Book review: the Stone Key
May. 18th, 2008 10:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerWhen I was a seventh/eighth grader I loved, loved, loved the Obernewtyn books to death. They have Misfits, who have cool mental powers! Which makes the oppressive Council and Herders (religious types) oppress them! Except the Misfits band together! And then they join the rebellion, so they can free the Land from this oppression and fight for Justice and Truth!
The Obernewtyn Chronicles have never been really big on moral complexity, but by The Stone Key they’ve lost whatever vestiges they ever had.
First, there’s the barely-acknowledged fact that mind control is at best morally problematic. There are quite legitimate reasons not to be crazy about someone who could enter your mind and make you an axe murderer at will, none of which are ever discussed, because the only people with reservations about the Misfits are the people who loathe them in a passionate, genocidal manner, and end up betraying the rebellion anyway.
This flaw is especially damning given that the books preach, with increasing shrillness, the moral importance of pacifism. Evidently mentally coercing others into action is somehow less violent than physically coercing them to do it.
The book attempts to dodge the issue in three ways. First, none of the good people seem to be put off by these displays of mental power. Second, good people always agree to help the Misfits (even at risk of getting their entire family killed) without needing to be coerced, which means that coercing must be okay because it would only have to be used on bad guys. Third, the Misfits are presented as way too awesome to misuse their powers, the exception of the psycho-Misfit who routinely mind-rapes people notwithstanding.
Dodging the issue doesn’t make the moral problem go away. And the second dodge brings up another problem with the book, which is that the good guys (and, for that matter, the bad guys) all hold very uniform opinions and behave in uniform ways.
The good guys all think the Misfits are cool. They believe in pacifism (to the point that their overthrow of the Council is nonviolent, aside from the inevitable telepathic coercion) and animal rights. They believe in democracy, despite the fact that the Land doesn’t appear to have any democratic tradition, and despite the fact that the Land, as presented in the earlier four books, would produce a horrid democratic regime that would continue killing Misfits and probably lapse into tyranny the moment a crisis loomed.
A pet peeve of mine, as a government major: Democracy is not magic. If the people voting are bigots who are in favor of burning Misfits at the stake (and for the first four books, the Landfolk definitely fit this description) they’re going to elect a government exactly as nasty as they are. The Misfits are only going to be safe and free under an unelected government that likes them.
Of course a liberal autocrat is an unacceptable solution if you want to make the Land paradise on earth. Carmody tries to get around this problem by pretending that a year of good government has made the Landfolk see the error in their ways. They now believe in pluralism, Misfit rights, and freeing the animals from bondage. Yes, that’s right, the rebels actually think the farmers might vote for a government that will free their plow horses and make them all vegetarian.
First: does that make any sense in a pre-mechanized economy? Second: prejudice is intractable. The Landfolk have believed Misfits to be evil for at least a hundred years and animals to be inferior presumably since forever, they aren’t just going to stop now that the Council has been overthrown.
Speaking of the Council, and their foul brethren, the Herders: The Stone Key is
the first book in the series where actual members of the old regime come onstage during the story. It’s very, very unfortunate.
Before, the villains were a terrifying far away menace; in person, they’re so grotesquely overblown as to be cartoonish. They keep slaves; they kill dozens for tiny infractions with scarcely a thought; they probably eat live puppies for breakfast.
This lack of balance is thrown further off-kilter by the absurd ease with which they’re overthrown. They also both contain token “good” members, who have somehow remained uncorrupted by the evil that surrounds them and have the exact same attitudes as the other good characters.
I could go on. I could talk about the complete and total destruction of one of the characters (one of my favorites—it’s ALWAYS one of my favorites), or the fact that the main character’s powers have inexplicable burgeoned, or the sudden wild need to pair everyone off that infected the book.
Oh, God. This is the series I thought absolutely brilliant for years. (In my defense, the first three books in the series—Obernewtyn, Farseekers, and Ashling—are much better, and I still think Ashling is a pretty good book.) I wrote my first fanfic based on Obernewtyn! How could it have gone so wrong?
And—here’s the worst part—I’m still going to buy the next (and hopefully last!) book in the series. Yes, I’m going to order it all the way from Australia. Because I’m a fan, dammit, and that means holding on until the bitter end.
The Obernewtyn Chronicles have never been really big on moral complexity, but by The Stone Key they’ve lost whatever vestiges they ever had.
First, there’s the barely-acknowledged fact that mind control is at best morally problematic. There are quite legitimate reasons not to be crazy about someone who could enter your mind and make you an axe murderer at will, none of which are ever discussed, because the only people with reservations about the Misfits are the people who loathe them in a passionate, genocidal manner, and end up betraying the rebellion anyway.
This flaw is especially damning given that the books preach, with increasing shrillness, the moral importance of pacifism. Evidently mentally coercing others into action is somehow less violent than physically coercing them to do it.
The book attempts to dodge the issue in three ways. First, none of the good people seem to be put off by these displays of mental power. Second, good people always agree to help the Misfits (even at risk of getting their entire family killed) without needing to be coerced, which means that coercing must be okay because it would only have to be used on bad guys. Third, the Misfits are presented as way too awesome to misuse their powers, the exception of the psycho-Misfit who routinely mind-rapes people notwithstanding.
Dodging the issue doesn’t make the moral problem go away. And the second dodge brings up another problem with the book, which is that the good guys (and, for that matter, the bad guys) all hold very uniform opinions and behave in uniform ways.
The good guys all think the Misfits are cool. They believe in pacifism (to the point that their overthrow of the Council is nonviolent, aside from the inevitable telepathic coercion) and animal rights. They believe in democracy, despite the fact that the Land doesn’t appear to have any democratic tradition, and despite the fact that the Land, as presented in the earlier four books, would produce a horrid democratic regime that would continue killing Misfits and probably lapse into tyranny the moment a crisis loomed.
A pet peeve of mine, as a government major: Democracy is not magic. If the people voting are bigots who are in favor of burning Misfits at the stake (and for the first four books, the Landfolk definitely fit this description) they’re going to elect a government exactly as nasty as they are. The Misfits are only going to be safe and free under an unelected government that likes them.
Of course a liberal autocrat is an unacceptable solution if you want to make the Land paradise on earth. Carmody tries to get around this problem by pretending that a year of good government has made the Landfolk see the error in their ways. They now believe in pluralism, Misfit rights, and freeing the animals from bondage. Yes, that’s right, the rebels actually think the farmers might vote for a government that will free their plow horses and make them all vegetarian.
First: does that make any sense in a pre-mechanized economy? Second: prejudice is intractable. The Landfolk have believed Misfits to be evil for at least a hundred years and animals to be inferior presumably since forever, they aren’t just going to stop now that the Council has been overthrown.
Speaking of the Council, and their foul brethren, the Herders: The Stone Key is
the first book in the series where actual members of the old regime come onstage during the story. It’s very, very unfortunate.
Before, the villains were a terrifying far away menace; in person, they’re so grotesquely overblown as to be cartoonish. They keep slaves; they kill dozens for tiny infractions with scarcely a thought; they probably eat live puppies for breakfast.
This lack of balance is thrown further off-kilter by the absurd ease with which they’re overthrown. They also both contain token “good” members, who have somehow remained uncorrupted by the evil that surrounds them and have the exact same attitudes as the other good characters.
I could go on. I could talk about the complete and total destruction of one of the characters (one of my favorites—it’s ALWAYS one of my favorites), or the fact that the main character’s powers have inexplicable burgeoned, or the sudden wild need to pair everyone off that infected the book.
Oh, God. This is the series I thought absolutely brilliant for years. (In my defense, the first three books in the series—Obernewtyn, Farseekers, and Ashling—are much better, and I still think Ashling is a pretty good book.) I wrote my first fanfic based on Obernewtyn! How could it have gone so wrong?
And—here’s the worst part—I’m still going to buy the next (and hopefully last!) book in the series. Yes, I’m going to order it all the way from Australia. Because I’m a fan, dammit, and that means holding on until the bitter end.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-05 07:59 am (UTC)True, I think the editing was poor and there were times when characters were mixed up by Carmody herself but I have to admit that I did find it exhilarating. There is too much idealism in many of the characters and I'm not going to start on the political aspects of the novel but surely you can take it as a good read and nothing more?
I've never liked Elspeth as a character - she's conceited, self-important and pretty much acts in a manner which I abhor. BUT! I do like many of the supporting characters (especially Dameon and Brydda) and I think the sheer number of characters makes for a rich reading experience.
Hm. I don't know if I'm trying to defend this book or not. Let's just say that I enjoyed if only because I had been waiting for it for so long.
In my opinion, however, Carmody's other series "The Legendsong Saga" is much better than the Obernewtyn Chronicles. Darksong and Darkfall are just amazing. Hopefully if Darkbane is ever released it won't disappoint.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-05 04:42 pm (UTC)I think the review came off so harshly because I was trying to think how to describe it for someone who didn't wait for it & wasn't a fan, because I don't think such a person would enjoy it.
Oh, Elspeth. Elspeth, Elspeth, Elspeth. On the one hand it makes some sense that she thinks she's the center of the universe (the universe, after all, seems to agree), but I wish some of the characters found it irritating. And that they weren't all in love with her.
No, seriously. Rushton, Dameon, Swallow, AND Gilbert, who barely even KNEW her. She cannot possibly need a harem that large!
The supporting characters are fun. I like Swallow when he's not behaving like maybe he's in love with Elspeth too. I liked Domick and was very sad about the manner of his death. And Bruna was fun.
Although I'm not sure about the whole desert chase marriage kidnapping custom in Sador. Clearly the descriptor matriarchal is being used very loosely, because I just cannot see that as a matriarchal custom.
I've read the Legendsong Saga. I seem to be in the minority in that I liked Ember more than Glynn--Glynn just seemed so perfect--especially by the end of the last book, where there was an entire chapter where Ember and her companions sit around discussing how awesome Glynn is.
I liked the setting--I have some reservations about whether or not the Draaka cult is a good nest of villains--honestly, I have some reservations about Carmody's ability to write villains in general. But I thought the good characters were well-written--Bleyd, Kerd, the Vespian soulweaver whose name I have forgotten.
Hmm. Perhaps I should write a post on the Legendsong.
Have you read Alyzon Whitestarr?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-06 12:29 am (UTC)I thought the desert chase between Dardelan (?) and Bruna was an interesting custom but I don't know if I particularly like the idea of women being "hunted". And agree that it doesn't seem like a particularly matriarchal tradition.
As for the Legendsong - I must admit that I prefer Glynn, like the majority, simply because I find her parts of the novels interest me much more. And once again, the case of amazing minor characters can't be forgotten. Bleyd, Kerd, Anyi and Feyt especially. And I must admit that Solen is growing on me. For the villains - the Draaka are reasonable but I quite liked Kalide (I think that was his name) - he was pretty twisted.
Oh. This really makes me want to read these books again...and I shall, once the semester is over.
(I friended you, I hope that's okay.)
no subject
Date: 2008-06-06 05:31 am (UTC)I added you back. :)
Yeah. What was up with Gilbert? He was so...so..pathetic. I mean, it's not like it contradicts anything in Farseekers--we barely knew anything about him in Farseekers, except that he seemed cool, and then...:(
Jak was the Teknoguilder at the Library, yes. The Library was really cool but also disturbing (in a good way)--so disorienting. And Dardelan is the one from the desert chase. I'm really kind of at a loss as to why the entire desert chase was included at all; he and Bruna could have met romantically by the isis pools for a thousand better reasons.
They are kind of cute together, though.
I'm still not so sure about Solen--the problem with romantic heroes in Carmody books is that they get, like, ten pages in each book (if they're lucky), and for the rest of it they're somewhere else. Anywhere else. I would really like to see Elspeth and Rushton be together (and functional) for more than a five page stretch.
I do like Bleyd a lot. I would love to see his whole family sit down to a meal together. So. Much. Angst.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 07:37 am (UTC)Louise.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 03:54 pm (UTC)I actually thought The Keeping Place was better than The Stone Key--The Stone Key was where it became entirely clear that any sense of realism was going to be sacrificed to prop up pacifism. Before, it was possible (if, admittedly, improbable) that the Misfits insistence on a bloodless rebellion would come back to bite them.
Who are you, by the way? You didn't sign your post.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-14 01:35 pm (UTC)Louise.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-14 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 12:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-17 07:20 am (UTC)Many districts were going to get rid of the rebels who had been leading them for the previous year. One year of good governance is not enough to make people want to become vegatarians. I thought that the point was that the land folk were willing to put up with that stuff if it meant having a good and just leader.
You're spot on where it comes to having all of the good guys being pro-misfit etc just doesn't work. I really think that killing Tardis off was a bad move, but in the situation of elections, I think that this is the significant point, not the views of the citizens. If Tardis was still about, then the people on the west coast would have someone to vote for who was a fair leader, yet anti-misfit etc.
I also think that IC did this, not to dodge the issue, but to send a moral message. Its not meant to be, everyone who is good loves misfits. Its meant to be 'once you look beyond the dogma of what you've been told, you see the person and are no longer afraid'. She pretty much spelt that out when she wrote about the Magi.
Also, the idealism has been there since the start. You might not have noticed it, but it was definitely there and is one of the points behind the books. If it weren't for the idealist rants she puts in, there wouldn't have been any story at all.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-19 03:53 am (UTC)I do wish she would have left Tardis alive. I also agree with her that one of her moral messages is "Once you look past the dogma etc.," but I think she oversimplifies; if that was all that was necessary, and looking past the dogma was as easy as the good characters who throw off all their anti-Misfit prejudice at the drop of a hat implies, the world wouldn't have nearly as many problems as it does.
I realize the idealism has been there from the start, but it's gotten much more prevalent in the later books. In the first three two it was there mostly by implication; in the third the characters started having ethical discussions; and in the fourth and fifth the discussions were replaced by ethical lectures, which I found significantly less engaging.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-20 10:19 am (UTC)However, on the elections in the land, I'm afraid I still disagree (sorry). The farmer's livelihoods would certainly be affected by the charter, but its only the raising of beasts for slaughter which is under threat at that stage. Meat makes up a fraction of people's diets. Many farmer's livelihoods would be damaged, and quite a few might have them destroyed, but certainly not the majority of the population. Using horses and bullocks for farming, cows for milking etc, would still be allowed (and a large number of people also live in the cities), thus the majority of people would not be at risk of loosing their main source of income. Their complaint would be towards a change in their diet, which would be far less contentious.
Of greater concern to the people would be the prospect of the reintroduction of the old regime. During the days of the council, they might have been accused of sedition or of being misfits so that they would be burned or sent to prison whilst the council, hearders or relatives took their land. The rebels have given these people more security than they have ever had before and their biggest fear would be of losing it. If I was in that position, I would be making trust, fairness and general good governance my number one priority, because I would be terrified of losing the freedoms I'd gained.
Traditionally, the people who most often try for leadership, are power hungry. The others are ones who feel passionately about an issue. Darthnor has such a character, but in Darthnor their livelihoods have already been destroyed. Someone might put themselves forward to oppose the beast charter, but they would also have to take on all the other responsibilities which is unlikely to be attractive to a farmer, especially when it means leaving their land behind for a year and still suffering a blow to their livelihood.
Also...I have a real world example of people voting for a leader whose policy was generally attractive despite a single extreme, publicly announced policy.....but I'm not sure that I should mention it....it was a very extreme policy.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-08 07:50 am (UTC)First of all this idea of pacifism and how this runs against the very nature of coercing. Elspeth herself has spelt out the rules that all coercers live by. They will only use their powers against people in an uncertain situation and when lives are at stake.
Pacificsm isn't about being all sweet and kind to everyone and not using your powers to their advantage. The Misfits see pacifism as using that power to stop blood-shed wherever necessary. The Misfits have chosen to actively stop blood-shed using their powers.
Is it contractadictory to their ethical values? In a way yes, because they shouldn't invade privacy etc. etc. but at the same time when balancing those ethical responsibilites against the saving of lives then maybe it's not. No character in the book has said coercing is completely right but coercing has always been a source of contention at Obernewtyn.
And yes IC has a tendency to make Misfits completely free of sin and that has bugged me a bit and that is a bit too ideal for my taste so I agree with that.
Concerning the election and the idea of democracy and the bigots. The Misfits all understand that there is a huge danger things will swing against them. But at the same time the perception of Misfits have changed somewhat - they managed to help win the rebellion with minimum bloodshed, they have become more incorporated into society with the healing centre etc.
Many of the people were bigots because they had no reason to think otherwise. But when confronted with evidence that the monsters you hated are not the monsters you think they are then that's where change happens.
Concerning the Herder, you skipped the part where it is explored why they were so easy to dismantle. It is because of the way the faction has been structured and the obsessive need for control that top tier of the Herders have. Nobody belived the Herders could be defeated so nobody tried and the Herders grew to believe their own power. This was a weakness that the Misfits managed to exploit to their advantage.
Also the pairing thing - uhhh... everyone's getting paired of? Who? Rushton/Elspeth (that's being on-going for the whole series), Dardelan/Bruna (on-going since ashling), Kella/Darius (no idea where this going but okay, valid for this potential coupling). Any other couplings I've missed? Blyss/Merret, Jak/whatevaheranemis - sure they got together but it was more like "note of interest" not really overtaking the plot.
So yeah... big essay but I think that's it.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-08 07:59 am (UTC)