Book Review: Magic-Borne by C.L. Schneider

I’m very glad I had the chance to finish this book last week.  I’d been excited to read the final book in the trilogy, and I wasn’t disappointed.  To remind you all what’s happened so far, please check out my review of Magic-Price land my review of Magic-Scars.

Spoiler Free Summary:  Magic-Borne is the final book in the Crown of Stones trilogy.  It takes place pretty soon after the events of Magic-Scars.  Ian is trying to solve the mystery of his scars, save a loved one, defeat his father, and find a way to bring peace to the land.  We get a lot of questions answered and the readers will get a complete resolution, which is all any reader of a series can ask for these days.

Character:  Ian is still amazing.  His arch shows a lot of progress from the character we met in Price.   He shines more in this book.  I’ll admit I missed some of the other characters who, while still in the book, didn’t get as much air time as I’d have liked, but Ian is, and should be, why people are reading the series.  In my  review of the last book, I’d noted I would have liked more from them, but I think pulling back a bit was a sound decision.  Jarryd had some major impact moments that showed his evolution in some pretty powerful ways, but the rest of the characters simply don’t get a lot of face time.  It’s understandable given the ending, but I won’t lie that I wished they had a bigger role.

Exposition: This is about the same as the last book.  Schneider has a knack for blending exposition with description to help the reader avoid large blocks of data dumping.  I almost never notice the exposition in her work.

Worldbuilding:  So what I have to do here is admit that if someone shouts that the ending “seems” convenient (or at least the plot device that brings about the end), I couldn’t get too angry because I’d understand what they see.  I’d like to argue though that what Schneider did here is not MUCH different (if not even done better) than what McCaffrey did in Dragon Riders of Pern.  Before anyone throws stuff at me, realize I’m only drawing a correlation between plot devices.

Pern is my favorite series (by a lot) and will always be.  But if the plot device in that series didn’t bother you, the plot device in this one shouldn’t either. Schneider did a great job closing all the loops here and letting the readers learn about a complex magic system as they needed to. She sets up the ending to be complete and fulfilling while simultaneously leaving the door open for more books from that world.

Dialogue:  I’d say the dialogue in Scars was better.  There were scenes and arguments in Borne that felt a little quick for me.  As I write this, I’d have to say Scars was my favorite in the series on a lot of fronts.  That doesn’t take away from what this book is and could be.  The biggest difference stylistically was the pace of the dialogue.  Even the amount of dialogue felt a bit more rushed in this book.  This was not to a degree as to degrade the quality, just not the same crips, visceral dialogue we saw in Scars.  It’s still a great book.  I just felt this was a weaker element of the book.

Description:  I mentioned problems with how I saw characters in the review for Scars, and Schneider followed up her novel with much more character description.  Her extra attention to smaller character details made the book that much more visceral than the last.  I thought this was a great blend between setting, scene, and character description.  This was an improvement from Scars to Borne.

A note on content:  I don’t think this book is as explicit as Scars.  There are some adult scenes in this book too.  This still serves as a plot device as intimacy is a theme that shifts through each book.  Where as with straight romance (note, I’ve only read two), you tend to see scenes like this for the sake of scenes like this.  Here, you get steam and impact for the character.  That’s something I appreciate.

Overall:  I stand by my opinion that Scars is the best of the three, but this book is a very satisfying and complete conclusion to a great story.  Where Scars upped the drama and the emotion, Borne lets us slip into the the resolution like a warm bath.  I appreciate how this story tied up all the loose ends and let us leave this world feeling as if we’ve seen all there is to see, for now.  This also holds true to how I usually feel about trilogies.  I tend to like the second act best because that’s where the most drama is.  That makes this book a perfect conclusion. No, it’s not the most exciting book because it can’t be.  A reader has to leave a story knowing there’s nothing more (in a manner of speaking) to be seen from this arc.  Borne does that.  If Schneider ever decides to go back, I’m going to be immensely pleased.  This was a sold, complete, well told story with an amazing protagonist and a fascinating twist on a few old tropes.

Thanks for reading

Matt

Sympathetic Characters

Under my new book review format, I talk about how much I enjoy characters.  That got me thinking about character sympathy, why it’s important and how to manipulate the reader’s sympathy for a character.

One reference for how to adjust sympathy is Writing Excuses.  They’re more successful than I am, and they’re also better at this than I am.  The linked podcast addresses the how.  They reference another podcast that explains why you don’t have to have sympathetic characters.  That’s true.  There are reasons to have unsympathetic characters, but I’m not a fan of them.  They exist in The Journals of Bob Drifter, but that doesn’t mean I was overly happy about their existence, only aware of their necessity.

What is a sympathetic character.   There are a few differing opinions, but I’m going to selfishly hover in my realm of opinions.  While some feel sympathetic characters are those readers feel sad for, I don’t necessarily leave it at that.  When I talk about sympathetic characters, I’m speaking specifically on characters readers have a strong emotional response to.  A character my readers hate (if that’s what I wanted them to feel) is every bit as important as a character my readers love.  When I get feedback from beta readers, my worst fear is I’ll ask, “what did you think about Character X?” and the readers will respond with, “Who?”  That’s a  much bigger problem to me.

One of my betas for Journals hates Richard.  When she told me why, I smiled, and said, “Sorry, but that’s exactly what I wanted you to feel.”  The degree to which readers hate Richard is one thing, but if they hate him for the same reason my beta hated him, I did my job right.  Characters can’t be completely rage worthy any more than they can be completely sympathetic.  The masters (who in my opinion are George R.R. Martin and Peter V. Brett) can make you hate a character and then a book later, make you at least understand them.  This particular ability allows you to have an extra arch with your characters.

Image of Shawn Michaels is used in reference to WWE’s effectiveness in building character sympathy.  Photo Credit unidentifiable.

A great example for how to do this?  Believe it or not, the WWE.  I haven’t watched wrestling in years, but think about it.  Shawn Michaels went from hero to villain to hero to goof to hero and all the way around again.  Readers look for growth in character, and that’s another term that might be misleading.  Sometimes failure tests a character’s metal, and it’s okay for that character to regress.  Why?

Now we come to the main purpose of this particular blog.  We’re all human. Just on the drive to my brother’s house we talked about what it is to be human.  I don’t think people are good or bad.  I think they’re people.  Sometimes they do good things, sometimes they do horrible things.  I know I have.  So the most realistic characters react to their environment.  I have a few characters who don’t change.  I like those characters.  I like those who no matter the test, they alway pass.  I like the other characters too.  I think House, M.D. was a great example here.  What kept me watching that show was the thought that, “Maybe this episode, he’ll do the decent thing.”  Nope.  Never did.  It’s the same trick Charlie Brown kept falling for.  He’ll never kick the ball and House will never be a compassionate person.  (You can argue the end of that series with me in the comments if you want.)

Those characters are unique, but they can get boring quickly.  I’ve failed in my life, so I look for characters who have flaws, but are generally decent folk.  One of the more common compliments I get for Journals is Bob.  He’s a good, white-hat, guy.  He has his slumps, but he’s consistently kind and compassionate, and that makes him sympathetic when he’s faced with tragedy.  Others don’t like him because he’s too nice.  I think the world is just about done with antiheroes, then again, maybe not.  I think it’s an archetype like any other.  Use tools for a reason.

You don’t need a raging alcoholic day-care sitter any more than you need an incredibly pious prostitute.  That sort of extreme can seem forced and/or contrived.  Strive instead for people who feel real.  All my favorite books have at least one character I genuinely feel some connection too.  It’s the part of me I see in those characters that makes me want to see what happens to them.  I think this is something to strive for in writing.

That makes me want to close with a few (in no particular order) characters I found very sympathetic.  They area also some of my favorite characters in fiction.  They are:

Perrin Aybara from Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson.

Vin from Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson.

John Cleaver from the John Wayne Cleaver series by Dan Wells.

The Warded Man/Arlen from The Demon Cycle by Peter V. Brett.

All of these characters have great emotional range.  Sometimes, they do things that make me proud, other times, I’m angry with them for how they handle a situation.  I could have gone on, but I just wanted to give you all a few characters I felt have the qualities I look for when I’m reading.  You can feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.

In summary:  A sympathetic character is someone the reader feels something for.  They should be realistic by sometimes failing tests of character.  They can be “bad” or “good” as a whole, but no one is all of any one thing.  (except for a few carefully chosen characters, which I feel need to be offset by other members in the cast.)

I hope this gives you some insight into what I shoot for when I write.  If you think you’ve found something I missed, or you just have a good resource to share, let me know in the comments.
Thanks for reading,

Matt