OK, I resisted for a while. I walked by the new book in the bookstore several times, on different days, even. They aren't worth that kind of money - buying the hardback. Sigh. But then I succumbed. And then came a disastrous bout of stomach upset. One whole day of throwing up repeatedly every 3 hours whether I needed to or not. After that, and while trying to recouperate and get my stomach back on a even keel, who could blame me a bit of self-indulgence. Sigh, again.
I finished the book in one day - and it isn't a short book. I like this one, too. I was prepared to NOT like it as much, since the idea of going back in time didn't especially appeal to me. I like looking to the future more than I do looking to the past. But this is such an interesting world. Unlike the other books of Tortall, this one takes place in the realm of the poor, the leftovers, the rejects of human society. Beka Cooper (presumably the early ancestor of George Cooper, Alanna's husband) is a new "Puppy" (recruit), working for the "Dogs" (police) in the lower city. This is her home district and she feels that she belongs there. She soon latches on to a double mystery - why 9 people have gone missing and the pigeons who carry the spirits of the dead keep bothering her to find them and also why children are being abducted, ransomed, and either returned or killed, depending on whether the ranson was paid. Beka is tough and resourceful, but also painfully shy - an interesting combination.
Again, this isn't a profound book, but I did enjoy it. I like the toughness - it seems so real. There were only a couple of minor things that didn't work for me. The solution to the child stealing crimes didn't seem to show the motivation behind them strongly enough. The crimes seemed out of proportion to the provocation/incentive. The other set of crimes seemed more plausible. Beka's attraction to What's-His-Name is another thing that didn't work for me. Fortunately, it wasn't a major part of this book - although my guess is that it will almost certainly figure in the sequel(s).
An interesting point to think about: one of the other "Puppies" goes over to the criminal side after his lover/co-Puppy is killed through stupidity/irresponsibility on the part of her "Dogs". Beka acknowledges that the line between the criminal and the law-enforcer is a fine one. This is a bit disturbing to me - maybe because I have ?falsely? ?wishfully? held to the belief that law enforcers have a commitment to the law. Is it really that easy to switch sides?
No comments:
Post a Comment