| Date: 11 April 2011, 00:07
|
I'm a fan of Hobb's other books, but I avoided reading this book for a while due to the negative reviews I read here. But I finally decided to try it, and I just finished it last night, having stayed up four hours past my bedtime to do so.
The main criticisms that other reviewers have brought up so far have been that the book is slow and dull, that nothing really happens, that it's only a setup novel, and that the main character, Nevare, is uninteresting. I find none of these to be true. Actually, based on the negative reviews, while reading the book I kept expecting to get bored or bogged down. I didn't. In almost every chapter there's something happening, something changing, something moving forward. You'd have to be blind not to see it.
Other reviewers have remarked on Nevare's lack of uniqueness. I really do not understand this. Sure, there's the distinct absence of a stereotypical prophecy saying that he's destined to save the world, but there's no dearth of interesting things about Nevare. One reviewer said that "Nevare does not question his society, his role, his society's racism or destructive policies; he is as stuffy as most of his kind." Another noted that he is "shallow and accepts things as they come." I must disagree. I feel that there is tension in Nevare's personality stemming from his being disgusted with the state of affairs (e.g. the way Plainspeople are treated; the destruction of the forest), and not understanding why things are the way they are, yet being commanded by people he respects to accept those things. This polarization of his character -- on the one hand, firmly believing in the rightness and immutability of his place in the world, and on the other, deeply questioning it -- is at the heart of the story, and is a theme that surfaces again and again and again. What is the right thing to do? When should one have faith, and when should one question? When is it right to obey, when to rebel? When do you accept and when do you question authority? There is a place for both; how ought one choose to do each? What do you do when doing the right thing will lead only to punishment?
Like any of us -- like FitzChivalry -- Nevare forgets or denies what he knows to be true -- quite often, in fact. This frustrated me in the Fitz novels as well as this book, but it's realistic.
I found Shaman's Crossing much like Assassin's Apprentice. They are both character studies at heart, following a protagonist through a variety of different, quirky experiences that come to shape who he is. In all of Hobb's stories, the character is what shapes the plot more than vice versa. These character-driven plots tend to meander into places that violate the conventions of standard fantasy because there is no grand prophecy to fulfill; the chips fall where they will. I find this to be no different between Fitz's story and Nevare's. One difference between Fitz and Nevare is that Fitz started out with more overtly interesting qualities, e.g. he has magical abilities, is a prince's bastard, and is trained as an assassin. Perhaps some readers of Shaman's Crossing will feel comparatively stifled by Nevare's commitment to his obligations and responsibilities, by his lack of political importance or magical abilities. But for reasons I've already outlined, I think there's plenty about Nevare to interest. It doesn't at all require patience or interest in philosophical topics to do so.
I also find fascinating how Hobb subverts our preconceived ideas. For instance, I mentioned earlier that there's no prophecy that Nevare will save the world. Actually, though, the whole experience with Dewara and then Tree Woman makes clear that each of them expects him to save their world. But this once again begs the question of what it means to do the right thing. What does it mean to "save the world," if saving one world will destroy another? There's no clear-cut answer.
The setting is a bit strange to me, as the government is feudal, with kings and lords, yet many aspects of it resemble 18th or 19th century United States, with muskets and spiritualistic seances and such. It's a strange juxtaposition. And you have Plainspeople who are clearly a parallel to Native Americans, and many of the social issues are the same. I was a bit nervous that Hobb would take the easy way out and simply set up a Natives-good colonists-bad dichotomy, which is just as stupid as the old Natives-evil colonists-good thing. But this gets very tangled and confused in a very satisfying way, as both sides (more than two, actually) are willing to cause death and violence to achieve their ends. Again, through Nevare's eyes we come back to the question of what is right and just and honorable, how much do you accept of your reality. Who's good? Are the Plainspeople good? Is Tree Woman good? Are the colonists good? It brings up the question of why people do what they do -- again, the heart of the story.
I think that those who saw only a flat, boring story didn't explore what the story offered. Unlike in the Fitz stories, nobody dies except from plague. No great wars are waged. Nevare is not in contact with people in power. But much is happening.
So, in closing, I'd like to reiterate that I disagree with the negative reviews, as I think a tremendous amount of importance occurs in the book, and that it is yet another fascinating character study from Robin Hobb. I recommend it and I look forward to the next in the series.
|
DISCLAIMER:
This site does not store Shaman's Crossing on its server. We only index and link to Shaman's Crossing provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete Shaman's Crossing if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.
|
 |
|
Comments (0)
All
