Coldfire re-read: Crown of Shadows - looking back at The Dark Within

[trobadora]

We're already through the second book of CoS, so now's the time to look back at The Dark Within.

Links

Looking back at Demon's Wake

The Dark Within:
Chapters 14 & 15
Chapters 16-18
Chapter 19
Chapters 20-23
Chapters 24-27

Thoughts

• Is it just me, or were the individual books of the two previous novels divided less arbitrarily? The first two books just don't seem to be different books to me, although the third works better since they go on the road again at that point. Perhaps it's also that having two completely separate plots is making the division harder; we didn't have that in the previous books. Thoughts?


• Narilka leaves a bad taste in my mouth here. In BSR she was awesome - but here she's being reduced to the swooning romance novel heroine by Andrys of all people, who can't be called hero material no matter how you cut it. It diminishes her, and I'm still not sure what to make of it. What was Friedman trying to accomplish here? Are we supposed to understand her? Are we supposed to see Andrys as worthy of her affections? Or are we supposed to feel like slapping some sense into both of them (and then making sure they go their separate ways) would be the best for everyone concerned? Any theories? *g*


• We've already discussed Andrys's character, his relationship with Narilka and his role in the war on the forest, and most of us found him unconvincing on all counts. And then there's his role in the ending. I wonder - did any of you see that coming? Is there something in the book that actually thematically leads up to it? Because if so, I've managed to miss it. So far, Andrys seems like a convenient McGuffin for the Patriarch's quest more than anything.


• Speaking of the overall plot, the more I think about it the less it seems to hang together. And I'm not quite sure why the whole "war on the Forest" plot is necessary in the first place. But then again, the whole "Mother of the Iezu" plot feels tacked on up until the grand finale on Mount Shaitan, too, doesn't it? I feel CoS is the least internally consistent of all three novels. Thoughts?


• I've lost track of the rescue tally, but I feel actually saving Tarrant from Hell itself should earn double points or something. *g* It's also interesting to see how far Damien's come since that time in BSR when he could barely be talked into rescuing him from the fire. Certainly more is at stake here, and the justifications are still the same: Tarrant is needed; Damien can't do what needs doing on his own. But he's changed so much in how he actually acts: In BSR, he says no until he's talked into it and has no other viable option; here, he simply does it without hesitation. He still worries, but he doesn't balk even at the worst of it. It's rare that you can see a character's development this clearly, and I really like it.


• But despite the trip to Hell, it's the next book that's actually my favourite part of CoS: Tarrant and Damien and their field trip to Mount Shaitan. Anyone prefer a different part?

Next Monday, we'll be continuing with chapters 28 and 29 ...

Comments

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I... I didn't see BSR!Narilka that awesome that she seems reducded from that in early CoS. I mean, it's not like she does much in BSR. Actually she doesn't do anything as such, apart from showing bravery in the face of possible death. So having more development was cool. Having her do very cool things later on in CoS was where she became awesome.

Are we supposed to see Andrys as worthy of her affections? I never asked myself the question that way. In a way, however, Andrys is Narilka's reward, someone who looks just like the Hunter but safe and all woobie!like (no, you and most readers don't see him as woobie, but Narilka does which is what matters).

Is there something in the book that actually thematically leads up to it?
Sure. An element of retribution/forgiving from someone who was the Hunter's victim was absolutely necessary to the story's thematics...

Anyone prefer a different part?
Same as you; along with some scenes in WTNF.

[trobadora]

I loved Narilka in the first book. You're right, she didn't actually do anything, but I thought she was fantastic in the way she reacted to what she saw and experienced.

An element of retribution/forgiving from someone who was the Hunter's victim was absolutely necessary to the story's thematics...

Maybe? I need to pay more attention to that thematic strand, I suppose. But it's no secret that I consider the Hunter's death a cop-out as much as what they did to the fae in the end, so that's why it doesn't really seem to fit for me. I'm sure we'll revisit that discussion when we actually reach those chapters!

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I agree they don't work all that well from a PoV of plot... it just stretches credulity and it's repetitive to have him almost die that many times. But from a PoV of themes? Very, very necessary.

[trobadora]

No, I meant thematically, if it's about retribution/redemption/forgiveness/whathaveyou, I feel it's a cop-out to strip him of the Hunter part of himself and basically remove temptation to fall back into his old ways ... It doesn't ring true to me to build a second chance on that. But maybe that's just me.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

Oh. Okay, that I agree with. I just meant the fact he had to face Andrew as a representative of his victims was necessary.

[trobadora]

Yes, you're right, that does make sense. It did have to happen; doesn't mean we need to be happy with how it went.

[prettyarbitrary.livejournal.com]

In a way, however, Andrys is Narilka's reward, someone who looks just like the Hunter but safe and all woobie!like (no, you and most readers don't see him as woobie, but Narilka does which is what matters).

Huh. That makes sense, actually. He's not very woobie to me, but the book makes Narilka's perspective on him clear enough, so I can accept that. _{(Oh god, she's fangirling the Hunter.}