Take a photo of a barcode or cover
lizshayne 's review for:
Flight of Magpies
by KJ Charles
Ugh, can't I just rate the series? You all know how I feel by now.
---
Okay, let's talk about a fascinating distinction between literary and non-literary novels (using literary as short form for pretensions to winning the Booker or Pulitzer or whatever): literary novels are not allowed to pass up a chance for ethical/moral struggles. Non-literary novels are. You could not have a literary novel about extra-legal justiciars who are, you know, obviously allowed to work with but outside of the law. You have to make the explicit case and you practically have to problematize it. Non-literary fiction is allowed to have such things and have them work...or, when they fail, have the failure be a bad actor rather than a bad system. Day doesn't need to struggle with "Ahh, is it okay that I stop warlocks even though I do it beyond the bounds of the law?" He doesn't need to have his Watchmen moment, he can just go on getting rid of terrible people. Stephen's actions basically make the case for him and the narrative supports it.
I don't think this is a bad thing, in the same way that Seanan McGuire's InCryptid novels assume that the Price family is good and the Covenant is bad and working with cryptids unless you need to kill them is not a moral position up for interrogating, in the same way that Mercedes Lackey assumes there is nothing weird about teenagers and telepathic horses worth investigating, in the same way that Harry Potter does not ask about the ethics of the Wizarding World and Azkaban.
And, on the one hand, the latter two examples could use some investigation. But McGuire and Charles end up making an argument through their absence of one and I think it's worth reading these books AS IF they were literary and making an argument through what happens in the narrative. In this case, what is Charles saying about the nature of justice and the powerful individual?
---
Okay, let's talk about a fascinating distinction between literary and non-literary novels (using literary as short form for pretensions to winning the Booker or Pulitzer or whatever): literary novels are not allowed to pass up a chance for ethical/moral struggles. Non-literary novels are. You could not have a literary novel about extra-legal justiciars who are, you know, obviously allowed to work with but outside of the law. You have to make the explicit case and you practically have to problematize it. Non-literary fiction is allowed to have such things and have them work...or, when they fail, have the failure be a bad actor rather than a bad system. Day doesn't need to struggle with "Ahh, is it okay that I stop warlocks even though I do it beyond the bounds of the law?" He doesn't need to have his Watchmen moment, he can just go on getting rid of terrible people. Stephen's actions basically make the case for him and the narrative supports it.
I don't think this is a bad thing, in the same way that Seanan McGuire's InCryptid novels assume that the Price family is good and the Covenant is bad and working with cryptids unless you need to kill them is not a moral position up for interrogating, in the same way that Mercedes Lackey assumes there is nothing weird about teenagers and telepathic horses worth investigating, in the same way that Harry Potter does not ask about the ethics of the Wizarding World and Azkaban.
And, on the one hand, the latter two examples could use some investigation. But McGuire and Charles end up making an argument through their absence of one and I think it's worth reading these books AS IF they were literary and making an argument through what happens in the narrative. In this case, what is Charles saying about the nature of justice and the powerful individual?