Incredibly disappointing. Mild spoilers.
I came into this series extremely intrigued, both by its premise and also its cultural inspiration. It has heavy Central Asian and Mongolian cultural elements, evident in a lot of the names. I have lived in Kyrgyzstan, and I had major whiplash seeing the name, Azamat, a popular boys name I've heard only in this region of the world (it is derived from Arabic but only popular really in Central Asia, I've known at least ten boy students with the name). On the otherhand, I don't know if the author slipped in the name Temujin and thought I wouldn't notice that it's Genghis Khan's name. Like hold up, I read that, and I had flashbacks to AP world history class. Also, it may be popular in Mongolia (I don't know if it is or not), but one of the only, if not THE only, famous person to have it is Genghis Khan. Unfortunately for the narrative Temujin in this series fails to reach anywhere near the heights of his legendary namesake. I'm not sure if that's well known and she was trying to use symbolism of sorts or if it's a historical/nerdy easter egg for me.
Anyhoo.
I generally liked the first book. I thought it was intriguing if a bit rushed and surface level in its themes. I also need to go and rewatch the Hunchback of Notre Dame, as evidently the first book is inspired by it, though I didn't see the parallels until I read some online reviews.
Anyway, I think the ending of the first book and its path into the second narratively falls very flat. I don't expect every series to be A Song of Ice and Fire complex, obviously, I read a lot of romantasy and YA/new adult low fantasy. BUT, I dislike the narrative choice near the end of book 1 to reduce the conflict to one evil guy trying to take down the gods. I really liked the complexity of the first book and just having the characters be at odds about who is right in imperial politics. Imperial politics especially in a diverse continent that the author has created, particularly about issues like refugees, poverty, administering aid, imperial administration, prejudice, are all incredibly interesting, and I liked the first book analyzing it. I liked the complexity of Temujin's fight (it had some Robin Hood elements, intentionally so). I also really liked the arguments about their different religions and belief systems, and the Mongolian empire (which I'm using as an analogue) was actually very tolerant of diverse religious beliefs.
But I hated in book 2 the reduction of all these complex ideas into good guys versus bad guys. When you deal with higher level politics and attempt to interrogate who is right and wrong in situations of power, you need to have slightly more nuanced takes than what was given. I liked in book 1 how Enebish analyzed the stories Ghoa and Temujin told her, analyzing their biases and why they believe what they believe. She seemed to understand that they both could believe they were doing what's right and achieve it in different ways. And I think that is such a vital lesson especially in major conflicts where the oppressed versus the oppressor can be very murky. I even liked the conversation Serik and she had where they have fundamental disagreements.
But then the story throws it all away. Enebish is right. Ghoa and Temujin are both evil and have been played. The evil magical Zemyans are coming. Temujin is nothing but a man conned into believing lies. I especially find the second one sad because after the major reveal, we see little of who Temujin is as a person. I admit I held his name against him, being named for Genghis Khan and then offering little to no development certainly was a choice. I enjoyed Enebish's anger and rage in book 2. I found her unbearably arrogant and annoying, but I think it was the point. But I also think the story overly vindicated her. I also am sad that all of Temujin's crew disappear in this book, especially after becoming such interesting parts of the first book. The new characters are fine.
I also have mixed feelings about the religious aspect. Like I said, I liked that in the first book, they have disagreements about which gods are real and which ones operate in their lives. I primarily would've preferred if we didn't see them at all. I think vindicating and showing the gods of Enebish's belief system undercuts the entire themes of faith in the book in my opinion. If we're running parallels to Hunchback, God never appears outright to Frollo or Quasimodo. Of course, there are instances, in the movie at least, which are rife with Christian symbolism and things one can interpret as divine intervention, but it's never explicit, and I like that. Once god shows up, you confirm which gods are real. That's not to say stories which feature actual gods aren't interesting, just that if a major theme in the story is belief, then boo you for showing it. In the first book, Ghoa and Serik and Enebish (and even Temujin) have conflicting ideas about the Lady and the Father, and it's something Serik struggles with, and a disagreement Ghoa and Enebish have. But I think at the end with Enebish basically saying "Oh, why don't you believe in the gods, they're right there? Shame on you" reduces all that complexity.
Rant over. Enebish is an annoying but overall okay character. The villain was boring, and I think the villain SHOULD have been a more abstract idea like power itself, or the difference in perspective and conflicting ideologies. The new characters are mid. Temujin deserved better and more time in the novel, especially befitting his name. Serik was a wet blanket the whole time, and his clashes with Enebish were annoying to read. Ghoa's redemption was fine. The themes went to shit. Overall, a very sad and disappointing conclusion to what could have been. I was going to give it 1 star, but 2 stars for an interesting attempt at Central and East Asian cultural representation.