Riddlemaster
Jul. 23rd, 2010 10:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bonny_kateLast night I finished reading (yet again) Patricia McKillip's Riddlemaster trilogy, and had the same reaction that I always have. I like the first book, quite a lot. I'm bored by the second book until the end. I'm extremely ambivalent about the third.
When I first read the first book, it was the only one of the trilogy available at my library, and I couldn't find the second book to read it. I spent many hours teasing at the riddle of Deth, and coming to no satisfactory conclusion. It was, I think, several years later that I finally was able to read the entire trilogy, and finish the story. I think this is why the first book seems to stand almost by itself in my mind, not that it is complete in itself, but I spent so long thinking of it as complete in itself, that I am unsatisfied by the answers provided in the second and third books.
I know why I'm bored by the second book, and it is because it centers around Readerle, when I am really only interested in Morgan. Readerle's journey towards truth and self-knowledge echoes Morgan's, but I find it uncompelling. I really want to know what happened to Morgan, and don't care that Readerle has sudden knowledge of unexplained powers. It isn't until the very end of the book, when Readerle challenges the dead king with his skull, and Morgan confronts Deth, that I am interested again.
The third book centers around Morgan again, and is once again focused on the story that I care about. But the Morgan of the third book is so different from that of the first. He is now bitter, angry, powerful, and has lost that which he most loved; Hed. In the first book, he fights against destiny, because his only desire is to go home to Hed and farm, not to become the Star Bearer. He follows the riddles because they are threatening Hed, and to go home would only bring danger with him. He does not want a mysterious harp, and he certainly does not want a mysterious sword. Hed is the point for Morgan in the first book, but in the third he has lost it. By the third book, I miss the Morgan who had the crown of Peven under his bed, and who only faces riddles reluctantly. In the third book, Morgan is driven to find the truth, at all costs, and to answer every riddle, for the sake of the truth (not for the sake of Hed).
I cannot help but wonder every time that I read this trilogy about Deth's betrayal of Morgan. It is, Deth believes, the only way to save the world. Morgan must learn power, but he cannot learn it from Deth, because that would be to show his hand to the shape-changers, who would destroy everything. Morgan cannot learn power from the shape-changers because they will not teach him, and he cannot learn it from the wizards because they are dead. This leaves only the cruelty of Ohm. The shape-changers must be fought, but they can only be fought if Morgan has come into his power and knowledge of land rule, which he cannot as the Prince of Hed with the crown of Peven under his bed and all oblivious to his destiny as the Star Bearer. Morgan understands this, in the end, and does not blame Deth for betraying him into Ohm's power and keeping him alive by reminding him of Hed in the midst of the torture. But I am not convinced that Deth is justified. Deth is merciless to himself and sacrifices himself; he may do that, because it is his sacrifice to make. He may be, in that sense, merciless and unsparing towards himself in order to save the world. But I do not think that he ought to be so towards Morgan.
Deth knowingly brings about a great evil to Morgan in order to bring about a great good. He is as relentless as the shape-changers as both push Morgan towards the end that they desire. The shape-changers desire the end of the world, of all the little and beautiful things, and that is bad, and Deth desires to stop them in order to save all those little and beautiful things, which is good, but both use the same means. I do not think it is worthwhile to save the world by such a means.
When I first read the first book, it was the only one of the trilogy available at my library, and I couldn't find the second book to read it. I spent many hours teasing at the riddle of Deth, and coming to no satisfactory conclusion. It was, I think, several years later that I finally was able to read the entire trilogy, and finish the story. I think this is why the first book seems to stand almost by itself in my mind, not that it is complete in itself, but I spent so long thinking of it as complete in itself, that I am unsatisfied by the answers provided in the second and third books.
I know why I'm bored by the second book, and it is because it centers around Readerle, when I am really only interested in Morgan. Readerle's journey towards truth and self-knowledge echoes Morgan's, but I find it uncompelling. I really want to know what happened to Morgan, and don't care that Readerle has sudden knowledge of unexplained powers. It isn't until the very end of the book, when Readerle challenges the dead king with his skull, and Morgan confronts Deth, that I am interested again.
The third book centers around Morgan again, and is once again focused on the story that I care about. But the Morgan of the third book is so different from that of the first. He is now bitter, angry, powerful, and has lost that which he most loved; Hed. In the first book, he fights against destiny, because his only desire is to go home to Hed and farm, not to become the Star Bearer. He follows the riddles because they are threatening Hed, and to go home would only bring danger with him. He does not want a mysterious harp, and he certainly does not want a mysterious sword. Hed is the point for Morgan in the first book, but in the third he has lost it. By the third book, I miss the Morgan who had the crown of Peven under his bed, and who only faces riddles reluctantly. In the third book, Morgan is driven to find the truth, at all costs, and to answer every riddle, for the sake of the truth (not for the sake of Hed).
I cannot help but wonder every time that I read this trilogy about Deth's betrayal of Morgan. It is, Deth believes, the only way to save the world. Morgan must learn power, but he cannot learn it from Deth, because that would be to show his hand to the shape-changers, who would destroy everything. Morgan cannot learn power from the shape-changers because they will not teach him, and he cannot learn it from the wizards because they are dead. This leaves only the cruelty of Ohm. The shape-changers must be fought, but they can only be fought if Morgan has come into his power and knowledge of land rule, which he cannot as the Prince of Hed with the crown of Peven under his bed and all oblivious to his destiny as the Star Bearer. Morgan understands this, in the end, and does not blame Deth for betraying him into Ohm's power and keeping him alive by reminding him of Hed in the midst of the torture. But I am not convinced that Deth is justified. Deth is merciless to himself and sacrifices himself; he may do that, because it is his sacrifice to make. He may be, in that sense, merciless and unsparing towards himself in order to save the world. But I do not think that he ought to be so towards Morgan.
Deth knowingly brings about a great evil to Morgan in order to bring about a great good. He is as relentless as the shape-changers as both push Morgan towards the end that they desire. The shape-changers desire the end of the world, of all the little and beautiful things, and that is bad, and Deth desires to stop them in order to save all those little and beautiful things, which is good, but both use the same means. I do not think it is worthwhile to save the world by such a means.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-24 08:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-07-26 12:07 am (UTC)Sometimes I just can't put my finger on what it is about a book that sucks me in and enthralls me--or what it is that is missing when a book doesn't do so. For example, I loved The Forgotten Beasts of Eld...but...With this trilogy, I think that it might have been an emotional connection to the characters that was missing. Melodrama is the easiest way to get me to care about characters and to tell the truth I was really looking forwards to the epic melodramatic romance that seemed to be all set for books 2 and 3, and never occurred. I don't always need romance, like I don't always need dessert, but I sure love both. High emotional stakes are what really makes a story hum for me. LOTR is a great example of a book that gets you emotionally invested in the characters without (a lot of) romance and John Buchan's Greenmantle is another. When I read about Sam attacking Cirith Ungol to rescue Frodo single-handed, the Three Hunters running across Rohan to find Merry and Pippin, or Richard Hannay finally deciding that enough is enough and it's time to plug Stumm in the eye, I come over all weak in the knees.
Are the stakes not high enough in the Riddlemaster Trilogy? Are there not enough desperate last stands or forebodings of darkness and danger? Or does McKillip just fail to mine her possibilities for all they're worth? Or have I been spoiled by reading too many melodramatic vintage romance/adventure novels? :P