Coldfire reread: BSR Book 1

[trobadora]

Today we're looking back at the first third of BSR. Where did the time go - didn't we just start the reread?

So far, we've met our main characters and have been introduced to life on Erna. The bad guys have launched their first attack, and the plot has been set in motion - Damien, Ciani and Senzei have embarked on their quest, and Gerald and Hesseth are on their way to meet them.

Here are all our discussion posts so far:

• prologue
• chapter 1
• chapters 2-4
• chapter 5
• chapters 6-9
• chapters 10-11
• chapter 12
• chapter 13-14

What do you think - how's the reread going for you so far? There's been a bit of a drop in participants - where have you all disappeared to? ;-)

Tell us - which were the most interesting points or chapters for you? What new things did you discover about the book, the characters, the world? Which discussion was the most fun? What can't you wait to discuss further?

I keep discovering new details I'd either never noticed or completely forgot in the mean time - about the Holy War and the history of sorcery on Erna, more than anything. I'm becoming more aware of the themes - fear, hunger, balance, as we've discussed in some of the threads above. But my favourite chapter, unsurprisingly, is the Narilka one; I still love that vision of the dark fae best of all.

What about you?

On Thursday, we'll be continuing with chapter 15 - and Gerald and Damien will finally meet! :D

Comments

[carmentalis.livejournal.com]

It's been a rather intimate little circle lately. :-)

What I'm really enjoying about this is the slow pace and the attention to detail. It's vastly different from my usual reading pace, and I'm realizing how much I miss even with re-reads. And the discussions are great for bringing out those little details, motifs and themes.

My favourite chapter so far was the prologue. Technically it isn't flawless (fear, fear, FEAR, and did you notice that Almea feels fear?), but I love all the undercurrents and the implied background in it.

The Church history is still giving me a bit of a headache - I'm looking forward to whatever comes up next in that area.

[trobadora]

Wait for it, by the end it's going to be just the two of us. ;-)

And yeah, the attention to detail is a very good thing - and also, rereading everything, without skipping ahead to the "juicy" bits. I do that way too much when I reread, and look at all the fascinating stuff I nearly missed!

[carmentalis.livejournal.com]

The chapters we've been reading are high on my skip list. I tend to go straight from the prologue to the meeting with Gerald. Of course, from there on I tend to read quickly, so I've probably missed just as much detail there as I did here.

This re-read is a lot more fun than any collective reading I ever did at uni or school. Literary analysis without pressure is such a nice thing.

[trobadora]

I generally skip the prologue too, and jump straight to their first meeting. And after that, I often skip a lot of the Senzei plotline, so I'm really looking forward to finding new and/or forgotten things there too.

Of course, then there's Andrys, and I'm suddenly not looking forward to rereading everything quite so much. ;-)

[devohoneybee.livejournal.com]

I'm avidly reading every post, even if I have nothing new to add. I'm fairly new to the series... just started reading it when I read about this re-read in Melina's LJ. So I've finished the series now, but not actually "re" reading it. And I have so many comments and things to ponder, but we haven't gotten up to them yet! And they are kind of meta. For example, has anyone ever discussed fannish reaction (or identification) with Gerald vs. Damien and how it might parallel the ways fans reacted to Methos and Duncan in Highlander fandom? Methos and Gerald are both enigmatic, charming, very long-lived individuals with some serious evildoing in their past, who never, ever come out and say, "I'm sorry I was bad before, I'm trying to be good now" but who arguably have changed significantly over time. Damien and Duncan both tend to be identified as the "boy scout" type, the ones more conventionally aligned in terms of values, though both have a lot more depth and range than that initial characterization suggests. In Highlander fandom, there were AVID discussions raging over who was in the right when the characters quarrelled. I found myself, as with Methos, totally charmed by Gerald, and yet, after I had finished reading the series, really feeling a lot more for Damien's positions, even his earlier, less tolerant ones. This feeling was heightened after reading someone's fanfic (sorry, not recalling whose right now, I blazed through everything I could get my hands on in about 3 days) about how Gerald and Almea met. SEEING how he loved her spelled out made his torture of her all the more monstrous. So I am curious about if any other fans have wandered through this shift of alignment, or back and forth with it, as I have.

In sum, yes, please keep doing the discussions. (oops, that was long)

[trobadora]

Hi there! That's a very interesting question. I feel, personally, that Gerald/Damien and Methos/Duncan are very very different on a fundamental level - first, unlike Methos, Gerald is blatantly and openly evil when we meet him, though he changes after that, whereas we meet Methos as a good guy first before we find out anything about his dark past. And then, Duncan is considerably less pragmatic than Damien - he could never have done what Damien did. One thing I deeply admire about Damien is his ability to respect Gerald while simultaneously condemning his evil - Duncan, on the other hand, can't hold things apart like that. He judges from a far more emotional place, IMO.

I found myself, as with Methos, totally charmed by Gerald, and yet, after I had finished reading the series, really feeling a lot more for Damien's positions, even his earlier, less tolerant ones.

I think it's simultaneously less complicated and more so in Coldfire - less so because Gerald is evil and merrily commits murder along the way, so it's much easier for me to say I adore him as a character but of course don't agree with him. And more complicated because Coldfire gets deep into the complexities of allying yourself with evil for the greater good, and what that will do to you, whereas the question in Highlander is more or less "just" where Methos stands now, and how much he's put his past behind him (or not). Depending how you interpret that, you'll likely come to very different conclusions about the Duncan/Methos conflict. Does that make sense?

someone's fanfic (sorry, not recalling whose right now, I blazed through everything I could get my hands on in about 3 days) about how Gerald and Almea met.

I think that might have been one of alighiera's?

[devohoneybee.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the response! I agree with all those distinctions, but actually, I think it makes Damien's struggle all the more poignant. Gerald continues to kill, and Damien quite rightly finds it reprehensible. The Patriarch comes across, personally, as not a very appealing man, and yet, I can also really understand his position. But all the while I was reading, I was charmed by Gerald, and hoping Damien would ... come around. It's this duality of response that interests me -- her achievement as a writer, to draw me in and provoke different responses at different levels, that shift on reflection and again at re-immersion... and then again on reading fanfic, and through that lens, again, or the next re-read or contemplation. I'm curious if other readers have gone through this... complexity of response. Moral consternation in literary complexity, yo (that, and the distressing urge to write Coldfire songfic to Sarah McLaughlin lyrics... eep!)

[trobadora]

but actually, I think it makes Damien's struggle all the more poignant

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. For me, Gerald is exactly the archetype I usually go for, so my sympathies were very much on his side from the beginning. And yes, I did want Damien to come around, even though I knew what that meant - and I really enjoyed watching him come around. :-) Even though Damien's initial attitude is far closer to my own ethics, I find it very difficult to judge Gerald by those ethics - what I love in fictional characters overrides that. Very fascinating. *g*

[devohoneybee.livejournal.com]

So what is it about what we love in fictional characters that overrides our "real" ethics? I remember this same issue with Methos when people were arguing that he was a "bad guy" and therefore no one should like him -- I'm not talking about Adam Pierson, but about Bronze Age (or Bad Ass) Methos, and all the stories that were popping up about HIM. My response was -- Bronze Age "you live to serve me" Methos as a literary character? Yummie! If I was actually THERE as a human being? Run like hell!

There is something a bit compelling about the juxtaposition of Narilka's story with the opening scene as the first views we have of Gerald. When the stranger meets Narilka, he has mercy on her, making him seem courtly, whimsical, almost benevolent and tender (with just enough darkness and danger to make him fascinating and definitely sexual -- the big bad wolf to Narilka's virgin innocence). I remember reading something about villains and who they "spare" -- as if convincing themselves of their own beneficence, while still remaining fully esconsed in the cruelty/killer/sadist pattern. But it's a nice hook to the reader, to make one wonder about him.

I also think there is something archetypal in that -- the mercy of the powerful (and doubly, the darkly powerful) is far more credible and potentially transformative than the mercy of the habitually kind, because it calls up the emotionally patterning of wounding from the past, and heals it. Gerald's reluctant mercies are all the more precious for that, and are the kinky little heart of his appeal as a character, for me. Mercy embedded firmly in a matrix of sadism and control. Dang.

[trobadora]

So what is it about what we love in fictional characters that overrides our "real" ethics?

That's the question, isn't it? I've never been able to entirely resolve that to my satisfaction. But there's definitely that factor you mention:

Mercy embedded firmly in a matrix of sadism and control.

There's something about the kindness of the cruel that makes it doubly sweet. And I've no idea why that gets me so much, but it absolutely does.

Would you mind if I pointed people to this comment? I'd love to hear more people's opinions on that.

I remember reading something about villains and who they "spare"

Do you remember where you read that? It sounds fascinating.

[devohoneybee.livejournal.com]

Sure, link away. I'm delighted to be having this conversation. And no, I don't recall where I read, or heard about the benevolent exception that keeps the killer's self-regard just this side of the line...

Another term for the kink appeal of the mercy of the cruel is that it "solves" the repetition compulsion (Freud's concept of why we seek the same bad patterns *cough* men *cough* over and over again) -- the new person has to remind us enough of the one who wounded us that we get the experience of trying to "get it right" this time. Gerald stands in for all the meanies, all the ones who held one's life (or worth) in his hands... only this time, because Damien is so damned ... courageous *cough* loveable *cough*... he relents, he tranforms, he takes off his Darth Vader helmet at last, he sacrifices, he heals (in his own off-beat way), and he saves. And he smiles his sweet, enigmatic smile. All is well, finally and for all time, echoing back to the original wound.

[trobadora]

Gerald stands in for all the meanies, all the ones who held one's life (or worth) in his hands... only this time, because Damien is so damned ... courageous *cough* loveable *cough*... he relents, he tranforms, he takes off his Darth Vader helmet at last, he sacrifices, he heals (in his own off-beat way), and he saves.

I find the theory very interesting, but I'm not sure how well it holds up - it presumes that you've been wounded in a significant way, which not everyone has. And it also ascribes more importance to the other person - in this case Damien - than that person necessarily has. I'd take occasionally kind cruel characters without any significant other to be instrumental in transforming them just as gladly. (But of course as always, different people will have different reasons for liking the same thing.)

[devohoneybee.livejournal.com]

In this case, Damien as well as other characters and situations play a part -- Narilka, Karil, etc. I'd say if such characters are absent, there is still the character/reader relationship. As for wounding, such things are not necessarily dramatic, obvious, or in any way defining of one's personality or sense of self. Didn't we all have that moment when the perfect fantasy of being seen, heard, appreciated, understood was dashed by a careless comment from a powerful other? Such feelings are pretty universal, and go deep, though we learn to move on past them. But I think for those of us who like the Geralds of the literary world, there is a hunger for transformation of the residue of those moments. Not everyone likes these kinds of characters -- some stay right where Damien started, or the Patriarch -- condemning and disinterested in the soul behind the monster. I think back to my childhood, watching Star Trek in its original run, and marveling how anyone would be more fascinated by Kirk than by the enigmatic and unsmiling Spock. The producers of the show were fascinated, too, at all the fan mail Nimoy got -- all those women wanting to be the one to heal his pain and warm him up. Not exactly a Gerald but in the same general spectrum, I think.

[trobadora]

Such feelings are pretty universal

Well, yes, but that doesn't make it more plausible for me that it would be the source of every fascination with dark characters ever. I don't think human psychology is that simple - some people will like them for this reason, and others for others.

But I think for those of us who like the Geralds of the literary world, there is a hunger for transformation of the residue of those moments.

Hm. I seriously don't recognise myself in this. I don't see the dark character as the other; I tend to identify with him/her. I find Gerald far easier to relate to than Damien, for example.

[prettyarbitrary.livejournal.com]

And no, I don't recall where I read, or heard about the benevolent exception that keeps the killer's self-regard just this side of the line...

I remember reading comments to that effect at some point, too. In fact, the way you word it makes me think we both read the same thing... I'll have to try to remember what it might've been.

But what moves me to comment is your point about repetition compulsion as it applies to Gerald and Damien. My first response was, "Damn, so Damien's like Gerald's chance to walk the path again and do it the right way?" Which suddenly made the points we've noted about ways in which Damien is similar to Tarrant more significant (also I want to point to alighiera's point above about Damien judging from a place of logic--which is true, and cool because at first glance he tends to strike me as an emotionally aligned character, but he really isn't).

On second glance, however, of course that's too simplistic a reading for this book. :D But still I think there's something to it. It's not that Damien is about Gerald projecting himself, or that Gerald would even want to do such a thing. But Damien does have the ability to lead Gerald back to the path he originally walked, and try it again. Because Damien's already on that path--balancing faith, evil, and the fae--and has ironically made it further than Tarrant ever did.

spoiler in comment for beyond where we've been reading

[devohoneybee.livejournal.com]

Oh I don't in any way propose that this discussion is all there is to the book -- that would definitely be too simplistic. I'm not trying to explain the book as a whole, merely pick at the question, "what is it about the kindness of the monster that intrigues us so?" We haven't even gotten started on the THEOLOGY involved, which I think is *fascinating*. In the scene where Damien rushes in to protect Jenseny from Gerald, is he, by his faith, creating God... from the fae? So many questions along those lines, and so many layers to this story.

I like what you say about Damien making it farther on the path -- that's indicated in a number of ways, I think, including Damien's greater skill with Healing, and greater flexibility in walking in light AND dark, where Gerald can only walk in the dark.

Re: spoiler in comment for beyond where we've been reading

[prettyarbitrary.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were being simplistic. I was referring to my own thoughts on your comment. :)

I agree about the theology. It's pretty clear Friedman put a lot of thought into that, or at least that she lucked out big-time on accidentally creating a cohesive, internally consistent religion. But I'm betting on the former. I haven't spent much time teasing out the threads of that, but probably I should. It's a perspective I haven't taken on the books yet, and I'm wondering how much more richness it would add to the characters and the story.

[silver-ariane.livejournal.com]

You'll have at least three here for the next chapter! I'm disappointed that I haven't been able to join in re-reading so far, because I've been without a copy of BSR, but I just bought another one, and there's no way I could miss Gerald's introduction. :)

[trobadora]

Hi there! I'm looking forward to seeing you in the discussion. You're right, no one should miss that. :D

And you can always go back and comment on the old discussion posts, now that you've got the book - they're not closed or anything!

[melinafandom.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to add that I am really enjoying the conversations too. I just don't pipe in because I'm usually a day or two behind, plus the comments here are so smart and insightful, I don't honestly feel I have much to offer. But I really appreciate those who do!

[trobadora]

Thanks for stopping by! You can always come in late and comment on older posts, though - we don't close them or anything! So if you feel like you have something to say at some point, don't worry if you're a bit late. :-)

[fallintosanity.livejournal.com]

I'm also really enjoying the discussions - honestly, it's fascinating to me to see how other people react to these books. Doubly so because my fantasy literature class just finished reading BSR, and it's amazing to see the differences between how this community sees the books, and how my class did. And I love finding out about things that other people have picked up that I missed, or seeing someone notice for the first time something I've known since my first read. :) Doing this re-read was a brilliant idea!

[devohoneybee.livejournal.com]

I'd love to know what some of those differences are, in how the class views it versus this forum, if you would like to share that... (just being curious...)

[trobadora]

Oh, that sounds fascinating - tell us more about your fantasy lit class and how they see the books?

[prettyarbitrary.livejournal.com]

*does the dance of the BSR in Fantasy Lit class*

At last! The day I have long awaited has come! I kept pimping BSR in my lit courses in college, hoping one of the profs would check it out. This probably has nothing to do with my efforts, but I'm glad anyway. :D

I'd love to hear about what conclusions your class came to on the book, and what points your instructor made about it. I bet they didn't go anywhere near the slash interpretations, though. :) (Or did they?)

[fallintosanity.livejournal.com]

A lot of the focus was on the combined ideas of sacrifice and situational morality. One of the assignments was to find a scene representing either, and the responses were often not ones I'd've thought of right away. Things like Damien allowing Tarrant's use of simulacra (both times) and being secretly grateful for them - a sacrifice of innocents, as well as of Damien's morality. It's a great look at the beginning of Damien's slide away from moral purity. They also picked up on subtleties of Tarrant's interaction with Senzei that I hadn't really noticed before, like his possible reasons for healing him in the Forest (I'm getting ahead of the reread here) and for putting up with him on the journey.

I was also surprised to find that many of the people in my class thought the plot was kind of predictable. It wasn't predictable for me on my first read (and I've read it so many times since that I'm no longer qualified to judge); did anyone else find this when they first read the book?

[trobadora]

Wow, I wish I could have been in your class. That sounds utterly awesome.

I didn't find the plot predictable, either, as far as I can remember - did they specify which aspects they meant?