Readability Score: 3 **
Books I've Read Similar to Fire:
* Mortal Instruments series by Cassandra Clare
* Ranger's Apprentice series by John Flanagan
First of all, I am going to try something different with this review by first giving you the book's own back-cover description so you can decide for yourself if you want to read it, and then give my review/take on the book.
"She has been hidden away. Now she is choosing to use her power.
It is not a peaceful time in the Dells. Young King Nash clings to the throne, while rebel lords, in the north and south, build armies to unseat him. War is coming. The mountains and forests are filled with spies and thieves.
This is where Fire lives, a girl whose startling appearance is impossibly irresistible and who can control the minds of everyone around her.
Everyone . . . except Prince Brigan."
-- from Fire by Kristin Cashore
Fire is a lot like Katsa in many respects. An independent woman with no thoughts of marriage or children, skilled at fighting, who finds herself on an unexpected journey. Both characters are strong, independent, no-need-for-man type of women. The real difference between the similar heroines of her first two books is that one is obviously more developed than the other. Fire actually has a more concrete reason to not want to have children: any offspring of hers will have her curse of being a monster. Now, monsters are not scary, scaly, stinky creatures in this world; monsters are beings of unimaginable beauty, brightly and brilliantly colored, who all have the ability to control the minds of others. Fire is unique in the sense that she is the only monster human left in the land of the Dells. Katsa's reasons are purely selfish and, incidentally, kind of weak. It's fine not to want to have children, of course (hey, I'm in that boat myself), but it just seemed Katsa's reasons were less concrete than Fire's. Perhaps that is simply a product of Cashore's development as a writer; the longer you write, the more concrete and "real" your characters become.
-- from Fire by Kristin Cashore
Fire is a lot like Katsa in many respects. An independent woman with no thoughts of marriage or children, skilled at fighting, who finds herself on an unexpected journey. Both characters are strong, independent, no-need-for-man type of women. The real difference between the similar heroines of her first two books is that one is obviously more developed than the other. Fire actually has a more concrete reason to not want to have children: any offspring of hers will have her curse of being a monster. Now, monsters are not scary, scaly, stinky creatures in this world; monsters are beings of unimaginable beauty, brightly and brilliantly colored, who all have the ability to control the minds of others. Fire is unique in the sense that she is the only monster human left in the land of the Dells. Katsa's reasons are purely selfish and, incidentally, kind of weak. It's fine not to want to have children, of course (hey, I'm in that boat myself), but it just seemed Katsa's reasons were less concrete than Fire's. Perhaps that is simply a product of Cashore's development as a writer; the longer you write, the more concrete and "real" your characters become.
In my opinion, Fire is basically an embellished copy of Graceling, with a few changes (names, places, maybe a bit of plot difference). Other reviews have said that these books are "high fantasy" and that Cashore is "great at world building." Both of these could not be further from the truth.
I will admit that both of these novels are decently written and have a decent world building aspect to them, but I would never consider these to be high fantasy in any respect. Fantasy, sure, but far from the likes of JRR Tolkien and George RR Martin. And, in my very humble opinion, world building goes far beyond mentioning some different aspects of the world one is building and showing a map at the beginning of a book. There is no description of food or ceremonies, customs or oddities, nothing that compares to the way Middle Earth and Westeros are described.
Overall, I enjoyed this book to a point. In about the last 100 pages, Fire finds herself in quite a predicament. She escapes with nothing but a horse to carry her, but when she is pursued, somehow she has a knife and a bow and arrows. How did she come by these things? There was no mention of her leaving with bows and arrows and knives; did they just magically appear? Little details like this are what make a book less than stellar for me. Cashore shows promise as a writer, and while I will probably read Cashore's third novel Bitterblue at some point, I am not exactly excited to do so. I hope it's different than both Graceling and its companion book Fire.
** Readability is defined on a scale of 1 - 1o, 1 being exceptionally easy to read, and 10 being exceptionally difficult.
Reading Next: Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky.
A pretty good review! I haven't read the book before but I think this covers things quite nicely. That said, I'd really like to mention that you misused the word "feminist"—feminism is more of a belief and a set of personal values that boils down to "people should be treated as equal regardless of their gender". With the way the word is flung around nowadays, it's easy to mistake its meaning as the clichéd "strong independent woman who don't need no man or traditional femininity", but that's really not an inherent part of it! I'd be glad to explain more about what feminism means if you want, but I just wanted to correct that. c: Something rubs me the wrong way about saying Fire's reason for not wanting children is "valid", too—it feels like you're saying that anything less than that (like just not wanting children) isn't valid, I guess. It's a little iffy, I guess.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the Perks of Being a Wallflower review!
Hey Blazi, thanks for the comment! :)
ReplyDeleteMaybe I should have said "extreme feminist," because despite what the definition is, there are women who act exactly as Katsa and Fire do toward men! Use them for their own pleasure and rarely settle down. It's not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but it's very clear that both of these heroines follow that line of reasoning.
I didn't mean for that to come off that way at all! What I meant to say was Fire's reasons were more concrete, maybe, than Katsa's (main character in Cashore's other book). Not that any reason not to want to have children is "more valid" than any other. I agree with you there. I'll edit it to make it more clear.
Again, thank you so much for the comment!
Thank you for responding, Ashley! That isn't quite how feminism works, either, though—there definitely are women who do that, but that's not a "feminist" thing. Even in its extreme forms, feminism isn't about hating and/our men and casting off all single traditional ideas of marriage and child-raising—while that's a commonly perpetuated stereotype, it doesn't really have any base in the actual principles of feminism. Admittedly I can't think of a fitting word for women who act like Katsa and Fire, but anything involving "feminist" certainly isn't it.
DeleteThat wording makes a lot more sense! I understand exactly what you mean now and I appreciate the editing a lot. I think that fits what you're getting at better, too.
Thank you so much for the response! I'm delighted that you're willing to discuss this. c: That's awesome of you!
Hm. Well I'm not quite sure what word to use there, then! I'll try to make that sentence more clear, too.
DeleteAnd of course I will reply! I have no problem discussing something that I wrote and making it more clear and precise. I am always willing to learn and truly appreciate your feedback!