Kingdom Asunder is the first in the Bloody Crown Series. While a departure from Thaddeus White’s humorous if not politically correct novels, it’s still not going to disappoint his followers. He wastes no time in introducing the reader to the political forces at play, and the pace of events keeps the pages turning. Fans will soon spot the author’s humour and talent for portraying his characters a little differently than the norm.
Welcome back to SFFWorld Thaddeus. Can you tell us a bit about Kingdom Asunder?
It’s the first part of a trilogy revolving around civil war between two noble families, the Penmeres and Esdens. The story takes place in a fictional world, approximately similar to medieval England, and is characterised by bitter conflict between the two families but also fractious relationships within them. Divided loyalties mean there’s a strong undercurrent of treachery throughout the story, and the would-be kings can never be quite sure if people are really on their side or not.
Kingdom Asunder is a departure from your much loved humorous fantasy. Was there a particular reason you opted for a different tone?
Although I’ve written a fair amount of comedy, I’ve also written ‘serious’ fantasy in the past. Kingdom Asunder does take things in a grimmer direction, largely because the story demands it. A medieval world and a civil war full of treacherous and ruthless men and women necessarily has a darker tone. It’s also nice to have a new challenge in writing, and Kingdom Asunder provided two, both as the opener to a trilogy (and I’m hugely relieved initial reviews are good; a good first book doesn’t by itself make a good trilogy, but a bad first book can ruin one) and with the heavy undercurrent of distrust and treachery throughout.
We’re immediately presented with Karena, Sophie, and their respective entourages. Both leading characters are capably fierce in their own way. Who would you rather meet in a dark alley?
Sophie. She’s tough but more honourable. In short, she’d stab you in the front if she were going to do you harm. Karena might smile sweetly, then stab you in the back. Or set her pet lynx on you. Or Sir Horace. Or shake your hand with a glove painted with contact poison.
Sophie is able to work her way through the world without the need of her various guardians and courtly aides. What influenced the decision to create this pipe-smoking damsel in distress?
I liked the idea of a noblewoman who was a bit of a tomboy (as much as Sophie could be in her position). Not only that, it provided the opportunity to show a different kind of strength, beyond brawn or cunning, a kind of moral courage. Sophie’s given a pretty easy way out, but doing so would be rewarding treason. I didn’t want to write (and I guess readers wouldn’t want to read) about a limp, helpless woman desperate for someone else to help her. Sophie’s capable of helping herself, which makes her more interesting and leaves the reader unsure if she’ll be rescued or free herself (assuming a darker fate doesn’t befall her first…).
Karena presents a different perspective – surrounded by fools and the power hungry – or so she would have us believe. She is also proving to be a reader favourite. Did you spend a great deal more time developing her character than the others?
Karena was largely inspired by Livia, from I, Claudius (I guess many will see her as a sort of female Tywin Lannister). To be honest, she was pretty easy to develop because I had a clear idea of her character right from the start. The relationship with her brother and early role meant she had to be strong and intelligent, but also open to morally questionable decisions. Writing a ruthless, self-confident character like her is great fun. Karena’s very direct. She sees an end goal (the House of Penmere to reign supreme) and then does whatever is necessary to realise it (persuade, bribe, bully and kill those who disagree until there’s no-one left to question the authority of her brother, or herself). Other characters, Hugh especially, are more conflicted, trying to balance honour with necessity, decency with pragmatism. Karena’s like a falcon. Sees prey, kills prey, eats prey.
You discover from one of your loyal characters that there’s a secret plot to overthrow you from your almighty role of world creator/author/all-powerful story generator. How would you go about defending your empire from these usurpers?
Well, I *could* just set Aurelian (half-man, half-grand dragon) on them, but that’s a bit like nuking the planet from orbit and might be considered cheating. I’d probably follow the Corleone route, and have the senior plotters suffer a series of unfortunate accidents (ship sinking, poisonous mushrooms eaten by mistake, decapitated by a low-flying dragon etc). Cut the snake’s head off and the rest of it will die.
Fantasy on as epic a scale as Kingdom Asunder usually means exposition and world setup, something you’ve cleverly avoided by throwing your reader in to the war head first. Was this a deliberate choice to stray from the genre expectation?
Partly. Over the years I’ve been writing I’ve gradually moved to cut down on exposition and try to have detail of the world put across more by action than plain description. The first chapter I went with was originally intended to be the second chapter, but I decided to throw the initial chapter one overboard and let the action come more quickly. That also had the nice side-effect of making Karena, the story’s chief protagonist, the first character introduced and established.
One of the nicest bits of praise I got in review was that the reviewer was a bit surprised to realise how much he knew about the mages and their powers/limitations, having learnt a lot without being hit over the head with exposition.
What was the most enjoyable part of writing Kingdom Asunder, and what are you looking forward to in the sequel?
The single chapter of Kingdom Asunder I liked most is a short one, late on, between two main characters. I can’t go into detail as it would be spoilerific, but it’s an intimate, tense scene, rife with the difficulty (impossibility, sometimes) of balancing pragmatism and honour in a war. There’s also a couple of nice little plot twists in there too.
In Traitor’s Prize (the sequel), there’s a very fine argument about the honour of war against the honour of peace. When is surrendering shameful? If it stops needless bloodshed is it not a good thing? Or is avenging the dead worth sacrifice? Of course, both points have merit, and that’s the dilemma I put forward quite late on in the book. There’s a sort of ‘no surrender’ mindset in the modern world, but if the alternative is medieval brutality or slow starvation, and good terms are being offered, it can make a lot of sense.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions Thaddeus. Kingdom Asunder is available now via Amazon. You can follow Thaddeus White’s antics on Twitter and find out more about all his other fiction via his website.
Save
*****
Interview by Shellie Horst – SFFWorld.com © 2016
Save
