Customer Reviews

Godslayer (The Sundering, Book 2)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This isn't, as some have described it, "The Lord of the Rings" told from Sauron's viewpoint. It's "The Lord of the Rings" set in a non-Christian, non-dualist world, where good and evil are secondary constructs, not fundamental conditions of the universe. The tragedy comes from the clash of perceptions, as the "good" side tries to impose its black and white (and incomplete) version of reality upon a world that is significantly more complex than that.

I was rather disappointed that Carey did not appear to have followed through the implications of destroying a portion of the universal Godhead. It's not really clear from anything that comes before why Satoris'death would not in fact have catastrophic consequences, the next time that the One God decides to reconstitute Itself and discovers that one-sixth of It is missing.

As another reviewer remarked, this is a philosophical meditation disguised as a fantasy novel. Plot, character and worldbuilding are sufficient, but not generous (though I rather liked the creepiness of the Gandalf-figure - mind-control through magic gems, hmm), which is why I am only giving it four stars. A certain familiarity and understanding of Tolkien and his philosophy would probably be very helpful. This is not for someone who just wants Kushiel-style hot sex, travelogues and a wallow in familiar tropes.

I enjoyed reading the two books in this sequence, and it would be nice if she wrote more. I would like to know how the new world at the end turns out.

I, like others here, found Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series a wonderful breath of fresh air in a rather stale fantasy market. So, I, like others here, was excited beyond belief to find The Sundering books. I read both one after another about six months ago. I finished not knowing really what I thought. These books are so different, formal and epic, where Kushiel's are personal and enganging. I was sad and drained; I let a friend borrow them with a warning that they were "dark". She didn't read them and I found myself disappointed because I wanted to talk with someone about the books. As time passed I found myself thinking again about the books, the characters, trying to figure out how it could have gone differently, and wondering what will happen now in the world Ms. Carey has created. Kushiel remains in my mind as a terrific story with amazing characters, settings and it was fun, but The Sundering is what I keep thinking about and want more of.

in this wonderful sequel to her magnifcent epic fantasy novel Banewreaker, the battle for Urulat comes to its epic conclusion (maybe). it is beatifully written with a very thought provoking plot and an interesting array of characters. what more can i say? well, what did the skeptics say?

fortunately, most of the romantic fantasy fans and Tolkien purists didn't bother to read (or at least review) this one but still its ratings fall. here are the various complaints against the series and my responses:

ITS NOT LIKE KUSHIEL!
i have yet to read Kushiel, BUT THIS IS A GREAT BOOK. however, if you don't like epic fantasy, you probably won't like it.

IT RIPS OFF TOLKIEN
first of all, WHO CARES! all fantasy books take some inspiration from Tolkien. besides, Tolkien took all that stuff about the beautiful immortal elves(rather than Santa's little helpers), the dwarves that live under the earth, the cursed ring, the sword that was reforged, right out of the Poetic Edda (also a great book). plus, Carey didn't JUST rip off Tolkien, the Marasoumie were right out of Robert Jordan, the whole theme of good seen as evil is very Miltonian, the inevitability of fate theme is omnipresent in Homer, Beowulf, and the Edda, although it seems odd to our modern taste, Satoris' refusal to kill Cerelinde bears striking similarity to Odin's refusal to slay Fenrir, the "water of life" that makes thing young is right of of Norse mythology, the Helm of Shadows sounds like Fafnir's Helm of Terror in the very lays that inspired Tolkien, and the "gifts" of Haomane and Satoris sound like the gifts of Hoenir and Lothur(who is probably Loki, the sort-of-evil god) in the Edda.

I CAN'T SYMPATHIZE WITH ANY OF THE CHARACTERS
if you can't sympathize with anyone who has faults, then you must live a very sheltered life. the only characters who aren't conflicted, and who can't see their own faults, are Haomane's allies. thats the point, they are blindly pursuing their goal towards "paradise" without thinking of the repercussions (sound like our president?). IF YOU NEED CHARACTERS DEFINED IN BLACK AND WHITE THEN DONT READ THIS BOOK!

THE CHARACTERS ACT STUPID
yes, HAOMANE'S ALLIES are blind, thats the theme. Haomane is obssessed with creating his "perfect world" free of emotion, and the humans have been taught that Satoris is the root of all evil. as for the other gods, they're just scared of Haomane. Satoris' allies, on the other hand, know that Satoris is going to die eventually, but they want to keep his gift in the world as long as they can, and die with honor. in our culture that may seem a little dellusional, and perhaps it is, but the ancient epics tell us that in ancient, violent times people believed that destiny was inescapable, and strived for an honorable death rather than a peaceful one. the Were just want peace. the dwarves they probably realize that Haomane is going to win, and don't want to be on his bad side.

ALL THAT STUFF ABOUT THE GIFTS AND THE DRAGONS JUST DOESN'T WORK
its suppsed to be magical, not scientific. IT ISN'T TOTALLY LITERAL! the Fjel can think, but so can dogs or monkeys. they can speak, learn, hunt, and obey, but they don't have the kind of complex analytical or creative abilities of humans. furthermore, Satoris' gift is PASSION not the ability to procreate. Carey uses dragons in Beowulf-like way, as an embodiement of fate. they are omniscient, and can see into the future, but they do not try to change fate, only to carry it out.

I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THESE CHARACTERS
you see what I mean about the Gift of Thought?

SPOILER WARNING: IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING THEN
STOP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a;sldkjfhal;jdfkl;aslkfj;lakjdsf;lkahdsfjashflk;ajsfhljkdfhklajs
all the characters i like die:(that junk was to keep people who don't want to knoe the ending from reading the title when they skim over this, by the way) yet again, thats the theme. from the end of Banewreaker, its pretty evident this isn't going to be a happy ending. however, Carey likes to dangle a sliver of hope before your eyes, well more than a sliver until the end, and take it away, and maybe you think Satoris will win because thats what you want to think. that proves that you DO care about the characters, and thats why Carey is a great storyteller. you cant believe how stupid everyone is, and you cant hate them for it, but you love them too (except Malthus). she WANTS you to think "how could you do that Lilias" and "how could you do that Cerelide" and why didn't you just KILL HER. if you like happy endings then this is not the book for you. still, it does leave you with a glimmer of hope.

Again, I am also a fan of the Kushiel series, however, THIS IS NOT KUSHIEL! This is a whole different world, and it is amazing, with it's own mythology and history.
Wow... some of this book was sadly predictable, not sadly as in bad writing, sad because you know that's how it had to be. Other parts were also amazingly surprising, and also sad in the same aspect, it had to be.
This book was excellent, and it made me cry and laugh at the appropriate parts. And the ending, though it's horrible and made me Carey, was very well-written, and it does leave it open for a possible sequel, which I wouldn't be adverse to.

As other reviewers have noted, the story borrows heavily from LOTR, but with a well-developed cosmology and mythology of its own that make it an interesting read. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear from relatively early on that the supposedly evil guys are really not all that bad, and the supposedly good guys are little better (and in some ways possibly worse), and while that's an interesting concept, it's not really enough. I think Jacqueline Carey sold her readers a little short with this one: the second half of this novel was boringly predictable, as if, having turned good and evil on their heads, she feared to do anything else.

As others have commented before, this is indeed a very, very peculiar fantasy epic. A deliberately anti-LOTR, anti-Tolkien sort of fantasy. It is, I feel, a philosophical meditation disguised as a fantasy novel.

As the author of the Kushiel novels, Ms. Carey's ability to write outstanding conventional fantasy -- with heroes and adventures and a whole lot of even more eyebrow-raising, uniquely Phedre no'Delaunay type things -- cannot be questioned. Yet this is a novel that is missing all of these: it has no sympathetic hero, and it has no final deliverance. After reading it, it leaves a dry and bitter taste in my mouth. I refuse to believe this is an accident. So many things are so diametrically opposed to her old style as well as the Tolkienist conventions that it must have been deliberate.

As a philosophical treatise (if you will), it can be read from many different angles. Here I'll just concentrate on what I take to be the central point of the meditation: the role of fate/providence. In Lord of the Rings, fate/providence plays a double role: it publicly threatens the heroes, yet secretly aids them. The apparent power of the Dark Lord is overwhelming and the fate of defeat for the "good guys" seems certain. Yet this is merely deception: not only the "good guys" refuse to accept such a fate (which is of course where most of the heorism comes from), but in fact in the course of their struggle against this apparent fate, all the "breaks" go their way. At every turning point where the heroes' "fate" hangs along a knife's edge, they have one lucky "coincidence" after another, until such "coincidences" pile so high that even the heroes themselves begin to perceive that fate/providence is in fact at work to aid them to overcome insurmountable odds -- which, when one realizes the inherently uneven playing field favoring the "good guys," in fact are not so insurmountable after all (there is even a sort of sly in-joke, I believe, to this near the end of Godslayer, where the battlefield literally tilts up in favor of the "good guys" to help them win the fight).

Here, the role of providence is presented, in a very unambiguous fashion (unlike the fleeting references in LOTR), as a prophecy uttered by the High God of the "good guys." The entire story consists of various parts of the prophecy, one by one, ruthlessly coming true "despite" all apparent odds against them. One of the truly perverse pleasures (or ironic pains?) of this story is that, since it's told from the perspective of the "bad guys," you feel each "lucky break" for the good guys not as dramatic, exhilarating elation, but as extremely painful regret -- why why oh why does everything that can possibly go wrong in fact does go wrong when it matters the most? Why can't "we" get just ONE lucky break?

But Ms. Carey's twist on fate/providence goes beyond merely a mirror trick. Time and time again, people do things to fulfill the various parts of the prophecy, even when they cannot understand why. Some of these actions, so lacking in apparent rationality (or even down right irrational), boarder on grotesque parodies of heroism. This can be clearly seen in the quest of the "holy water" -- two apparently weak people, against all apparent odds, delivering a dangerous weapon to the heart of the lands of the Dark Lord -- a storyline that most obviously parallels LOTR's Frodo and Sam. But unlike the intrepid hobbits who display a full range of emotions and initiatives, this story's heroes are merely wooden puppets in the hands of fate. Why should they help the High God Haomane in fulfilling his prophecy? It was Haomane who drove them into the desert and forgot about them. Why should they go on this quest? It was merely at the asking of Haomane's emissary -- even when he offers no reward, and if they do not go on this quest, it will bring no harm to their society. Why should they repeatedly make the choices that favor Haomane and his "good" allies? Merely because they have "chosen" to do so, for no good reason. Indeed, their whole community's constant refrain is just the command "Choose," even when most of this community faced their potential executioners, who would almost certainly have spared them if they had offered even the slightest rational defense, or just a plea of mercy. Instead they offer the perverse "Choose" -- asking the executioners to choose to kill them or not with no attempt at defense or explanation. Far from "choosing" their own fate, they in fact abandon themselves to fate.

This is certainly not unique. Time and time again we see characters in this novel abandon themselves to the prophecy/fate/providence for reasons are often to the utter bafflement of themselves. In fact the whole story itself is brought to a bitter climax when two principle characters in effect committe suicide, while giving the explicit explanation of either relieving the burden of individual, rational choice or to fulfill an even greater fate/providence. Time and time again, some of the dialogues actually read almost like a third-person observer commenting on the story, speculating the roles the various actors fill in the whole history/myth-as-a-play, and how implicitly individual choices and autonomous actions are mere illusions.

Above all, the feeling I got at the end is the sheer futility of human agency in the face of the overwhelming ruthlessness of providence. There is really no joy at all in victory, or even the hunger for revenge in defeat: everything is foretold, prophesized, ordained to the nth power. The foremost feeling is utter despair at the hands of fate.

To be sure, this is no exhilarating, melodramataic and happy reading material! Another Kushiel clone it certainly is not. As a straightforward fantasy/adventure novel, I cannot in good conscious recommend it. But if one is willing to take a walk on the wild side a bit, give this very peculiar and strange philosophical fantasy a try.

BTW, it's also interesting to speculate -- this part is indeed resting on very thin ice -- about some theological implications of this novel vis-a-vis LOTR. Tolkien is well-known as a devout Christian, yet LOTR is ostensibly a pagan novel: no savior God, no grand judgment, and certainly plenty good ol' fashioned pagan philosophy (especially in war -- reminiscent of the Iliad, where heroes achieve immortality by dying bravely and famously on battlefelds). But fundamentally it's tentalizingly Christian in at least two respects. One is the subtle hints about how fate/providence assists the good at every turn (Gandalf, who certainly benefits from it, comments on this more than once). The other is the timeline: LOTR speaks of the passing of different ages in a linear timeline. Though it has only beginning but no visible end, it certainly does not subscribe to the notion of "cycles." In yet another interesting twist (at least it seems to me), Godslayer turns this around too: it's Christianity-like notion of providence is hammered to home at the readers again and again (while showing the very, very dark side of such providence), but this providence nevertheless is fitted inside a fundamentally pagan notion of cyclical times, where nothing truly ever ends. Plus, the jab about how the high god Haomane is an "absent father" is more than a little suggestive...

I loved her Kushiel series. And I knew, getting into these books, that they are essentially Lord of the Rings from the bad guys' point of view. I knew, going in, that this meant it probably wouldn't end well.

I think she did a good job, but the problem is with my personal taste. I cannot stand reading books where the characters do nothing but repeatedly fail at every single thing they do. And that seems to be what these books were about. I know some people must like that sort of thing, otherwise no one would ever read John Steinbeck, but personally I just find that draining.

Personal taste aside, I liked the ideas presented in it. People get upset and are unwilling to listen when their personal paradigm is threatened. If you look at any controversial argument you tend to see that a lot. Especially with regard to religion.

I thought there were too many character points of view. I think I prefer her style in the Kushiel books that focuses on just one person. I admit that I just could not bring myself to care about certain characters, like Dani and his uncle. I wanted to keep reading about Lilias, Tanaros and Cerelinde.

The other thing that bothers me, and I think this was part of her point so it's not necessarily a criticism, is that I don't feel anyone really learned anything. The bad guys' crime was essentially just wanting to live and be left alone. The good guys just refused to accept that, and refused to acknowledge that, basically, "They started it." I wish just one character would have come around to realize that. They were like religious fanatics refusing to see reason. Which I'm sure was the point, but it left me ultimately dissatisfied and depressed. Stories that are a pure exercise in defeat are good for discussion, but I greatly prefer a difficult journey with a happy ending, please.

After reading the first half, Banewreaker, long after it was released, I had promised myself not to wait on reading the second half. After all, they were originally meant to be published as one, and the end of Banewreaker was such that one really didn't want to wait on the conclusion for too long. Quite a feat for the author to have accomplished, I must say, given that you know from the get-go where the story is heading: the `bad' guys, the ones you in fact end up rooting for, are fated to lose.

Perhaps it is just human nature, helped along by the way Carey writes the story, but even despite knowing that it is a tragedy, you constantly keep hoping that something will happen to change the inevitable. You just can't imagine she'll really go ahead and do what she's said she will do, even when the evidence mounts higher and higher. But ... she does. And if you're anything like me, you'll read the last hundred pages with a growing lump in your throat and a tightness in your chest. Not too many weeks ago, we studied tragedies in my Literature class, and Godslayer definitely fulfills many of the requirements of a classic tragedy, not the least being able to produce katharsis in its readers.

I'd previously enjoyed books by the author of Godslayer, Jacqueline Carey. Her Kushiel books were thick stories of political intrigue in a fantasy world (with more focus on the courtesans than I appreciated, but that happens), and I loved the cover of the first book in this duology when I picked it up, so high hopes ensued.

Before I began reading Banewreaker, I had heard a vague rumor around the internet (because I can't remember where exactly), that the inspiration for the story was a what-if: What If Sauron wasn't the bad guy Middle Earth thought he was? This sounding like a fascinating jumping-off point- an interesting take on good, evil, and how people can be manipulated into one or the other.

What I didn't count on was that it wasn't so much inspired by LotR as a near-direct mirror image copy. I tried, really hard, to give the books a chance. I slogged through the difficult-to-get-into first half of the first book, and then found myself having an easier time telling what was going on simply because of the relation to LotR.

Yes, there were a few characters that weren't exact copies of Tolkien's, but those were few. I found myself annoyed by the lack of originality, and irritated by the total lack of empathy that any of the characters inspired. I've always found it difficult to tolerate stories that are blatant rip-offs, but this was one of the worst offenders I've ever dealt with.

Fast-forward several years, and I found the second book at Half-Price Books, and figured it couldn't possibly be as dreadful as I remembered. So I bought it. And it took me months upon months to dreg up enough interest to actually start reading this book.

Oh, it was hard to read. Again, it took my a good quarter of the book before I sank into the rhythm of just remembering characters by their LotR equivalents, and the parallels (to be as kind as possible) grated on my nerves.

Add in the fact that it was difficult to read at work based merely on the title... for example:

Customer: Godslayer! What a terrible title!
Me: It's a fantasy novel.
Customer: Well! Talking about killing gods! (flounces off)
Me: (sigh...)

...and you get a book that while I was able to finish it, I didn't enjoy it. At all.

Seriously, they even have the White Wizard on a White Horse, convincing the people who are known for their Awesome Horses to fight back against The Bad Guy (who is soooooo emo and not at all sympathetic or A Good Guy), the King of Men taking his throne and wedding The Elf Chick, while his sidekick dies to buy time for The Bearer (of a clay vial and not a ring) and his companion to get down to the bowels of The Bad Guy's Fortress and enable the death of The Bad Guy by falling into a pit of lava.

I am not kidding.

I know this is a re-write from the perspective of the King of the Nazguls from Lord of the Rings, so we know how the story ends. That's not why I knocked off two stars. I did that because the characters just aren't that interesting. The only two who held my interest was the half-breed who seemed to hate everything and Lord Sartoris himself. He was interesting. The others just felt like place-holders. I will say that this world is dissimilar enough from Middle-Earth and the remaining characters and possibilities are intriguing enough that if the author returns to this world with an original series, I'd probably read it.