1. bainespal says:

    A “gritty” novel eschews the Purell approach to conflict

    What’s the “Purell approach to conflict”? I’m guessing that it doesn’t have much to do with the hand sanitizer product.

    Indeed, the plot frequently feels like nothing more than an extended illustration of the trite secular notion that “everything happens for a reason.”

    I think the determinism builds a greater theme about the inevitability of doom. The Reamar are deterministic in their thinking, too.

    Tension is palpable and boredom impossible when one shares a room with Daman.

    I wasn’t particularly impressed with Daman. I liked the Reamar much better as villains. Daman doesn’t seem particularly unpredictable to me; he’s pretty much just a depraved maniac played straight. The Reamar, on the other hand, have real depth and complexity.

    • “The Purell approach to conflict” is merely my attempt to be cleverly metaphorical whilst referencing the popular Christian notion that a realistic portrayal of sin is itself sin. Example: at times, reading a Frank Peretti novel can feel like watching an R-rated film that’s been censored for TV. Though the villains may brutally lay waste to everything around them, they’re unimpeachably scrupulous when it comes to their language. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, either; I respect Peretti for his personal conviction against allowing his characters to swear, and there are plenty of things I’d never allow my characters, whether good or bad, to do in front of the reader. My point about “gritty” novels is that they tend to shy away from any kind of restraint that would make them feel as though they’d been meant to appeal to little old ladies who sit in the front pew. And I definitely got a “gritty” vibe from Bid the Gods Arise.

      ARR, THAR BE SPOILERS BELOW! PROCEED AT YER OWN PERIL!

      I love creeping, drawn-out, milked-for-all-it’s-worth foreshadowing. I really, really do. But that isn’t what I got from this novel. While I agree that the Reamar (excepting Réus) are plenty fatalistic, I didn’t really sense much in the way of inevitability from the rest of the story, at least not in a good way. I mean yeah, Maurin is notified again and again that he’s Very Special — that he is, in fact, The Chosen One — but we never see much evidence of his supposed greatness until the very end when, outnumbered and surrounded and without a thing in the world left to lose, he decides to go out in an unplanned blaze of glory without any reasonable hope of survival. To me, it feels much more like a pity-of-Bilbo-justified moment than a loyalty-to-Aragorn-vindicated moment. I was told rather than shown what to expect, and I didn’t buy it. The payoff felt disconnected from its setup. While the story’s resolution might’ve managed to sneak up on me, it failed to flow from the preceding pages with a seamless sense of retrospective inevitability.

      And that’s just one of the reasons the novel’s sovereignty-of-Yasul theme feels trite to me. Another is the fact that victory comes so cheaply. Réus’ is the only death throughout the length and breadth of the novel for which I have cause to mourn. No one is ever in any real danger. Eventually, the duels and melees begin to feel like dance lessons for exceptionally awkward leads and follows: lots of stumbling around accompanied by incremental explication. At no point after the first third of the book did I experience any tension whatsoever. Yeah, Aric ends up selling his soul to purchase deity, but nothing bad comes of it by the story’s conclusion. He gets to save his brother, destroy his enemies, and then crawl back in bed with a supermodel goddess. What’s so terrible about that?

      Regarding the Reamar as villains, I suppose you have a good point. I was quite impressed, actually, with Réus’ change of heart. I hadn’t seen that coming at all. But, since every other Reamar is pretty much played straight as a slavering parasite hidden behind a veneer of social graces, I kinda disassociated him from the rest of the pack in my mind. I think the reason Argoneis made so much more of an impression on me is because I interacted with him almost exclusively through the eyes of Krige — a surprisingly sympathetic sycophant ceaselessly on edge. By way of comparison, the reader only enters the Reamar court after Aric gets captured, and Reamar politics is so alien that it takes a while even after that event for the fault lines of Reamar scheming to become apparent. By then the book’s almost over. Perhaps they’ll prove more interesting and unsettling in the sequel.

  2. It’s actually very instructive to read a well-thought-out critical review. I appreciate your returning to the novel (even if it did take a long hiatus for a more experienced author), and very much appreciate all the effort you put into this review.

    I am in the process of amending the book for a second edition, minus several editing relics and a number of typos. Though I suspect that I will not be changing anything that would affect continuity (the book has been rewritten enough times already), I hear your voice as I go through line by line and consider word choices. Ironically, a few of your concerns were actually addressed in a more ponderous earlier draft, but my editor convinced me that some of those scenes were extraneous, and in retrospect, I thought they would work better in the sequels.

    It is interesting to see what people connect to in the story. I’ve had people who love the characters, people who are indifferent towards the characters, and everyone seems to have their own favorites, depending on what they relate to, I guess. Krige more or less evolved out of a need to have some scenes with the villain without going into his POV. I decided early on that I wanted no scenes from the Reamar’s POV or from Argoneis’s, so I needed someone close to him that would let the reader know what was happening in his corner of the world. He tied the story together better than I expected, and has proven to be surprisingly popular in terms of character complexity.

    I suppose it’s difficult to find that fine line between showing and telling, particularly when two of the characters (Talauna and Shallar) are effectively mute, and perception is the name of the game. (You have probably noticed that no one is a wholly reliable narrator in this tale.) I wanted the Reamar and Daman to have more reputation than actual screen time, so that people would never know quite what to think.

    Anyway, I am always glad to read another view on the story, and wish sometimes that I could have had the benefit of the varied levels of input in a writers group. I am hard at work on the sequel, and will be very interested in seeing the kind of feedback it generates.

    Many blessings.

    • I thank you, sir, for this gracious response to my discontent. Upon opening my inbox and discovering that The Author Himself had commented on my review, I broke into a bit of a cold sweat. No need. Though your reaction was the one I was dreading when I scrunched my eyes shut and hit “Submit,” you’ve kept it classy. Hopefully this exchange will help reassure other readers that’s it’s acceptable and even beneficial to review the works of Christian spec-fic authors with as much honesty and objectivity as possible.

      Regarding writing groups, yes. A thousand times yes. Even a single outside angle on one’s art can be immeasurably valuable, and the more (thoughtful) reader-reactions an author’s able to witness, the more precisely he’s able to hone his craft. “By wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.” (Prov. 24:6) As a writer, I’m always foraging for responsive readers. How I wish I could just go and sign up at a local Inklings Union or something!

      Regarding Krige. He interested me because he seemed capable of simultaneously embodying Caileen’s moral decay and its hope for redemption. One moment he’s laughing nervously and looking the other way while Argoneis competes with Nero for Detestable Tyrant of the Millennium, the next moment he’s plotting to subvert the established order and reinstitute something vaguely resembling justice. His internal struggles are what allowed me to swallow the extravagant dystopia that is Argoneis’ realm. When I finally realized Krige had been raping Talauna the whole time she was with him, I almost got angry at myself for continuing to lend him sympathy. It was his ongoing concern for her safety that kept my teetering respect for him from collapsing. When he finally came face-to-face with the central protagonists and was rejected, a part of me filled with sadness. I feel like he could realistically end up practically anywhere as a character. His arc, more than anyone else’s, seems indicative of the fate of Argoth as a whole, at least in my mind.

      Anyway, I’m deeply gratified to learn that my critiques may end up aiding your revision and writing process. I wish you Godspeed as you move forward with the hard work of actually creating stuff in the first place.

  3. bainespal says:

    (spoilers)

    Krige makes for a fascinating discussion. Although I think I generally had a more positive reaction to the book than Austin, I was fairly indifferent to the characters most of the time. But for Krige, that the sense of indifference was important to the character.

    Throughout my reading of the book and still after thinking back on it, I’ve considered Krige to be an audience stand-in character. I felt that the effect of him being somewhat empty and morally “neutral” was to allow the reader to understand how much it sucks to be around Daman Argoneis as a normal person just trying to get by in life. I was not really surprised or offended to learn that he’d been raping Talauna. He couldn’t be too righteous, or we would stop being able to see through his eyes because we would like him too much. As a morally compromised but still understandable and average character, he sort of serves as a meta-journalist.

    Anyways, interesting to see how my thoughts differ from Austin’s.

    • Perhaps it’s just ’cause I see the world in shades of black and white, but I don’t think it’s possible to be morally neutral. To my mind, Krige has the potential to be a real mover and shaker in subsequent novels.

      It’s funny how often our perception of virtue turns out to be nothing more than a matter of contrast. Were Krige to ensconce himself at the Round Table in Camelot, we’d revile him as a wretched scumbag — a pathetic excuse for a human being, let alone a man. The only character traits we’d notice would be those which stood out: his alcoholism, his lust, his despondency, his cowardice. Especially the cowardice, since that’s the cardinal sin in the world of storytelling. But stick him in a room with Daman Argoneis and he appears an angel, for very different characteristics now stand out: his shrewdness, his self-control, his compassion, his persistence of conscience.

      If his doom is tragedy then I will mourn, for he could’ve realistically risen above his vices. If his destiny is redemption then I will rejoice, for he might’ve plausibly slipped through the fingers of grace. That’s the kind of tension that’ll elicit emotion in a reader.

      • bainespal says:

        Perhaps it’s just ’cause I see the world in shades of black and white, but I don’t think it’s possible to be morally neutral.

        I don’t literally believe in moral neutrality, either. I think Krige is supposed to seem neutral though. He’s supposed to come across as an average, unambitious sinner, not as a soulless devil.

        To my mind, Krige has the potential to be a real mover and shaker in subsequent novels.

        That would be an interesting move. I agree that it seems fairly likely that his role will change. He didn’t have that much of a character arc in Bid the Gods Arise, but he seems lined up to receive more of one. Any change would disrupt his illusory “neutral” dynamic, making him either contemptible or admirable.

        It’s funny how often our perception of virtue turns out to be nothing more than a matter of contrast. […] But stick him in a room with Daman Argoneis and he appears an angel, for very different characteristics now stand out: his shrewdness, his self-control, his compassion, his persistence of conscience.

        That’s a good observation! I never thought of him as an “angel” even in the presence of Argoneis, but the principle stands.

What do you think?