Review: The Mirror Empire
Sep. 11th, 2014 00:36![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
starladyHurley, Kameron. The Mirror Empire. New York: Orbit Books, 2014.
The Mirror Empire is the fantasy novel that everyone is talking about this year, and right at the beginning, let me say that it will almost certainly be on my Hugo ballot, and that I think it deserves to be there. But as much as I enjoyed the book (and I did), I didn't love it, and even more so than usual, I have Thoughts.
It's gotten to the point where I feel like I've seen the plot of The Mirror Empire described a million times, or maybe I've just been obsessively reading other people's reviews to crystallize my own thoughts. At any rate, the book is set in a world--one of many--in which magic is linked to the ascent and descent of various satellites in the sky; those who can channel these wanderers can do so only in accordance with the altitude of their relevant moon. Most of these satellites are predictable, but one, Oma, only appears every 2000 years or so, and when it does it brings chaos, because those who can channel it can do just about anything, from unmaking the world to opening gates between worlds to raising the dead. Even more alarmingly, it becomes clear over the course of the novel that forces are massing in at least one other world with the unmistakable intention of killing everyone who remains in the world of most of the protagonists, so that the invaders themselves can inhabit that world--you can only cross over if your double on the other side is already dead, or never existed. If this sounds like genocide to you, it does to Hurley and her characters too.
I haven't yet read Hurley's God's War trilogy, but I'm willing to bet that the brutality of the world and the people in this book, as well as the sheer weirdness of some of the elements (mobile plants! who knew they could be so terrifying?), are shared by her previous novels. The Mirror Empire is an excellent epic fantasy, and I enjoyed the fact that so many of its protagonists are female, or of genders other than male, and that the novel depicts a host of matriarchal cultures, as well as the oppression that comes along with unchecked power. The book is fast-paced and interesting, although at times, as other people have said, it did get a bit challenging to keep who was doing what, and who knew what when, straight, which is not helped by doubles often having the same names. But there's no mistaking that it's a truly epic fantasy, whatever that means (wide scope? lots of worldbuilding? multiple POV characters?) and that Hurley is swinging for the fences here. Based on this book, it looks like she's going to clear them.
So yes, I think the book is great, and I enjoyed it. But it's not going to be a book that I love, for a very simple reason: all of the POV characters are wildly unsympathetic, whether because they're so abject they can only be pitied (Anavha), because they're stupid and annoying (Roh), or willfully naive and annoying (Ahkio) or because they're brutal and terrible people all around (Zezili). Now, I don't think that it's necessary that a book have likable or even sympathetic protagonists, and obviously my being annoyed at some of the characters for doing things that the reader already knows are dead wrong is highly subjective--as is, indeed, this entire line of argument to some extent. But I'm pretty sure that Hurley is doing this deliberately--characters who have been mostly sympathetic all, at some point, do something deliberately terrible to other people, with a regularity that is telling--which is a valid choice and one that certainly fits the parameters of Grimdark. (I also have some hope that some of the stupid characters will wise up in the next book; by the end of this one, some of them have already gotten much more interesting.) But there's only so much one can read about indiscriminate slaughter being committed upon and by our protagonists before one gets thoroughly put off, and for me, that happened well before the halfway point. I liked The Mirror Empire; I didn't like any of the POV characters, and consequently I feel very little emotional investment in what happens to them. Which is notable because it's that sort of thing that keeps readers buying books in trilogies.
The nature of the brutality itself is also interesting. I don't read much Grimdark, but it's definitely my impression of the genre that The Mirror Empire features much less (though not no) sexual violence than is normal. That's a nice surprise, for sure, but there's just not a lot of sex in general, which is certainly something that I've come to expect in epic fantasy. I was definitely hoping for at least one m/m sex scene, given everything, but sadly, no dice. (There is onscreen het sex, though it's not described in much detail.) But by and large most of it is indiscriminate slaughter, as well as random violence--everyone in the book calls the former genocide, and that is more or less what it is (though as a historian, I wonder about the fact that this is a premodern world, since genocide is mostly a modern phenomenon). SFF is frequently praised for its metaphor-making, but I was definitely a little weirded out by the fact that this book basically literalizes the concept of Lebensraum: that's what the invaders want, and why they're killing everyone they can. But if you're going to write a fantasy novel about genocide, why not just write a fantasy novel about genocide? For all that it talks about genocide a lot, The Mirror Empire doesn't depict the ways that people mostly commit genocide or why they mostly do it. (Hint: unlike the reasons depicted in this book, the reasons people commit genocide don't hold water, and it's generally hard to get people to kill other people in close quarters at the length and scale depicted in the book. Genocide also depends on to some extent on modern conceptions of race, ethnicity, and nation that don't exist in a premodern world, but given that Hurley is depicting societies that have lasted 2000 years without major change, this is obviously not really applicable to the book.) Obviously, people aren't reading The Mirror Empire to learn about genocide, but these are still questions that I have; I'm not sure to what extent they actually merit consideration, but I won't get a better idea about that without discussing them with other people.
I bought this book from Barnes & Noble because I wanted to support Hurley, who deservedly won two Hugos in London this year, and because I wanted to support the reinvigoration of epic fantasy via the promotion of new and existing voices within it. I don't regret my purchase at all, but as much as I'm curious to see how it's all resolved, some of the author's artistic choices have definitely dampened my enthusiasm for the sequels.
The Mirror Empire is the fantasy novel that everyone is talking about this year, and right at the beginning, let me say that it will almost certainly be on my Hugo ballot, and that I think it deserves to be there. But as much as I enjoyed the book (and I did), I didn't love it, and even more so than usual, I have Thoughts.
It's gotten to the point where I feel like I've seen the plot of The Mirror Empire described a million times, or maybe I've just been obsessively reading other people's reviews to crystallize my own thoughts. At any rate, the book is set in a world--one of many--in which magic is linked to the ascent and descent of various satellites in the sky; those who can channel these wanderers can do so only in accordance with the altitude of their relevant moon. Most of these satellites are predictable, but one, Oma, only appears every 2000 years or so, and when it does it brings chaos, because those who can channel it can do just about anything, from unmaking the world to opening gates between worlds to raising the dead. Even more alarmingly, it becomes clear over the course of the novel that forces are massing in at least one other world with the unmistakable intention of killing everyone who remains in the world of most of the protagonists, so that the invaders themselves can inhabit that world--you can only cross over if your double on the other side is already dead, or never existed. If this sounds like genocide to you, it does to Hurley and her characters too.
I haven't yet read Hurley's God's War trilogy, but I'm willing to bet that the brutality of the world and the people in this book, as well as the sheer weirdness of some of the elements (mobile plants! who knew they could be so terrifying?), are shared by her previous novels. The Mirror Empire is an excellent epic fantasy, and I enjoyed the fact that so many of its protagonists are female, or of genders other than male, and that the novel depicts a host of matriarchal cultures, as well as the oppression that comes along with unchecked power. The book is fast-paced and interesting, although at times, as other people have said, it did get a bit challenging to keep who was doing what, and who knew what when, straight, which is not helped by doubles often having the same names. But there's no mistaking that it's a truly epic fantasy, whatever that means (wide scope? lots of worldbuilding? multiple POV characters?) and that Hurley is swinging for the fences here. Based on this book, it looks like she's going to clear them.
So yes, I think the book is great, and I enjoyed it. But it's not going to be a book that I love, for a very simple reason: all of the POV characters are wildly unsympathetic, whether because they're so abject they can only be pitied (Anavha), because they're stupid and annoying (Roh), or willfully naive and annoying (Ahkio) or because they're brutal and terrible people all around (Zezili). Now, I don't think that it's necessary that a book have likable or even sympathetic protagonists, and obviously my being annoyed at some of the characters for doing things that the reader already knows are dead wrong is highly subjective--as is, indeed, this entire line of argument to some extent. But I'm pretty sure that Hurley is doing this deliberately--characters who have been mostly sympathetic all, at some point, do something deliberately terrible to other people, with a regularity that is telling--which is a valid choice and one that certainly fits the parameters of Grimdark. (I also have some hope that some of the stupid characters will wise up in the next book; by the end of this one, some of them have already gotten much more interesting.) But there's only so much one can read about indiscriminate slaughter being committed upon and by our protagonists before one gets thoroughly put off, and for me, that happened well before the halfway point. I liked The Mirror Empire; I didn't like any of the POV characters, and consequently I feel very little emotional investment in what happens to them. Which is notable because it's that sort of thing that keeps readers buying books in trilogies.
The nature of the brutality itself is also interesting. I don't read much Grimdark, but it's definitely my impression of the genre that The Mirror Empire features much less (though not no) sexual violence than is normal. That's a nice surprise, for sure, but there's just not a lot of sex in general, which is certainly something that I've come to expect in epic fantasy. I was definitely hoping for at least one m/m sex scene, given everything, but sadly, no dice. (There is onscreen het sex, though it's not described in much detail.) But by and large most of it is indiscriminate slaughter, as well as random violence--everyone in the book calls the former genocide, and that is more or less what it is (though as a historian, I wonder about the fact that this is a premodern world, since genocide is mostly a modern phenomenon). SFF is frequently praised for its metaphor-making, but I was definitely a little weirded out by the fact that this book basically literalizes the concept of Lebensraum: that's what the invaders want, and why they're killing everyone they can. But if you're going to write a fantasy novel about genocide, why not just write a fantasy novel about genocide? For all that it talks about genocide a lot, The Mirror Empire doesn't depict the ways that people mostly commit genocide or why they mostly do it. (Hint: unlike the reasons depicted in this book, the reasons people commit genocide don't hold water, and it's generally hard to get people to kill other people in close quarters at the length and scale depicted in the book. Genocide also depends on to some extent on modern conceptions of race, ethnicity, and nation that don't exist in a premodern world, but given that Hurley is depicting societies that have lasted 2000 years without major change, this is obviously not really applicable to the book.) Obviously, people aren't reading The Mirror Empire to learn about genocide, but these are still questions that I have; I'm not sure to what extent they actually merit consideration, but I won't get a better idea about that without discussing them with other people.
I bought this book from Barnes & Noble because I wanted to support Hurley, who deservedly won two Hugos in London this year, and because I wanted to support the reinvigoration of epic fantasy via the promotion of new and existing voices within it. I don't regret my purchase at all, but as much as I'm curious to see how it's all resolved, some of the author's artistic choices have definitely dampened my enthusiasm for the sequels.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 14:21 (UTC)I, like you, liked but didn't love it. I agree that almost all the POV characters are super unsympathetic. I found Lilia sympathetic, at least, though it was still difficult to identify with her in an immersive sense. My biggest problem with the books (and this is also true of God's War) is that the prose is often so dense and, idk, fluid? That I don't always have a good sense of what is actually happening sometimes. I can't quite describe what it is or why it's happening, though I think it's definitely a stylistic choice. Her characters, too, are often so fuzzily defined that even when there aren't as many of them as their are in Mirror Empire, I completely lose track of who is who and what is their major characterization. I can't really describe any of the characters from the Bel Dame Apocrypha off the top of my head at this point, except the main one, and I don't even remember her name. Things just really aren't all that clear and distinct. And I don't think it's a flaw, per se. It's just not my favorite writing style.
Like you, I admire her and support her work. And I'll get the rest of the trilogy. I did enjoy Mirror Empire. It's just a lot of work to read sometimes. And I say this as a professional reader. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 16:33 (UTC)I also found Lilia sympathetic by the end, after she finally wised up to her situation; I also thought Taigan and Maralah were interesting enough from start to finish that I'd happily hear more about them. But most of them seem to share some common traits, I agree. And I also found it difficult to keep track of who was from what world and what their particular horrible plan was.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 14:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 16:36 (UTC)I found Lilia interesting by the end, anyway, even if I didn't really identify with her very strongly. It was more like, "yes, you have finally wised up to your role in the narrative, about damn time." I don't know, I just finished Kate Elliott's Crossroads trilogy and I found that way more organic as a narrative in a way that emphasized how this one was…constructed, I guess?, but I suppose that's for my next post.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 19:06 (UTC)Sorry! I didn't realize. I think Lilia was the one I found most sympathetic, until near the end of the volume.
>"polyamorous portal mage"
Maybe the bad-ass warrior from the northern continent? (I'm blanking on all the names.) I don't recall her sexual orientation, just that she opened gates.
>just finished Kate Elliott's Crossroads trilogy
I have been waffling on reading these and so will look forward to your review.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 19:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 22:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-12 00:39 (UTC)