Like and like not (major spoilers)

[2,176,847]

But it is what a character with an understanding of narrative would say.
Too often our characters live in a world where nobody has any sense of story or genre awareness. It's fun to see characters acknowledge the conventions of storytelling versus our more postmodern trope refutation tastes.

A more than fair point Aminar and one that may have simply sailed over my head at the time. I'm suddenly at a loss, trying to recall if that was the characters inner monologue or the author perspective. (I read it as Jim's but could be wrong)

I had to think long and hard to find something for the "not like" portion of this particular thread and that was the nit I picked. Maybe on my reread in the future I wont think twice about it and flow right along with the story. It just felt a little like the book version of breaking the fourth wall to me at the time.

[Aminar]

A more than fair point Aminar and one that may have simply sailed over my head at the time. I'm suddenly at a loss, trying to recall if that was the characters inner monologue or the author perspective. (I read it as Jim's but could be wrong)

I had to think long and hard to find something for the "not like" portion of this particular thread and that was the nit I picked. Maybe on my reread in the future I wont think twice about it and flow right along with the story. It just felt a little like the book version of breaking the fourth wall to me at the time.

The books are pretty tight Third Person. Everything is character thought or observation, even if it isn't dialogue.
It does border on the fourth wall. Tv Tropes lists it as  Genre Savvy.

[Dina]

A more than fair point Aminar and one that may have simply sailed over my head at the time. I'm suddenly at a loss, trying to recall if that was the characters inner monologue or the author perspective. (I read it as Jim's but could be wrong)

I had to think long and hard to find something for the "not like" portion of this particular thread and that was the nit I picked. Maybe on my reread in the future I wont think twice about it and flow right along with the story. It just felt a little like the book version of breaking the fourth wall to me at the time.

One of those cases was when Bridget thought that a heroine will do such and such to try and save Folly. She decides that is not practical and that she is not a good fiction heroine. Then something happens and she does exactly that. I laughed so much (I think all the references where done in Bridget.'s mind I think that is because being a lonely teenager she loves to read/watch/whatever fiction works)

[2,176,847]

One of those cases was when Bridget thought that a heroine will do such and such to try and save Folly. She decides that is not practical and that she is not a good fiction heroine. Then something happens and she does exactly that. I laughed so much (I think all the references where done in Bridget.'s mind I think that is because being a lonely teenager she loves to read/watch/whatever fiction works)

Both you and Aminar make a good case and this is what I get for being nitpicky.  You are also right about the humor, Jim's humor is constant throughout. It lead to many evenings of reading late into the night and possible "brain fog".

[KevinSig]

I pretty much liked everything, except a few things:

I really didn't like that Bridget's second kidnapping happened without a fuss.  I'd like to have seen something of a fight.  It just felt so very unsatisfying.

We know Etherealists progressively grow more mad as they work with the powers.  However, in the context of the book, the characters seem to remain at a static level of madness.

I somewhat feel this gives the Etherealists a bit too much power & wouldn't have minded that grand displays of power would be followed by either a temporary increase in madness, or some other drawback.

I mean, I don't see anything from stopping Lady Cavendish from pointing at every one of her enemies & getting people to claw their eyes out, just like Oprah handed out cars.

Gaunlet's overheat, but what stops an Ethrealist from just going overboard?  We really were never shown.


Those are my two major issues.  One I hope sees some self correction as the series goes on, the other is just a minor quibble.

[Second Aristh]

I pretty much liked everything, except a few things:

I really didn't like that Bridget's second kidnapping happened without a fuss.  I'd like to have seen something of a fight.  It just felt so very unsatisfying.

We know Etherealists progressively grow more mad as they work with the powers.  However, in the context of the book, the characters seem to remain at a static level of madness.

I somewhat feel this gives the Etherealists a bit too much power & wouldn't have minded that grand displays of power would be followed by either a temporary increase in madness, or some other drawback.

I mean, I don't see anything from stopping Lady Cavendish from pointing at every one of her enemies & getting people to claw their eyes out, just like Oprah handed out cars.

Gaunlet's overheat, but what stops an Ethrealist from just going overboard?  We really were never shown.


Those are my two major issues.  One I hope sees some self correction as the series goes on, the other is just a minor quibble.

I thought the growing madness was a very gradual thing in general for etherealists.  We did also see Folly nearly pass out after the lightning show with the silkweaver horde.  I'd imagine there's a personal cost to channeling large amounts of energy into crystals.

[KevinSig]

I thought the growing madness was a very gradual thing in general for etherealists.  We did also see Folly nearly pass out after the lightning show with the silkweaver horde.  I'd imagine there's a personal cost to channeling large amounts of energy into crystals.

Since we've only seen Folly collapse, I'm not certain to take that reaction as a given.  Consider in the Alex Verus series, apprentices can get winded, but trained Mages have a nearly unlimited ability to call upon their magic.

Since we haven't seen the limits of Cavendish or Ferus, it could be the same here.

In the Alex Verus series, it's only Mage on Mage action for the most part.  However, since Ethrealists have limited numbers, I'd like to see a bit more limitation on their power.

[Second Aristh]

Since we've only seen Folly collapse, I'm not certain to take that reaction as a given.  Consider in the Alex Verus series, apprentices can get winded, but trained Mages have a nearly unlimited ability to call upon their magic.

Since we haven't seen the limits of Cavendish or Ferus, it could be the same here.

In the Alex Verus series, it's only Mage on Mage action for the most part.  However, since Ethrealists have limited numbers, I'd like to see a bit more limitation on their power.

I wouldn't expect Jim to be hitting the full etherealists' limits in the first book of a series anyway.  Overall Ferus and Cavendish didn't do much in the way of heavy lifting in this book.  Ferus's shutdown of the Auroran assassins and Cavendish keeping up the reins on the silkweavers were the flashiest bits of power they threw.  Folly's light show was a lot more intense. 

One more thing towards the idea of a limited etherealist, the etherealists seem to need crystals to be effective.  Ferus needed his staff, so he wasn't much help against the silkweaver matriarch only throwing the lighting crystals, and Folly needed her crystal jars to do most anything.  Cavendish didn't seem to work directly with crystals, but the text kept referring to her large red crystal like it was more important than it might otherwise seem.

[Quantus]

I wouldn't expect Jim to be hitting the full etherealists' limits in the first book of a series anyway.  Overall Ferus and Cavendish didn't do much in the way of heavy lifting in this book.  Ferus's shutdown of the Auroran assassins and Cavendish keeping up the reins on the silkweavers were the flashiest bits of power they threw.  Folly's light show was a lot more intense. 

One more thing towards the idea of a limited etherealist, the etherealists seem to need crystals to be effective.  Ferus needed his staff, so he wasn't much help against the silkweaver matriarch only throwing the lighting crystals, and Folly needed her crystal jars to do most anything.  Cavendish didn't seem to work directly with crystals, but the text kept referring to her large red crystal like it was more important than it might otherwise seem.

Agreed, they seem to be dependent on a crystal to act as a focus.  Especially if you consider how Folly described the process, it seems that the Crystals are still responsible for manipluating the energy, while the etherealist is somehow able to alter the grain patterns withint the crystals to temporarily alter their native function. 

One thing though, I got the impression from Folly's encounter with it that The Enemy was the one controlling the silkweavers, not Cavendish directly. 

[Second Aristh]

Agreed, they seem to be dependent on a crystal to act as a focus.  Especially if you consider how Folly described the process, it seems that the Crystals are still responsible for manipluating the energy, while the etherealist is somehow able to alter the grain patterns withint the crystals to temporarily alter their native function. 

One thing though, I got the impression from Folly's encounter with it that The Enemy was the one controlling the silkweavers, not Cavendish directly.

Yeah, I got the same impression about the crystal structure.  As far as Cavendish, I don't think it's entirely clear who's doing the bulk of the puppeting for the silkweavers.  Her preferred attacks seem to be mental anyway.  I initially read it as the Enemy giving Cavendish a power boost and possibly "filling in" the holes incurred for the extra etherealist power.