[Radone]

Has anyone else read this book yet?
I must have overlooked something when reading this book. The premise is that the city-states of the Khaim have poet-sorcerers who can bind godlike beings, known as andats, and force them to do the will of the ruling class. The poets are no more than ordinary men, but they do control the andats.
A younger, rival nation, the Galts, has arisen in the West and has been built on conquest. It does not have any andats and so it is at a significant disadvantage when faced with the Khaim. Thus the Galts make sure not to cause any trouble to the Khaim city-states.
The Galts hatch a plan to drive the poet that holds the andat, Seedless, crazy. Thus Seedless will be free, and the Galt would be that much closer to an even footing against the Khaim.
Here's what I don't get. The poet holding Seedless (he created Seedless and when the poet dies or releases Seedless, it is almost impossible for another poet to recapture him) is a drunk. So why didn't the Galt just have him killed?
Also, they try to drive the poet mad by tricking him to cause an abortion in a women who didn't want it. Various characters go on about how unspeakablly evil this action would be. It seems like it would be a grotesque scandal and causes all who were even peripherally involved to have great angst and shame. But this is in a world where 6-7 y/o boys are whores; where slaves are commonly kept; and pimps kick their whores till they bleed if the prostitute becomes pregnant. The outrage over the abortion seems overly-dramatic in light of these other evils.
Both of these issues bothered me the whole time I was reading the book because it was so discordant. So, what am I missing since this was supposed to have a wonderful debut fantasy?

[JohnH]

Has anyone else read this book yet?

Yes.

Here's what I don't get. The poet holding Seedless (he created Seedless and when the poet dies or releases Seedless, it is almost impossible for another poet to recapture him) is a drunk. So why didn't the Galt just have him killed?

For me one of the main themes was that it involved a crime that didn't appear to be a crime. With no perceived instigator that could incur the retribution of an entire generation being wiped out or a whole nation should the plot fail. And outright attack on the poet is very different than causing the despair of a poet to lose hold of his andat. Someone might suspect what nation was behind the crime or what person. If the attack failed, there was definite retribution. If the attack succeeded the other andat holding city states might still seek retribution on the offenders. If it looked like a "crime" to begin with. There was no way they wanted a direct attack as the other city states would definitely go on a major offensive if they thought their enemies were trying to perform preemptive strikes on taking out their sole means of defense and detente. I'm pretty sure that was discussed in teh book in terms of motivation (and occurs early on and is part of what is described in the fly-leaf, so realy isn't a spoiler though it might seem so).

Also, they try to drive the poet mad by tricking him to cause an abortion in a women who didn't want it. Various characters go on about how unspeakablly evil this action would be. It seems like it would be a grotesque scandal and causes all who were even peripherally involved to have great angst and shame. But this is in a world where 6-7 y/o boys are whores; where slaves are commonly kept; and pimps kick their whores till they bleed if the prostitute becomes pregnant. The outrage over the abortion seems overly-dramatic in light of these other evils.

I'll assume you are not being disingenuous here. But I am a bit perplexed as to why you think certain moral offronts are tied directly to each other. We are a nation that has a strong, vocal contingent that is vehemently anti-abortion and yet pro-death penalty. And to be frank? We live in a world that still has young boys and girls kept as whores, where slavery still exists in one form or another (though oddly it seems overlooked as a social ill these days) and where pimps likely kick and worse to terminate a pregnancy. And I think the same societies that might be at least aware of one of those social ills would still be offended if not outraged at a young woman tricked into having an abortion performed on her unwantingly. Thai culture, for instance, tolerates many things that we, here in the US, find reprehensible and morally unjust, but I think if someone of the Thai royal family or someone of upper economic class was tricked into having an abortion performed on her it would generate outrage despite the fact that it's larger cities do a huge trade in flesh.


Both of these issues bothered me the whole time I was reading the book because it was so discordant. So, what am I missing since this was supposed to have a wonderful debut fantasy?

I had no trouble with the book. Particularly in those areas you list above. But I could be the exception. For me is was a wonderful fantasy debut and possibly my favorite new author this year so far. Scott Lynch comes close and despite it's "slightness" in some ways compared to the others, Palmatier gets pretty high marks as well.

[Hobbit]

For me is was a wonderful fantasy debut and possibly my favorite new author this year so far.

Well, that's pretty good, I guess.

The only thing I perhaps need to point out is that JohnH's collective national 'we' is presumably based on the USA and that not everyone at this site is US.

Other than that, the book sounds like an interesting one and my copy is on the way!

Hobbit

[Radone]

Spoiler Alert:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
For me one of the main themes was that it involved a crime that didn't appear to be a crime.

I always saw it as a crime, or at least something quite fishy. And if it was felt that it was Seedless' doing, the question must arise: are there organizations not affiliated with nations that are willing to try and take out a poet? Obviously the answer is yes, since the Galts worked with the criminal underworld of Khaiem.


With no perceived instigator that could incur the retribution of an entire generation being wiped out or a whole nation should the plot fail. And outright attack on the poet is very different than causing the despair of a poet to lose hold of his andat. Someone might suspect what nation was behind the crime or what person. If the attack failed, there was definite retribution. If the attack succeeded the other andat holding city states might still seek retribution on the offenders. If it looked like a "crime" to begin with. There was no way they wanted a direct attack as the other city states would definitely go on a major offensive if they thought their enemies were trying to perform preemptive strikes on taking out their sole means of defense and detente. I'm pretty sure that was discussed in teh book in terms of motivation (and occurs early on and is part of what is described in the fly-leaf, so realy isn't a spoiler though it might seem so).


You're right this was discussed, John, but it wasn't logical to me. If the Galts were truly a great power, they should probably have detailed descriptions of all the andats that exist and probably locations of the poets. It seems that the Khaiem underworld is willing to give up the poets and andats, so that information should be readily gained. This is something that any nation woudl be compelled to learn: the weakness of their most dangerous rival. So, I just didn't buy that they couldn't have more easily planned on a decapitation of the the poets. This is probably something I just see differently, and oh well.

[Radone]

I'll assume you are not being disingenuous here. But I am a bit perplexed as to why you think certain moral offronts are tied directly to each other. We are a nation that has a strong, vocal contingent that is vehemently anti-abortion and yet pro-death penalty. And to be frank? We live in a world that still has young boys and girls kept as whores, where slavery still exists in one form or another (though oddly it seems overlooked as a social ill these days) and where pimps likely kick and worse to terminate a pregnancy. And I think the same societies that might be at least aware of one of those social ills would still be offended if not outraged at a young woman tricked into having an abortion performed on her unwantingly.

I hadn't fully considered this point. In that light, I can see how such an outrage would occur. That would actually be a very impressive display of description and analysis on the author's part.