Comments on: Bitterblue

By: Sarah Couri

Sarah Couri — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:38:47 +0000

I had no idea Malinda Lo was reading, and am soooooooooo interested in her anthropological/world building take on this topic. Thank you, Karyn!

And at the time, I had meant to link to Lev AC Rosen’s post: http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/another_word_11_12/

It’s not really so germane to the topic of world building and literary quality, but it’s tangentially related and TOTALLY worth reading.

By: Karyn Silverman

Karyn Silverman — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:38:21 +0000

I had missed this at the time, but Malinda Lo wrote a fantastic 2-part post about heteronormativity and Bitterblue and this comment thread, among other things:
http://www.malindalo.com/2012/11/heteronormativity-fantasy-and-bitterblue-part-1/
Thought-provoking and smart and go read it.

By: Helen

Helen — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:00:10 +0000

I, too, was disappointed. Bitterblue was not an interesting character. She needed Po constantly. Did she just wake up fter 10 years and decide to explore? Was she sleeping the entire time to be so clueless. I’d not think her story was worth portraying. I understand Truman, but Bitterblue’s insensitivity to those who had it was remarkable and the nonstop focus on Leck got old. Bring Katsa and Po back.

By: Maureen E

Maureen E — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:55:28 +0000

Apologies from me as well if I took things in the wrong direction.

@Karyn, I do definitely see what you’re saying about Tortall and the worldbuilding there–what I was trying to say and needed to flesh out a bit more is that I think there’s a place for books like Pierce’s & Cashore’s outside the Printz-worthy group. That is, as a reader I’m totally fine with Bitterblue, while if I were on the Printz committee, I would agree that it’s not a serious contender.

Re Crown of Embers, I’m actually reading it right now and am really, REALLY liking it. I wasn’t a huge fan of the first book, but it seems like both Elisa & Carson’s writing have grown up and I think it’s fantastic. I don’t know why it’s getting less critical recognition, although it was just published in September so it hasn’t been out as long.

By: Karyn Silverman

Karyn Silverman — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:52:48 +0000

I think we agree, Tatiana, and I apologize if it seemed I was saying I thought you were disagreeing with Cashore in any moral way. I was mostly just interested in your use of the word agenda — we both see the same issue, but I blame it on poor world building while you see it as authorial intrusion. Both make for a less literary work, but they stem from different places.

Maureen, I think the world building in Tortall is better, in part because we grow up with characters and so we as readers get a sense of attitudes about sexuality along with the characters. And Tortall is a better developed world. It makes sense. The whole one city per kingdom, the city is named after the ruler thing in Cashore’s work is a good example of where the world is an outline. We read these — and in many cases, love them — despite these things, because we like the characters.

On a related note, did any one else read the review of Crown of Embers by Rae Carson over at A Chair, a Fireplace, and a Tea Cozy today?
http://blogs.slj.com/teacozy/2012/11/01/review-the-crown-of-embers/

I was struck, in the context of the comments from Sarah and Miriam about Bitterblue as ruler, by how impressively Carson managed it, as eloquently described by Liz (I’ve read it an largely agree with her) and I think it’s interesting that Crown of Embers is getting less critical recognition than Bitterblue, given how much more nuanced it is in its treatment of some of the same issues.

By: Miriam

Miriam — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:24:35 +0000

(Ducking out of this discussion for now, because it’s getting heated in a way that I find uncomfortable in a text-only, no-facial-or-vocal-expression context.)

By: Tatiana (The Readventurer)

Tatiana (The Readventurer) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:15:33 +0000

I want to clear up a misconception about me that seem to be going around in this discussion. I am not conservative at all. The main issue with Cashore’s books I have is her lack of fineness and subtlety in HOW she incorporates her personal views in her stories, not her views.

Over the years I’ve read many Printz or starred books that take on various teen “issues,” and very often I find the handling of these issues too straight-forward, almost didactic and occasionally overwhelming to the story. It might be just a matter of my personal reading tastes, of course. I suppose some readers like to have things spelled out for them. But this is something that is, for me, a part of the conversation about literary quality, not a reflection of my close-mindedness and conservatism. I am not denouncing “Bitterblue” here, I am saying it could have been written better.

By: Maureen E

Maureen E — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:59:48 +0000

I thoroughly enjoyed this one as a reader. I do think it’s doing something very different from the first two books in terms of the type of story it’s telling–this is, as Miriam said above, more of a coming of age than an adventure story, which is how I would tend to categorize Graceling & Fire. And reading everyone’s points above, I think they’re well taken and do bump it out of contention, though I think the reader appeal is definitely still there. I wish Cashore had just changed 8 years to something more believeable, like 2. Maybe this would have contradicted some timeline, but I don’t see it and it would have helped the overall narrative.

As far as 21st attitudes go, the same could be easily said of Tamora Pierce’s Tortall books, which is how I think of Cashore’s. They’re not going to win the Printz, but they’re going to have a wide and devoted readership for years to come. (Tatiana, for what’s worth I originally come from a fairly conservative background and didn’t even notice the number of gay couples; the presence of things like widespread birth control and modern attitudes about marriage & sex are much less organic in my reading.)

By: Tatiana (The Readventurer)

Tatiana (The Readventurer) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:37:06 +0000

I’ve been following Cashore’s work for years now and my opinion of her is that she has strong views about what she wants to write about (she articulates those view consistently and frequently on her blog and in her interviews as well) and even if she doesn’t try to actively promote these views, they come through in her books very strongly. I would have liked her novels more if she could be more subtle. My problem with “Bitterblue” is not what views of hers she chose to put in it, but HOW. And from my perspective, it was done inelegantly, to say the least.

Cashore’s next novel is supposed to be a contemporary. It will be interesting to say if the messages she consciously on subconsciously places in her books would feel more organic in a present day setting.

By: Emily H.

Emily H. — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 06:48:14 +0000

But to what extent does a medievalesque fantasy world require medievalesque social attitudes? It seems to me that the killer apps here are birth control (which seems relatively straightforward in this world) and religion (which seems to exert much, much less social control here than in medieval Europe.)

I don’t know. I’m uneasy about it in the sense that fantasy authors rarely seem to imagine anything that isn’t either Repressive Olde Tymes or straight-up contemporary attitudes, and I’m by no means a historian, but this doesn’t seem to me to be a fatal problem (although for other reasons this isn’t one of my top Printz picks.)