Hetley, James A. - The Summer Country
Sun, Jan. 4th, 2004 10:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oyceterUnfortunately, not as good as the blurbs in the back sounded. The Summer Country is about Camelot after Arthur's death in the vaguest sense -- we are told it is Camelot, but there's really not that much in the mythology that makes Arthur and Camelot anything but a throwaway history for an imaginary land parallel to our own.
Our heroine is Maureen, someone sexually abused as a child, and thought of as slightly insane by most people. She quickly finds out that she isn't who she thought she was; in fact, she carries the blood of the Summer Country in her and is a powerful witch. Various powerplays ensue.
I had various problems with this book -- not enough to really hate it or even powerfully dislike it, but it's also nowhere near a potential good book for me. I was a bit iffy on the treatment of Maureen's sexual trauma. I can't really pin down why, and I'm a bit scared to, because I have no knowledge on the subject matter and have no idea how accurate or not it may be. I liked the grittiness of the book up to a point, but I got quickly tired of Maureen's paranoia and was rather glad when her sister Jo and Jo's boyfriend David also started taking part of the story, rendering it something other than the Maureen and Brian show, Brian being the guy who tells her about the Summer Country.
The toughness of the characters and the attention to small things like wetting one's pants out of sheer fear were nice touches, especially in the too often glossed over fantasy genre, but in the end, I felt somewhat that the characters were tough just for show. No one in the book felt like a real person to me. Also, sadistic villains with no depth at all annoyed me (incest! torture! rape! like a bad romance's villain!sex).
I don't know. The snippet on the back of the book -- "They have slaves in the Summer Country. Camelot is dead. Arthur is dead. Law is dead. Power rules." -- was so evocative of a dystopia, of Camelot gone horribly wrong, that I was kind of disappointed when the real conflict of the story turned out not to be anything big like saving Camelot or helping or anything, but rather, rescuing Maureen once she is kidnapped! After the rescue of Maureen (by herself, which was also nice. One cannot argue that Hetley wrote wussy females), the book basically ends. From the blurbs, it sounds like a single volume.
Something that also alienated me from the book was the (imho) gratuitous violence, particularly a scene in which Maureen avenges herself. Squick. Blood everywhere. I don't know if I'm particularly sensitive to violence... I think I am, but I can also read bits like the Kushiel series and not be disgusted at all. It depends on the level of emotion I've invested in the story and in the characters and if that investment is paid off. I like the pain and the angst and the blood, but only if there's some underlying bright human emotion underneath, from the twisted love of Spike/Buffy and Wes/Lilah to Phedre enduring Darsanga for Imriel or the thorny lines of hate and love and sorrow and pain in Tigana. This one I felt didn't have that to justify the violence. Also, I was a little irked at the true love of Brian and Maureen overcoming sexual abuse thing, especially when there was absolutely no development of why Maureen might like Brian except that he *gasp* was nice and protected her, or any reason Brian might like Maureen except she was a giantly powerful witch.
Our heroine is Maureen, someone sexually abused as a child, and thought of as slightly insane by most people. She quickly finds out that she isn't who she thought she was; in fact, she carries the blood of the Summer Country in her and is a powerful witch. Various powerplays ensue.
I had various problems with this book -- not enough to really hate it or even powerfully dislike it, but it's also nowhere near a potential good book for me. I was a bit iffy on the treatment of Maureen's sexual trauma. I can't really pin down why, and I'm a bit scared to, because I have no knowledge on the subject matter and have no idea how accurate or not it may be. I liked the grittiness of the book up to a point, but I got quickly tired of Maureen's paranoia and was rather glad when her sister Jo and Jo's boyfriend David also started taking part of the story, rendering it something other than the Maureen and Brian show, Brian being the guy who tells her about the Summer Country.
The toughness of the characters and the attention to small things like wetting one's pants out of sheer fear were nice touches, especially in the too often glossed over fantasy genre, but in the end, I felt somewhat that the characters were tough just for show. No one in the book felt like a real person to me. Also, sadistic villains with no depth at all annoyed me (incest! torture! rape! like a bad romance's villain!sex).
I don't know. The snippet on the back of the book -- "They have slaves in the Summer Country. Camelot is dead. Arthur is dead. Law is dead. Power rules." -- was so evocative of a dystopia, of Camelot gone horribly wrong, that I was kind of disappointed when the real conflict of the story turned out not to be anything big like saving Camelot or helping or anything, but rather, rescuing Maureen once she is kidnapped! After the rescue of Maureen (by herself, which was also nice. One cannot argue that Hetley wrote wussy females), the book basically ends. From the blurbs, it sounds like a single volume.
Something that also alienated me from the book was the (imho) gratuitous violence, particularly a scene in which Maureen avenges herself. Squick. Blood everywhere. I don't know if I'm particularly sensitive to violence... I think I am, but I can also read bits like the Kushiel series and not be disgusted at all. It depends on the level of emotion I've invested in the story and in the characters and if that investment is paid off. I like the pain and the angst and the blood, but only if there's some underlying bright human emotion underneath, from the twisted love of Spike/Buffy and Wes/Lilah to Phedre enduring Darsanga for Imriel or the thorny lines of hate and love and sorrow and pain in Tigana. This one I felt didn't have that to justify the violence. Also, I was a little irked at the true love of Brian and Maureen overcoming sexual abuse thing, especially when there was absolutely no development of why Maureen might like Brian except that he *gasp* was nice and protected her, or any reason Brian might like Maureen except she was a giantly powerful witch.
Tags:
(no subject)
Tue, Jan. 13th, 2004 01:21 pm (UTC)Exactly. I swear they're like the people that build RPG characters and don't realize the character is a complete twink. I think Lackey's Owlknight series wins the award for having me throw the books against the wall more times than any other. The first one wasn't *too* bad - then the whole Marty Stu-ing of Darian started with the Hawkbrothers and being made one of them, learning their ways (and becoming so expert in them) and, oh look! He's also got magical powers! I just started laughing hysterically when I read his reunion with his NotDead!Family. There is no emotional growth in Lackey's characters. Everyone just validates how really special they are.
So agree with you re: Fitz! I put Fool's Fate on hold at the library already, hee. I love Fitz because he can be so obstinately stupid, but I also love him because he grows and falls back and muddles his way about. Guh. That's also why I loved Malta in Liveship (I don't know, since haven't encountered Hobb fans online much, but I feel she inspires the same sort of feelings Scarlett O'Hara does). She's a complete self-centered bitch in the beginning but I love watching her go through everything.
I was given the pre-order of Fool's Fate as a Christmas present and can't *wait*. I'm dying to know the resolution of Fitz and The Fool, but I'm forcing myself not to look on any boards or read any reviews on the Amazon UK site.
I love Fitz. He makes me ache for what he could be and the love he could have. I found the scene where Chade and The Fool help heal him and remove all his scars to be very poignant. It was as if, in that one moment, Fitz was able to see who he might have been should things have turned out just a little bit different - no Tom Badgerlock, no hiding behind his identity as The Bastard. I have more thoughts about Fitz and The Fool...but only so much space *g*.
And Malta is cool. Even with the self-centeredness she was written with, there was always this core of intelligence, of being self-sufficient even if her idea of self-sufficiency was just to get people to do what she wanted. She grew in ways that I didn't expect her to as did Wintrow. I loved how she had him constantly buffeted between the forces of his religion, his father and Kennit and then brought Wintrow to a point where he *had* to start making some choices.
And I loved finding out for sure who Kennit really was.
Martin I have slight problems with because of the sometimes too much violence for me thing. I'm still scared he's going to kill off Tyrion, Sansa, and/or Daenerys (my favs, heh), but many kudos for him for my being scared. Most authors you can kind of tell who's going to get it and who will always survive, but anything goes in the Fire and Ice series!
I agree that the violence sometimes squicks me a bit. However, I love that he's realistic about it *and* realistic about how good doesn't always triumph and the "right" people don't always make it through to the end. I love what he's done with Sansa, turning her into much more of a political player than I would have thought she could be. Daenerys as well (although what happened to her brother...*shudder*). I like how Martin doesn't fall into the trap of having one "climactic" battle decide all, or having people be so easily categorized into "good" or "evil" personas.
Have you read the third book? There was this one scene in there that made me nauseous and just ripped the guts out of me because I never thought he would do it.
I have. I *think* I know the scene you're talking about. Robb Stark?
(no subject)
Tue, Jan. 13th, 2004 04:52 pm (UTC)Oh I loved Wintrow! I was surprised how much I loved Wintrow and Malta through the books, because I began it thinking Althea was going to be the main character. And while she had a role, I didn't find her quite as compelling as her relatives. And while it frustrated me sometimes how often Wintrow would "fall back" and be unsure again, I also love how every step of change for him was difficult and involved some renunciation of the life he had previously thought of as his.
I really like Sansa ^_^. And I'm glad her sister (Arya? Ar... something. huh) didn't turn out to be cool rebellious girl with wolf while Sansa turned out to be whimpering ninny. The first chapters of the book I developed a dislike of Arya because I felt that the author was pushing me to like her, what with the tomboyness, too often a precursor to PCness. But yeah, Martin definitely sidestepped that ;). And I adore Tyrion.
Yes... Robb and then Catelyn and then the what with the wolf's head. Ouch. I'm kind of scared to see what he'll do in his next book, but must read on... and Tyrion and Daenerys are still alive, amazingly, although I keep half expecting Tyrion to be offed any second now.
Heh, I have a few friends who are afraid of reading more Robin Hobb books because of the dark end to the Assassins series (which I don't quite get.. it's dark, but not that dark). One of them just started Martin and I'm kind of waving flags in front of his face: "NOT FUZZY! NOT HAPPY!"
(no subject)
Fri, Jan. 16th, 2004 03:18 pm (UTC)Back to Hobb - I agree about Althea. She tended to fade into the background for me as well. If anything, I found her to be the most "standard" character with her wanting to be a Liveship Captain even though she's a woman, et cetera. Her whole storyline was fairly standard down to the married and pregnant at the end.
Wintrow and Malta were the most interesting to me - especially Wintrow since his life changed completely. His journey felt somewhat similiar to Fitz's to me except that Wintrow continually moved forward. He would push and question whereas Fitz remains stuck.
Ah, Fitz. He just...it's not a "I want to make it all better for you" kind of thing. I want to knock him upside the head and shake loose all the misconceptions he carries around with him - even while I love his fallible nature at the same time.
The last book had some small instances that really threatened to change Fitz's core beliefs about himself. One of those was when he learned that his father did love and care for him, and that the nickname given him by the flighty woman whose name escapes me was something that his father had called him. It wasn't just some random thing.
He continually dodges Burrich and I not convinced it's entirely because it's safer that Burrich and Molly not know he's alive. I think he's afraid of being confronted with two people who loved him dearly and their reaction to him. IMO, Nettle will force the issue.
And the Fool...The Fool is the ultimate representation of what Fitz fears. The Fool knows pretty much everything there is to know and loves him anyway. He's one of the few people Fitz can't successfully hide from. The Fool is able to lay Fitz bare.
(no subject)
Sat, Jan. 24th, 2004 04:46 pm (UTC)I absolutely adore the Fool and Fitz relationship. I love how Fitz's fear about the relationship makes the Fool hide bits from him that the Fool doesn't want to hide, and just the general complexity of it all. Would talk more, but must run to work now!