Robin Hobb "The Mad Ship"

The cover art

This is the second book in The Liveship Trilogy. I've spoken of the first book a bit in a previous post. I'll try to be vague when talking of this book since I don’t really want to give away the elements in this book, for it would ruin the reading experience (if one were to decide to read the book for oneself).

It had been a while since finishing the first book, so in the beginning I had to recall the things mentioned in the first book to understand this one. The little pieces of information started coming back bit by bit as I read… for the information, the book consists of separate (for now) storylines. One tale is continued, then another, then another, and then the first one is continued again. I'm not sure I explained this well, but I’m trying to say that you don’t get one big story from some story-teller’s perspective. You get many different viewpoints (within one little storyline you can get 3 or more different perspectives at different time; very insightful) and also you can have a peek at things happening at the same time in different places.

Anyway, Hobb's style is one that lets you in on the secret bit by bit, while everything seems logical at all times – since you see stuff from the people’s perspective, your eyes are the character’s eyes and the character’s knowledge is your knowledge. So someone explains things and it sounds logical, despite later finding out that there was much the explainer didn’t know… That way you feel as a part of the story, you’re there, you’re everywhere. It feels good.

Right now I have quite a point of comparison since I just started reading C.S. Lewis’s “The Magician's Nephew” and the whole world is offered to me on a plate. I sort of feel cheated… it would be so nice to explore and live in the world the writer creates… Lewis denies me that (well, it is quite a children’s book and they wouldn’t understand otherwise) while Hobb didn’t.

I don’t remember how I felt when I had just finished the first book in the series. Right now I feel good. I now know so much more than before reading (of how this world works, the mythology etc) and I've a clearer idea of how the stories are going to be linked together in the end (I'm quite sure they will be – that seems to be the ending style of this sort of technique). The book ended with a note that left open SO many possibilities and I don’t have the means to find out what happens next! That is kind of infuriating but also kind of fun.

I can now dwell on the book a bit, I can read other things (though they seem so foreign right now)… The Lewis books are small and easy to read, I think they'll go fast (during the bus ride – 30 minutes – I read approx 50 pages of 180). That gives my reading habits some diversity (reading big fat books takes a lot of time, you see – but I love it).

But the book, I get diverted as I try to talk of this book. People grow in that book. A little girl goes from a shallow gossiper to a woman facing very difficult situations. A boy who is unhappy about his destiny changes his way of looking at life and makes quite a difference.

There's been quite some talk of selfishness here (and how every action has a consequence). Generally the selfish (or wrongly calculated) acts have tended to end with quite a tragedy (the whole dragons & serpents ordeal, for example). It was stunning when the moment came in the book when it was revealed how a whole other race (so to speak) was stripped of its rightful heritage and faced extinction simply because one 'race' had claimed something that didn't belong to them. The trouble became known hundreds of years later, I think (I'm not too sure of the timeline), so the doers don't really face up to their doings. Their heirs do.

There is also talk of respecting the ways and contracts of the ancestors (can't help but remember Russia here - they didn't even need hundreds of years to pass)... are they really old and not fit in the 'modern' world? Does that hold back progress? Can one side simply choose to avoid them? That thing is still not settled, so I'm not sure what the author thinks. I'm not sure what to think, yet. What else was there?

Why don't people listen and believe? It's weird how words have become a means of using someone and now they're not believable. There is little trust because there are so much lies. So you lie and you lie and you lie (or you rave like a madman)... and when at one point there's a need to tell the truth, nobody listens. I've felt that myself, sadly. But I've also been on the receiving end of the lies, so I'm not too trusting myself. I'd like to trust. But you can't. You have to watch out, since you can't see if it's the truth or not. Grr.

What's going to happen now?

PS. I think I'm going to talk a bit closer about the plot after I finish book 3 (I'll try to think of a way to hide the spoilers - perhaps changing the color of the text. Maybe there's a "spoiler" tag somewhere for HTML?). I want to dwell on the plot a bit as well! But I don't want to spoil things. A dilemma. Really.

Karen Miller's "The Awakened Mage"

The Australian editions

So that's the series. I think that's the first time I read a duology. They're not very common, either, so it's not really surprising. I'm not sure if Bradley's Avalon-books qualify to that category...

The second book revealed more of this world's secrets and concluded the story, with a (relatively) happy ending and all that. Compared to say, Meyer, this was at times so desperate, it seemed as if everything was doomed - the main character about to die, the evil wizard was made king, the prince had to sacrifice his friend for the kingdom... and I was thrilled! It felt so good that there were good times and bad times (all these deaths, amazing). It felt almost real. (:

What did we get from this book/series? Firstly, another point of view on magic (in this world you had to pay with your own blood literally for the (Doranen) magic you did). Secondly, the author analyzed the thin line between the king's authority and laws (who knows better - a woman 600 years dead who made the country blossom or the reigning monarch in desperate need of keeping power away from the wrong hands?). Eventually greed, strict obedience of laws and misunderstandings (mostly due to lack of trying) led to destruction (which had to be mended with more 'breaking the law')...

So who knows better, actually? Is it wiser to follow laws strictly, even if they may seem stupid or pointless (what use is banning the use of Olken doing magic if Olken cannot seem to do magic?) or should authoritative people have the right to bend the law to their will, in order to grant the welfare of everyone? It's a tricky question, actually. There are so many people who, if given power, would take advantage of it. There's no way to tell if a man has good intentions or not since life's stage is full of actors and actresses. So by saying that the law applies to everyone... you keep power from reaching the wrong hands. But what if the power were to reach right hands? Someone who knows how to use it for everyone's benefit? What if the law were to get in the way of doing a good deed? Does the end justify the means?

I was once told that finding a 'third party' who doesn't have a 'personal' interest in the matter is virtually impossible. (The topic then was providing humanitarian aid for countries in need via military means and we hoped we could find a third party to determine which countries actually need the help...) It makes sense actually. It's a very-very naive thought, since everything around us has a direct or indirect effect on us. If we're involved in anything, its results affect us directly.

So if one were to have the power to do so, one would most likely wish to grand oneself a better life (there really isn't anyone (maybe a few) like Hobb's Mountain Kingdom royalty who literally served their people)... and that's already misusing the power. Generally laws put a stop to that and if one can bypass those boundaries, there's no telling what one will do.

It's kind of tormenting to watch (read), though. If you're reading the book from the 'good guy's' perspective, you know his thoughts and personality pretty much through and through. And if you see someone with his people's needs in mind... someone like that deserves to be free to do as he sees best since he knows what he's doing! But that's all book-stuff. In reality you can't waltz into someone else's mind and see what their intentions look like.. can you? No, guess not.

There was also a bit about expectations and living up to them... and what happens if living up to them simply isn't meant to be. I'm talking of Prince Gar the Magickless, the cripple, an inkblot on the royal scroll... In this book he gets a chance to fulfill his purpose as a member of the royal family (which was actually part of the evil mastermind's plan)... seems like a gift from Barl, doesn't it? But the plan also meant that that chance did not last forever.

And as it turns out, some people have hidden qualities to them (you know, like 600 years ago a prophet said that you'll have magical abilites). On the one hand, using these abilities means breaking the most important law. On the other hand, if kept secret, it could save the kingdom. Fascinating, really.

What else was there? The secret society (who knows the truth hidden from the public), placing duty above all else... the pawn-thing ended kind of well - obviously at first there was resentment but in the end love conquered it all. (: But that's not all there is to the story, obviously.

Also, I have to say that the final pages went by way too quickly. The final battle was quite short compared to the events that led up to it. I've yet to decide whether that's a good thing.

I'm hoping my cousin owns more of Miller's books (those two were his, actually), since it was quite a good read. I enjoyed her style and story (in fact, at times I got so excited I felt like screaming ;D)... Can't wait for more!

PS. I think I use too many brackets.

K. Miller's "The Innocent Mage"

Kingmaker, Kingbreaker duology

I've yet to read the second book (I only just finished the first one)... but this is stunning! There's simply SO MUCH in here. Aside from the obvious, a tale of commonfolk and royalty (which is great fun to read) like Hobb's Farseer Trilogy etc, it has so many layers. There's analyzing the law, power in general, people as pawns... and so much more!

Is knowledge itself or simply its reaching the wrong hands a dangerous (evil) thing? Should we shy away from precious knowledge if it might disrupt the current peace and calm? Does the law apply to everyone? Where do you draw the line between justice and vengeance and which is preferable? Simple life or politics (read the previous post)? Is it right to use people as pawns in the game of life (does the end justify the means?), uncaring of their own feelings, petty things? ...

Is royalty any different from "common" people and should they be treated as "something honorable etc"? Is one race below the other one when the other one has qualities that outshine the one's? Who knows best? The king?

And here's a fun fact: the author's Australian! So there's a bit of that Aussie accent there (I have the books in English, not sure a translation even exists). You see new words and stuff (especially with the "lower class" speaking - their not-so-perfect speech)...

It seems as if none of the characters are good or evil through and through, which is very-very nice. Makes them more 'human' (or Olken and Doranen - the races, the former being magickless (as known to the public), latter magical and hence superior). Everyone has their flaws (who's too cold (the heart), who's too straightforward (to the point of rudeness), who's feeling too superior...) and their good sides. You can see people with rather different personalities and attitudes towards... stuff.

Anyway, you can read an extract, it's from the beginning of the book. You can't really see what's about to happen from that, though it should spike an interest. A lovely introduction.

As to the description of the 'world' in that book, it comes piece-by-piece throughout the story. You can gather little snippets here and there, not before you'll need to know them.

I'm afraid I don't know the whole ordeal yet, since I've only read through half of the story. It's been amazing so far, I don't think the ending will disappoint.

PS. here's her blog (:

K. Hamsun "Growth of the soil"

This is the only book from the mandatory reading list (for school, I mean) I've posted. Have to say that I think it's not really a book that high school students in general would appreciate but it's that way with 99% of the mandatory books. Although others (my classmates and other "regular non-book-lovers") seemed to consider it an absolute waste of one's time, I have to disagree.

This was quite thought-provoking. Considering the fact it wasn't written "in a normal manner" but it had its own twist (which was probably one of the reasons for its Nobel prize), it helped to better communicate the message the author was trying to send out. It seemed like simple language use, a primitive text... but that's the whole point. It just might seem weird to read.

The story went through a part of the life of a simple man. At first there was no country, nobody owned land... so he went and built himself a house. He got different animals and built more buildings. He did an honest man's hard work - building, taking care of animals, fields... he didn't wish to have anything to do with politics or such. His work made him happy. As he got herself a woman with whom he had children, he was being pulled into this 'other world'. A world of scheming, small talk, politics...

So the whole book focuses on the 'battle' between 'simple life' and 'city life'. It was clear the author (and several other realists like Dostoevsky and Tolstoy) preferred the farmer's life. But it's an ongoing debate: which is better? The so-called easy way which actually means more hard work than the "hard way"?

The concept may seem kind of foreign for a teenager (especially a town/city-bred kid who doesn't really care about anything else than the next party), since there really isn't a point of comparison for this certain debate. But if you try to look at the big picture...

John Stuart Mill once said, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."

And that is the same thing going on here. The "simple life" is the life of a "pig" while the "city life" is the life of "Socrates". I respect Mill's opinion and agree with it. I believe there are many of those that don't agree... but its their choice to make and I see why it's so tempting.

Why bother yourself with thinking if in the end you'll only end up unhappy? It's so much easier to simply live and have fun... They're two ends of a stick, the how-I-look-at-life twig. There are those who are at one end and others at the other end. They're both good options...

The point is, there is no wrong or right here. It's a personal thing. This book showed Hamsun's way of looking at life or how he wished to live... since he must have been an intellectual, a Socrates.