Deerskin: an analysis

Beauty --by Robin McKinnley = perfect in every particular

Spindle's End -by Robin McKinnley = fabulous for the most part, though a bit frustrating in format and a bit vague towards the end

The Blue Sword - by Robin McKinnley = fascinating and exciting, if a little heavy on the feminism

The Hero and the Crown -by Robin McKinnley = long and tedious, with a few interesting side characters but an annoying protagonist and no particular point to the adventure as a whole

The Door in the Hedge - by Robin McKinnley = Enchanting. Tantalizing. A perfect collection of fairy stories.

The Outlaws of Sherwood -by Robin McKinnley = Dry and lifeless, laced with more feminism than I can handle for a story about men camping out in the woods

Deerskin -by Robin McKinnley = Distinctly McKinnley in a way that reminded me why I used to love her books


I must refrain myself from getting into another rant about her treatment of Robin Hood in his own legend and her insistence that all her protagonists must be women running out to prove that they are every bit as though as the men --that they always end up bigger than life in a way that the reader can't really feel triumphant when they win because it turned out to be no contest. I am going to talk about Deerskin, and Deerskin I liked.

Deerskin is based off of Charles Parault's story Donkeyskin. If I ever read the original I don't remember it (I went through a stage where I read volume after volume of fairy stories and one princess in disguise wearing a dress as silver as the moon blended in with all the rest) so I don't know how closely she followed it. I do know that she seems to do better with Fairy Tales and usually follows them pretty closely (though I'm still afraid to try Rose Daughter in fear of it somehow taking away from Beauty).

All the "McKinnleyness" that usually gets on my nerves just worked for the storyline. Yes, Lissar started out as a girl smothered in silks, trapped in what everyone else conceived as her proper life, expected to live up to ridiculous standards --but, well so much more literally 'smothered' and 'trapped' that I didn't think she was being mellow-dramatic for one minute. I won't deny that her 'animal-following' didn't bother me --just a little --but it did make sense. It was more like living with the wolves than the usual parade of adoring animals that follow McKnnley's heroines. Even the laser-light like show at then end in her final confrontation, though a bit bizarre, made sense because --especially after the long chapters of struggling for the very simplest of survival --you understand that she NEEDS super-human strength to do what she has to do. The prince was cute too --even though he was described as pretty homely and non-prince-like.

Part of the reason I didn't read this one way back when I went through my McKinnley stage (before I got too frustrated to go on) was because of a review I read from a reviewer that I usually agreed with --at that point anyways. It's been awhile. But I seem to remember (and here's where the heavy spoilers come in, just to warm you) that their main problems with it were. 1)In the beginning Lissar is weak and shuts herself in her room, almost waiting to be raped. 2) A large portion of the book is her wondering around in the wilderness, feeling miserable and sorry for herself and 3) when she miscarries she doesn't seem to have maternal grief. As for 1) --that really is the point isn't it? She is a princess. Beautiful. Neglected. Penned up. Innocent. She doesn't think of running away (for one thing she doesn't know where the garden door is) because the empty-halled palace is the only place she's ever known and she doesn't have anywhere to run to. as for 2) --as much as I'm for skipping to the exciting parts of a story and as much as I was craving human contact by the time those portions were done with, because so much of the book has to do with her physiological and emotional journey we NEED to see those bits so we understand her and really see what her parents have done to her --not just her father but her being so unprepared and then running around in the wild, trying to escape -to survive. yes, we are hearing every particular about her sweeping the floor and trying to take a bath, but in the state she is in those are impossible feats that help her to accomplish truly impossible feats later on. As for the third complaint --that's just plain ridiculous, as she shuts out the acknowledgment of ever having a father, let alone his child even as it is being miscarried BECAUSE it is too much for her to handle and she is certainly not void of maternal instincts, as shown later when she rescues the doomed puppy litter. Perhaps because of the lost child even if she doesn't dare remember why.

I think what enchanted me most about the book was the style. The plot wasn't perfect. There were a few extra things I wanted resolved at the end and the bizarre magic that came from nowhere in particular did get on my nerves. But the prose was . . . distinct. It was itself without adhering to the modern rules of writing. Maybe that is because it was written over ten years ago and the standards were different back then. There was much less 'showing as apposed to telling', very long periods of narrative summery rather than direct scenes and not everything was told in chronological order. I find this intriguing, for now that I think of it Beauty was much the same. I am almost tempted to read her new Dragonsbane --or even Sunshine even though I've never been partial to vampire stories --to see if this is her personal style or more of a late eighties/early nineties trend. Perhaps a stage in her writing development. I say "almost" tempted though and I mean almost because I have to many other things on my to-read list and Dragonsbane looks far too much like an "Eragon the McKinnley version" to me. And I'm sick of vampires.

I remain inconclusive about the author as a whole.

I promised you a Megan Whelan Turner shrine for the next couple of months didn't I? Rest assured I will be picking up Instead of Three Wishes at the library tomorrow and will begin posting reviews. We still have 58 days left.