Fantasy Book Club discussion

This topic presumes you have finished the book.

I liked the way Arithon stood for compassion & Lysaer for justice. It's interesting to see the two at odds & working together throughout the book. The different faces each can have & just how badly they can screw things up when either goes to extremes.

Jim wrote: "The different faces each can have & just how badly they can screw things up when either goes to extremes...."

And all it takes is one measly little mistwraith to mess up the two.....compassion and justice SHOULD work together, in a perfect world.....and that being, Arithon and Lysaer should be allies......it really struck me hard that after they worked so long and hard to like and respect each other, the curse got in there and messed it up forever.....

Or is it forever? Guess we'll have to read on to see...

They certainly started off on a bad note & there was a lot of hope for them for a while. I wonder if they'll wind up killing each other off now, though. I was actually thinking that they might toward the end of the book, but I doubted they would since their bloodline seemingly has to go on, but it was looking close.

I could see them at the end of the final book in the series, finally defeating the curse and hanging out together as brothers finally. They'd pass a bottle of something back and forth and look out over the world they'd annhiliated together with their struggles and Lysaer would say "oops", while Arithon solemnly took a drink from the flask and nodded......

I do not ever write the same story, twice, therefore (grin) you will need to read to find out.

For this volume, though, do you think Morriel Prime's assessment was accurate, based on Elaira's reflection of the half-brothers' characters in the dyer's vat? Was the projection right or wrong, concerning Lysaer and Arithon's future direction?

I really don't know. Lysaer is certainly going to do some damage. I've never been fond of pure justice without tempering. Fanatics use that argument all the time & I've rarely seen anything good come from them.

Arithon has a better chance of setting things right, but he's footloose & can stir up far too much trouble on his own, both by dragging Lysaer after him & by letting the wrong folks go on their ways because of pity.

The predictions were limited - too limited in their scope. A tempest can be a good thing - it's of no concern in a teapot - but if it rages over the best wheat fields, it can be worse than a mass murderer & less kind. It all depends on their range.

Janny asked for thoughts about Morriel Prime's assessment, so I think I'll start there and--setting myself up to be collosally wrong--say that Lirenda seems to be on the right track when she suggests that Lysaer is, at least, the more predictable. At the same time, Morriel seems to have it all wrong. I'm with Elaira that, if anything, Arithon's gifts are the ones that can lead to a reconciliation of the whole. There may be poets of too tender sensibilities, but Arithon will not prove to be one.

Ultimately, Arithon just seems all-around the more "right" of the two brothers. He's always seemed the more fair-minded of the two. When Lysaer was embrace by his people, even before he'd met the townsmen, he seemed ready to take their side against the "barbarians", unwilling to see the justice in their cause. When it comes to Lysaer actually taking the townsfolks' side and Arithon defending the clans, it just seems so lop-sided. If I'm not mistaken, the impression we're given of the so-called barbarians is that they raid caravans and traveling townsfolk, but they don't murder them. They take their stuff, they ransom them, but they seem rarely to take lives. Contrast that with the townsfolk, with their bounties to headhunters--where the scalps of men, women, and children all pay out as well--and their radical inequalities between haves and have-nots. How is it that Lysaer's thirst for justice can seemingly overlook that so easily? I suppose the clue is in the scene where the headhunters begin the rape of the captive women and Lysaer gives them a quick death instead--he doesn't accept the darkest side of his allies, but in the end he's perfectly willing to accept the proposition that the ends justify the means--killing women and children is fine if it's for the greater good of stamping out evil or if the enemy refused to fight fairly. Does it come down to "justice" ultimately being favorable toward the status quo? That justice--at least for Lysaer--is bound up in civilization and the way things are? Because the townsmen represent the established order, their justice is, to a large extent, his justice? And the barbarians--despite their historical position--no longer fit that? Especially since--faced with annihiliation--they just won't fight "fair"?

John, I think you hit Lysaer's sense of justice just right. He does seem more interested in maintaining the status quo and the perspective of justice being that which obeys the law, the way things are. He doesn't (at this point at least) seem to look into the right/wrong of the laws and question that, but assume that the people in charge are the legal and just rulers....I'm hoping that in time he will learn that just because people are in charge doesn't mean they are right and fair....

The way I see it, the "polarized" viewpoint summed up was, one angle (Lysaer's) believes that change is best effected from the platform of politics - change or activate the law, and so initiate a better ideal. Concrete result by shifting the Law.

The other view, ignore what's going on at the top, and initiate change by living the difference. It may not shift the masses, but it does immediately effect those changes that are in the direct influence of the person wanting a better idea. Concrete result by Direct Action.

I think its interesting that the Prologue states that history favors Lysaer. Of course, the issue with history is always who wrote it.

Further, as our own world history has shown us it is easier to stand with the masses under the guise of "justice", if serves your purpose, than to speak out against atrocities - the Holocaust being a vicious example.

I have always pondered why people feel such a drive to "stay with the pack" even when the pack is morally depraved, or headed in a direction that can only be viewed as insane...hindsight damns the actions, sometimes, but is our survival instinct (to not make social waves) as much at fault for the observers who fail to show the most basic care for their fellows, in such warped regimes?

Sometimes I've held that war is an individual choice: if, on the battle line, or in cases of genocide, if no one pulled the trigger - if each person bearing arms decided not to prosecute an atrocity - what then?

Janny, back in the 60's there was a song/routine that was popular with the anti-war movement: "What if they give a war and no one comes?" The idea was great, but unfortunately not realistic. We can't control what other people will choose, especially with all the hatemongering that goes on in the media. *sigh*

Barbm1020 wrote: "Janny, back in the 60's there was a song/routine that was popular with the anti-war movement: "What if they give a war and no one comes?" The idea was great, but unfortunately not realistic. We c..."

I am a great proponent of free choice - regardless of the fact that it makes life messy, the alternative (a totally regulated society) is a lot less vibrant and mind numbing beyond imagining. I traveled to Russia when the iron curtain was still in force - and it was mind blowing. The colorlessness of day to day living, even the drabness of the labels and lack of advertising in a trip to the "supermarket" - it placed a lethargy on creativity that was outside anything I could have conceived.

In a free society, some people will make ugly choices, some will make greedy ones, some will make criminal ones, but the full range of possibility (even war) gives every choice a vibrancy, an aliveness, a creatively cutting edge, that just is not possible in a regulated environment.

But given that supreme range of choices - the responsibility for them lies with the individual - the victims and the aggressors both make choices: one to be helpless and blame, the other to bully.

It's been pointed out that the bully cannot, if the victim just walks away.

Yet as long as we nobilize "victimization" - it's too comfy for some. They'd rather "suffer" and sit still, and "blame" someone else before using their two feet, and decision.

Do you recall that poster (I enjoyed it) that used to depict kids in a playground jungle jim, and it had the caption: "What if education had all the money it needs, and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

But lack of aggression is its own poison: diplomacy fails because aggression has been suppressed too long, and suppressed rage has long since broken down sane boundaries.

Do you think that too many people give their "power of choice" (read opinion) to a media that is into drama, rather than facts?

Did you see any parallel here, with Lysaer - and his opinions that keyed into the political sentiment of the Etarrans?

For this series, I wanted a book where the reader felt "there but for the grace..." that Lysaer's arguments would toe the "right" course - and if you did not know the other side of the conflict - you may have fallen for his charged view of the situation.

Was this point carried out successfully in Mistwraith, and how do folks think it might play forward into the next volume?

Yes, I think it was carried out successfully in Mistwraith. In fact, I had to try to keep an open mind about Lysaer; 'the devil made him do it', justified by the fact pointed out that his lack of 'magic' made him more vulnerable to the curse. Even so, I became frustrated with his choices and his always blaming the 'other' for failure instead of shouldering his own guilt.

I absolutely fell in love with Arithon in this book and have been unable to stop reading the series and am almost finished with #3, Warhost of Vastmark. The trouble with reading them one after the other is that I forget what happens in which book.

Not to rile anyone with political views, but this discussion has reminded me of the vitriol aroused in the national debate recently about the idea of a judge having 'empathy.' Ironic.

Jim wrote: "I liked the way Arithon stood for compassion & Lysaer for justice. It's interesting to see the two at odds & working together throughout the book. The different faces each can have & just how badl..."

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Having read all the way to Traitor's Knot before finally having to take a break, I will say that it seems the original intent of the geas was for five houses/kings/whatever to work together, all of whom were granted a special geas (justice, compassion, whatever). You see, justice without compassion is tyranny, and compassion without justice is naivety, at least in the grand scope of things. One without the other is almost useless, and the creators of the geas knew and understood that, which is why they put so many of them out there.

However, it strikes me that, as I see in so many of Janny's books, and have only recently appreciated, that personal choice comes into play. Yes, Lysaer (whom I like more than Arithon, by the way) tends to come down on the side of the status quo justice, but that was through his choice. For all of you Dungeons and Dragons fans (I know you're out there; it's okay), it's the difference between lawful good and chaotic good, where the good is outweighed by the law/chaos.

The same with Arithon, I think. His compassion could have been directed elsewhere, but it wasn't; thus, the consequences of his choices. As it is with all of us, actually. We choose, we experience.

Sandra - I don't mind political discussion at all PROVIDED it doesn't get bloodymindedly stuck in passing party line sound bytes back and forth - angles into what stymies humanity's situation is excellent, these books were made to handle issues with the gloves off.

It's the knee jerk battling of idiotically distorted mindsets (U R WRONG vs WE R RIGHT) without open discussion that would be a wet blanket here.

Don't be afraid to roll out the guns, if the ideas are examined with intelligence. Blindfolded extremists do nobody any good - but extreme views taken with openly original vision might be interesting.

To get back to your question about Morriel Prime's assessment of the two, I no longer remember what it was, but the Koriani are for the status quo, and so is Lysaer, so since she saw Arithon as potentially dangerous, I would say that she was right for her point of view. But Elaira is right that Arithon has more chance of bringing about reconciliation. He was the one trying to avoid the fight after all. I think Lysaer's blaming of him for the death of the children that he watched being killed by his headhunter captain is abominable shifting of blame. There was a recent wikileak video on the internet of some of our soldiers gunning down unarmed photographers from a helicopter, and when they recognize the fact that children are in the van they had just been shooting at, one of the soldiers is heard remarking 'that's what they get for bringing children to the scene.'

And instead of acknowledging Arithon's superiority in battle tactics by building the dam and then loosing it on the Etarran troops, Lysaer blames it on sorcery. Get a grip, guy.

Sandra AKA Sleo wrote: "To get back to your question about Morriel Prime's assessment of the two, I no longer remember what it was, but the Koriani are for the status quo, and so is Lysaer, so since she saw Arithon as pot..."

I've just finished the book so details are still fairly fresh in my mind. Lysaer didn't watch the children being killed, he was in the first rank cutting them down.

As for battle tactics with his scrying Arithon was able to go through the fight hundreds of times working out the best outcomes.

What enraged Lysaer was how the trap was deliberatly baited with children to get the Army to follow and he fell for it because he did not believe Arithon would use children in that way.

Geoffery wrote: "Sandra AKA Sleo wrote: "To get back to your question about Morriel Prime's assessment of the two, I no longer remember what it was, but the Koriani are for the status quo, and so is Lysaer, so sinc..."

I take it you're not a Lysaer fan since the curse? LOL. Was he really? I was thinking he watched that creepy dude do it.

Maybe not a fan but I think I understand a little about what Janny was getting at with the character.

Lysaer was basicly been ripped out of his sheltered life and dumped in a completly different world with alot of his preconcieved notions being challenged. I think he was trying to change and adapt. In fact before he was overcome by the Desh-thiere's curse he was shaping up as a pretty compitent ruler and building an understanding relationship with his brother.

Unlike Arithon he has no mage awareness or training what so ever, not even taught how to use his control of light. Initially with the curse he has some vague thoughts about things not being quite right but dismisses them.

Right! I hadn't thought about the way he was ripped out of his sheltered life. Of course, his father was a bit of a monster, and he was definitely traumatized by his mother leaving. I was so upset when the Desh-thiere split them apart. At first I clocked his thinking change to the curse, but as things go on, I think he makes really, really poor choices.

Even further, within his sheltered life, he was brought up in this very insidious subtext of hatred for Arithon's bloodline; thus, in this world, he naturally despises anything associated with Arithon (rightly or wrongly). That clouds his thinking, and has changed his sense of "justice" to one of tyrannical law.

Excellent point Matt.

Geoffery wrote: "Sandra AKA Sleo wrote: "To get back to your question about Morriel Prime's assessment of the two, I no longer remember what it was, but the Koriani are for the status quo, and so is Lysaer, so sinc..."

Now the huge question looms -- what is more important, the greater/ultimate good, our ideals, or peoples' lives. Quite a worthy theme.

Charles wrote: "Geoffery wrote: "Sandra AKA Sleo wrote: "To get back to your question about Morriel Prime's assessment of the two, I no longer remember what it was, but the Koriani are for the status quo, and so i..."

Yes, it is a worthy theme and the kind that makes my head hurt!

Paravia is good for that

LOL

Charles wrote: "Geoffery wrote: "Sandra AKA Sleo wrote: "To get back to your question about Morriel Prime's assessment of the two, I no longer remember what it was, but the Koriani are for the status quo, and so i..."

In this question, I'm reminded, and I assume intentionally, that Adolph Hitler's motto for his concentration camps was "For The Greater Good." Certainly, people's lives come first, despite our own ideals, and despite our conceptions of the greater good. Our ideals and our conceptions can be flawed, due to human nature, but the intrinsic value of human life is simply that...intrinsic. I think Arithon recognized this, which is why I grudgingly respect him.

Before one can evaluate which is more important "the greater/ultimate good, our ideals, or peoples' lives" I think it is worth taking a brief look at what these things are/mean.

What is the 'greater/ultimate good'? Doesn't point of view come into play when evaluating goals or actions that are perceived as good? Would one side of a conflict see an action or a goal as good while the other might see it as evil? In a dichotomous universe it is fairly easy to evaluate good vs evil from our point of view, but what if the whole duality is just a perception from a limited a point of view?

The question of ideals, in my opinion is an intrinsic part of how we view good and evil. Our values are primarily based on these perceptions and out parents' perceptions that they imparted to/imprinted on us.

Lastly is "people's lives" or more specifically just life. What is life? Is it limited (and confined) to physical bodies and the actions in which those bodies engage from day to day or is life more than that? Is one form of life more valued than another?

Are 'we' more the physical bodies? Yes, this is likely the ultimate question but if we are only this and nothing more then life is very important. If we are more than this, if our perceptions are limited to perceiving a subset of the totality of what a living being (human, animal, plant, or other) is then does 'life' become of paramount importance or do we have insufficient information to form a valid point of view?

Bring into all of this the issue of free will. Not just one individual's free will but the free will of all living beings. If I take an action because another individual refused to do something that I demanded (i.e., if I say, unless you give me your money I will shoot you) does any responsibility for my act devolve to the the other person?

(I wrote a whole paragraph tying this back to Athera and then remember the topic and deleted it because it might include spoilers.)

So, if life is more than we perceive, and good and evil are just differing perceptions from two (or more) disparate points of view, and my values are wrapped up in these perceptions what is left that I am/can be solely responsible for? Wouldn't this be the most important thing?

There are no easy answers here, nor in Paravia. Janny will not let us off that easy on this timeless issue. I think Matt and Jeff are both right. Lysaer thought he was right, too. Arithon, wisely I think in the end, chooses to consider this question for each individual life-or-death decision. Often he opts to do nothing, or so it seems. Sometimes he comes up for individual life, as in sacrificing his mage powers to save one young life, sometimes for the "greater good" as in destroying an army to keep hopes alive of pacifying Athera and restoring the Paravian Races.

Jeff, many good points here, and I think it's a testament to the way Janny has crafted the world and the story that these are all important points to consider in this context: the moral framework is not a clear given, nor are the metaphysical realities under which we're working here.

Matt's point about the way that ideals can be corrupted to serve bad ends is also one worth noting in this context, but it's not as straight-forward as it at first appears. There are all the questions Jeff raised, but there's an additional point I would add: *which* lives?

(And, as I was writing this, Charles added a very good point along these lines) It's debatable whether Ariton's particular decisions are "right," but they're certainly very human and, understandably because of his nature, very compassionate.

As a side note, I suppose I find Arithon to be my favorite character precisely because he seems to be the most aware of the complexity of it all. Lysaer can find relatively easy answers after a minimum of introspection, but Arithon cannot. He sees things more clearly and tries to find the best solutions to problems with no right answers.

Wow, we've got some deep thinkers here. And Jeff, I can think of many examples in the world of today where point of view is the determining factor in what is 'good' and what is 'evil.'

To get back to Athera, however, it seems to me that Janny's principle of 'balance' is a determining factor. For instance, the sorcerers and the Mad Prophet often 'ask permission' of the earth, trees, stones, etc. before weaving spells in an attempt not to upset the major balance in the world. The F7 do not interfere with humans unless the human asks for their help. Isn't saving the life of a tree, or of a pelican, or of a turtle in the long view valuing of human life as well? Our world in the here and now is is getting a major upset of balance in the delicacy of ecological 'balance' in the wetlands of the Gulf coast.

And John, I agree -- Arithon is tortured by his inability to ignore all the costs of any given action, where Lysaer sees only the things that serve his purpose, or the purpose of the 'light'. This is a great illustration of the Jungian idea that the brighter the light, the deeper the shadow in human consciousness.

Jeff wrote: "Before one can evaluate which is more important "the greater/ultimate good, our ideals, or peoples' lives" I think it is worth taking a brief look at what these things are/mean.

What is the 'great..."

I think, to answer your summation, that you are quite right in a lot of ways. This is not an easy question; I took several ethics and philosophy classes and college and books have been written bandying the subject about. Somehow, I doubt that my bare-bones intellect will crack this in a book-discussion page :)

Seriously, though, with all of the questions as hand, I would say that human life, and the quality therein, is the side that should be erred on. That's why dropping the mountain on thirty thousand soldiers nearly killed Arithon emotionally; he understood that sometimes, while the "big picture" human life, and quality therein needed to be saved, it was at the cost of individual human life, and that grieved him no end.

I think it's also worth noting, too, that the antagonists in the book (Morriel Prime and Lysear) have a less-than-adequate respect for human life, be it on an individual level or a widespread level. Lysear, bless him, has this geas bound about him that he can affix some of the blame to. The Prime? Not so much.

This is indeed a grey issue, but, to reference Lord of the Rings: In The Two Towers, Eomer asks Aragorn how he should make his decisions, now that legends walk under the noonday sun. Aragorn replies: "The same as they did yesterday. Right and wrong do not change from one day to the next", or something to that extent (I lost my book :( ). Basically, if error will be made, err on the side of human life.

Just my opinion, though. I could be wrong.

:::: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR BOOKS BEYOND Curse of the Mistwraith::

Matt wrote: "I think, to answer your summation, that you are quite right in a lot of ways."

Morriel is likely insane. To carry the weight of all those Primes for as long as she has been alive and to so single mindedly be focused on 'her goal' must surely task the edges of reason. She will do anything to achieve that goal. I'd say to a large extent that she believes the end justifies the means.

Arithon 'could' blame his geas as well. To be that compassionate and to act in ways that will most assuredly result in deaths, would wound severely. Add to that the s'Ahelas geas of foresight...

Agagorn's response to Eomer reflects a more simplistic world view that Tolkien created. There is a clear evil (an absolute evil without any gray areas and apparently without any motivation other then 'domination' - so what would such a being do next after achieving total domination) that must be defeated or the world goes into darkness. So yes, right and wrong don't change from day to day in that world. But I'd say they do here in our world and they do on Athera not because circumstances changed but because the participants perceptions have changed.

"Basically, if error will be made, err on the side of human life."

I would not say that you are wrong. I would like to see decisions in our world made on the basis of protecting and preserving life (all life, not just human life) rather than for selfish reasons. But now we could open a discussion on what is 'life'. :)

Jeff wrote: ":::: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR BOOKS BEYOND Curse of the Mistwraith::

Matt wrote: "I think, to answer your summation, that you are quite right in a lot of ways."

Morriel is likely insane. To carry..."

And you are, of course, entirely right with regards to the preservation of all life. I was erroneous in not applying that criteria to all living things, and I bow in concurrence.

John wrote: "Janny asked for thoughts about Morriel Prime's assessment, so I think I'll start there and--setting myself up to be collosally wrong--say that Lirenda seems to be on the right track when she sugges..."

SPOILER ALERT!*!*!*
As to the question of the Prime's assessment of the half-brothers:

SPOILER ALERT!!!!
Whoever is reading on into the Wars of Light and Shadow will soon learn that Moriel is, indeed, very insane, and not at all in a nice way. Without causing further spoilage, I can say that, based on her true personal goals at this point, Lysaer is her only viable choice. Even though Arithon actually has the knowledge, skills and powers she could most use, Moriel knows that he could never be manipulated as might Lysaer be, because her and Arithon's intentions are diametrically opposed, and he is already onto her game by the middle of Ships of Merior, thanks to Elaira.

About Lysaer (NON SPOILING COMMENT), I could contribute this. I once had a girlfriend, a brilliantly intelligent woman, who would say. "I cannot lie, because my reputation depends on my word. So, if I do lie, I have to get out in the world and somehow make my lies like truths." Lysaer, being inconceivably stubborn, is knowingly backing himself into a corner, because his justice geas totally depends on him holding the moral high ground...so when he doesn't hold that ground, he has to find a way to "make it look like truth," by transferring blame, appealing to the weaknesses and misunderstanding of his people, and surrounding himself (at this point) with yes-men.

Charles wrote: "John wrote: "Janny asked for thoughts about Morriel Prime's assessment, so I think I'll start there and--setting myself up to be collosally wrong--say that Lirenda seems to be on the right track wh..."

Very well put, Charles.

Sandra, if you keep liking my comments, I've gotta keep liking your opinion LOL!

LOL.

Janny wrote: "I do not ever write the same story, twice, therefore (grin) you will need to read to find out.

For this volume, though, do you think Morriel Prime's assessment was accurate, based on Elaira's refl..."

Well Janny despite just finishing the book a week ago I had to re-read those pages several times to get absolutly clear in my head who as saying what to whom. Here is what I think, Morriel using that infomation and her knowledge/experience made a good assesment. Elaira shows how out of step with the Koriani mindset she is compared to her Prime and Lirenda.

The difference is that Morriel hasn't met them which is like comparing a picture to a movie.

Of course only you know the how accurate it was as they are your creations.

Geoffery wrote: "Janny wrote: "I do not ever write the same story, twice, therefore (grin) you will need to read to find out.

For this volume, though, do you think Morriel Prime's assessment was accurate, based on..."

Nicely thoughtful contribution.

Part of the fun of this series is seeing the angles through each characters' viewpoint - and none of them see the whole picture, because always, their own beliefs and impressions shift the meaning.

Onward in the series you will see what unfolds.

Because no matter which character sees clearly (or if all of them do) the factor not counted is how each half brother will handle the impacts, for them self.

Until 6 weeks ago I had never read anything of yours Janny. I might have seen your books in a shop but dont really recall. While getting a bunch of books from the local libray sale at 20c each one of them happened to be called Grand Conspiracy. It had a sword guy on the front and looked like a fantasy one so I got it.

I stopped reading it at page 258 then went out and brought Curse of the Mistwraith and To Ride Hells Chasm.

At the moment I'm waiting for Ships of Merior to arrive so I will be able to pick up the next 3 together read them then finish GC. Then it will be ordering the next 3 after them. Which will take me up to your latest one Initiates Trial.

Ive been lurking your website reading chat and FAQ thinking if I should comment on the books as I read them or wait till Im finished.

Geoffery wrote: "Until 6 weeks ago I had never read anything of yours Janny. I might have seen your books in a shop but dont really recall. While getting a bunch of books from the local libray sale at 20c each one ..."

Hi Geoffrey - it will help to read them in order, very much, since Grand Conspiracy is totally midstream for the series. The FAQ on the website will definitely tip off a lot of stuff - some people would prefer not to see certain spoilers, there, but if that doesn't bother you, have at it and enjoy.

To Ride Hell's Chasm is completely unrelated and a standalone - not even in the same universe. No need to wait on that one, if you are so inclined.

I've been reading them in order and am a little over halfway through Stormed Fortress. I am completely overcome with the power of this story and the divergent paths of the two brothers. I can't put it down and will be in withdrawal when I finish this book. I hope you enjoy them as much as I have, Geoffrey.

Just a side note, but one that may be useful to some:
After finishing my 3rd read of Mistwraith last week I realized that I just had to read it again, right now. My reason? The levels of detail in the Wars of Light and Shadow are seemingly endless, like the Mandelbrot(SP?) series in Chaos Theory. The more deeply you read, you discover finer and finer layers of detail that, over the series, resolve into a total picture of Athera.

JUST ONE EXAMPLE -- early in Mistwraith, during the encounter with the Freesinger, that character mentions how surprised he was at the "lyrical complexity" of the "barbarian" music. He does not even realize that the barbarians are the descendants of the ancient nobility, which, of course, explains that complexity, and HE IS A SINGER OF HISTORIES! A further analogy to tag this brief reference (only 2 sentences) to our own earthly history is that the Celtic and Elizabethan folk songs were largely derived from the noble bard/troubadour lineage of the medieval, many centuries before. To carry it one step further, much of Old Timey Mountain Music here in the USA, and, by extension, traditional Bluegrass music, came from and through the Celtic and Elizabethan. Therefore, a partial explanation of the complexity and sophistication of the musicianship and composition of so-called "hillbilly" music.

Okay, so some of this is a far-reach, maybe, but it is there, and it is real and true (ask Janny).

My point is that there are layers within layers within layers in this series, and any degree of attentiveness one wants to bring to its reading will be amply rewarded. It's like a hall of mirrors in many ways. Yes, Alice, this is Wonderland. No, Dorothy -- certainly not Kansas anymore.

Charles wrote: "Yes, Alice, this is Wonderland. No, Dorothy -- certainly not Kansas anymore. "

LOL! I represent the latter portion of that statement! :)

I long to re-read CotM, but I burn to read the rest of the series. Competing desires and I believe the unknown outweighs the known at this point.

Interesting you mention the connection between mountain music and Celtic folk songs. I recently watched the movie 'The Songcatcher' that touched upon that topic.

Connections to layers within layers, and then more connections to layers within layers etc.

It's very important to read the entire series to get the whole picture, Jon, and then go back and reread. Then you are informed by what comes after to help see something new in the reread. I am so impressed with how the whole world comes alive in the weaving of the whole so that I care as much for the world of Athera as the characters do.

I completely agree Sandra. I will restrain myself on re-reading. I made an effort to slow down (even more) and absorb as much as possible while reading Warhost. I worry I'm going to miss something, hence I try not to read Janny's works late in the evening when I start to nod off.