Dennaleia (Denna) is a princess of the northern kingdom of Havemont. She's engaged to be married to Crown Prince Thandilimon (Thandi) of Mynaria for political reasons I can't recall. Denna has a secret: she can perform fire magic. Unfortunately, Mynaria is becoming more and more anti-magic. Recusants, illegal magic users, are being hunted down, and things only get worse after a member of the royal family is assassinated by someone who is likely a Recusant.

While everyone else is quick to blame the Recusants and the nearby country of Zumorda for Mynaria's recent problems, Denna and Mare, the Mynarian princess, are the only ones who suspect something else might be going on. As Mynaria prepares for Denna and Thandi's upcoming marriage, Denna and Mare work together to uncover the truth...and gradually realize that they've fallen in love with each other.

I'll start by talking about the good. For the most part, the progression of Denna and Mare's relationship from rocky, to being friends, and finally to falling in love was pretty good. Although Mare would have preferred to have as little as possible to do with Denna when they first met, she was forced to help Denna learn how to ride horses (riding isn't a thing people do in Havemont) and got to know her more than she probably would have otherwise. Their eventual romance had a solid foundation and didn't feel like it appeared out of nowhere.

I was also happy to see that homophobia wasn't one of the things standing between Denna and Mare. From what I could tell, bisexuality was the default in this world. As far as marriage went, however, things were a little fuzzier. It sounded like same-sex marriages existed, but also like same-sex political marriages were less likely than political marriages between men and women.

Now it's time to get into the things I didn't like, and unfortunately the list is long.

First and foremost, Of Fire and Stars was boring. It took ages for things to happen and for Mare and Denna's investigations to move forward. I wanted more tense political intrigue, and instead I got occasional badly executed spying attempts, some library research, and Denna stressing over the possibility that her magical abilities would be discovered. Most of that was pushed into the background after Denna and Mare realized that they loved each other. I should have been rooting for their relationship and instead I couldn't wait for the book to finally be over.

The book alternated between chapters from Mare's POV and chapters from Denna's POV (first person past tense). Mare was a tomboy who preferred dressing up as a man and going information-gathering in local taverns to putting on gowns and spending time at court. Denna had been trained to be a perfect princess since birth. Coulthurst could have alternated between chapters devoted to Mare's spying activities and chapters in which Denna made connections at court, collected potentially useful court gossip, and did a bit of research in the palace library.

Instead, readers got the former (sort of) but only the barest sliver of the latter. Both Denna and Mare dismissed court gossip as something only silly court ladies participated in, an attitude that boggled my mind. Was I really supposed to believe that only commoners in taverns gossiped about the current state of affairs in the country, city, and palace? In the end, the only useful thing Denna got to do was library research.

Denna felt like little more than a sidekick throughout much of the story, even going so far as to beg Mare to take her on one of her trips to a local tavern. Mare, meanwhile, didn't strike me as being nearly as competent as the author wanted readers to believe. She'd have died or had her identity uncovered many times over if it hadn't been for her best friend Nils, one of the few halfway intelligent and capable characters in the book. She was also annoyingly childish, kicking her shoes off at things (bushes, doors) multiple times.

The way Mare and Denna's romance played out caused me to dislike them both. They were both selfish and frustrating. Mare viewed Denna moving forward with her and Thandi's wedding as choosing Thandi over her. Never mind that it was a political marriage and that there would be consequences for both of their countries if Denna suddenly announced that she had fallen in love with Mare and wanted to marry her instead.

Denna had a similar reaction when Mare considered agreeing to a political marriage of her own that would have at least guaranteed she could work with horses on a daily basis. If Denna had had her way, Mare would have stayed by her side for the rest of her life, unmarried and perpetually available for stolen kisses. Never once did she consider Mare's feelings and that it might be best for the person she supposedly loved to find what happiness she could elsewhere.

Although the book has a proper ending, there's definitely room for a sequel, and I see that one is supposed to come out sometime in 2019. I don't currently plan on reading it.

Extras:

There's a map at the beginning of the book. Somehow I didn't manage to see it until after I'd finished reading.

(Original review posted on A Library Girl's Familiar Diversions.)

We started with:

A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct. This every sister of the Bene Gesserit knows. To begin your study of the life of Muad’Dib, then, take care that you first place him in his time: born in the 57th year of the Padishah Emperor, Shaddam IV. And take the most special care that you locate Muad’Dib in his place: the planet Arrakis. Do not be deceived by the fact that he was born on Caladan and lived his first fifteen years there. Arrakis, the planet known as Dune, is forever his place.

–from “Manual of Muad’Dib” by the Princess Irulan

and read till here:

Over the exit of the Arrakeen landing field, crudely carved as though with a poor instrument, there was an inscription that Muad’Dib was to repeat many times. He saw it that first night on Arrakis, having been brought to the ducal command post to participate in his father’s first full stage conference. The words of the inscription were a plea to those leaving Arrakis, but they fell with dark import on the eyes of a boy who had just escaped a close brush with death. They said: “O you who know what we suffer here, do not forget us in your prayers.”
—from “Manual of Muad’Dib” by the Princess Irulan

A summary of what has happened until now:

1. Paul is tested by the Reverend Mother, the leader of the Bene Gesserits.
2. We meet the Atreides and their enemies, Harkonnens. 10, 000s of years ago, Harkonnens were stripped of their titles for showing cowardice in a war. That is just one of the reasons they hate the Atreides who took over and won the war.
3. Atreides are being sent to the brutal desert planet, Arrakis, where the precious spice is mined.
4. That the Emperor wants to see the house fall and Duke Leto has plans of his own to counter that.
5. The Harkonnens have plotted the downfall of Atreides and they will be betrayed by Paul's doctor, Yueh.
6. The blame is to fall on Lady Jessica (Paul's mother) who is a Bene Gesserit (BG).
7. The BGs perform myth-seeding to keep their operatives safe and they have created a legend about Paul in Arrakis.

My Thoughts

Here I found yet another book where the author jumps from POV to POV within a single scene! Herbert does this in a way that does not feel unnatural plus there's the advantage of knowing what motivates multiple characters to behave in a certain way.

It is amazing that the author has the villains well defined right from the start. There is no dithering about who the bad guys are and yet it does not make the reading any less fun.

I found out that there was a re-read going on at Tor and in this second installment, the origins of the names and the various terms used in the book are discussed. You can read the whole thing over there, so I won't be repeating it.

The 4th installment brought this, which made me laugh:

The Harry Potter connection invites a mashup… with a villain referred to as “he who cannot be weighed”…

Some fun remarks about how Brian has ruined the Dune universe also made it into the comments, along with this comic:

If you are having trouble pronouncing any of the Arabic -- and other -- terms in the book, this guide can help. It includes sound bites in Herbert's voice!

Weird Enough’s Musings

“There is probably no more terrible instant of enlightenment than the one in which you discover your father is a man—with human flesh.”

—from “Collected Sayings of Muad’Dib” by Princess Irulan

I had no idea what to expect when I started this book. A friend read it, didn't tell me anything about it, and I didn't read the blurb before I dove in. I didn't even look very closely at the cover, which would have given me some clues. I did later see that someone had compared it to X-Men meets X-Files and that seems about right.

I was hooked from beginning to end and am a little sad to say goodbye to some of the characters. I've heard the second book in the series isn't like the first - still good, but pretty different - and I don't think I'm ready to tackle that one just yet. 

One thing I didn't expect was to laugh as much as I did. What a great story and a great main character. I certainly recommend this one to anyone who enjoys political intrigue and science fiction.

Oh, and the narrator did a great job on the many different voices. Her inflections during narration, though, kept pulling me out of the story. Not too badly but enough to think repeatedly, "please change that!" I understand that she doesn't do the second book so I'll be interested to know how I like the new narrator once I get around to it.

It is difficult to determine whether Richard II is a tragedy or not. It appears that when Shakespeare first drafted the play he drafted it as a tragedy (and it is one of his earlier plays) however as his folio of plays increased, it fall among his history plays. It should be considered that not all of Shakespeare's plays fall neatly into the categories of tragedy or comedy, and this is particularly the case with his history plays (in particular Henry V).

Richard II is the first play in Shakespeare's history cycle (which begins with Richard II and ends with Richard III, with the King Henry plays coming in the middle). In a sense this history cycle chronicles the fall of the Plantagenat dynasty and the rise of the Tudor dynasty. It should also be noted that the history plays all occur during the period known as the Hundred Years War (which was between England and France), though by the time of Richard III, England had been pretty much kicked out of France, and thus it is interesting to note that upon losing the Hundred Years War, civil war breaks out in England (a war known as the War of the Roses, between the House of Lancaster and the House of York). The losing side in war seems to, in many cases, either collapse into civil war, or undergo a revolution (actually, that is not really the case, but it was in this particular instance).

However, enough of history and on with the play, or the character of Richard II. Richard was the grand son of Edward III (the one who is considered to be the instigator of the Hundred Years War), and was the son of the Black Prince. The Black Prince, being heir to the throne, never actually took the throne as he died before his father (of the black plague, which was ravaging Europe at the time). So, when Edward died, Richard took the throne. However, Richard did not last long as he continued his father's and grand father's wars, but to fight wars, one needs money, so he raised money by confiscating lands and raising taxes. However, his wars never went all that well, and as is the case in such situations, was deposed by the man who would become Henry IV.

The question is whether this play falls into a tragedy. As argued elsewhere I do not see any concept of a tragic flaw in Shakespeare's tragedies, and once again I do not see any tragic flaw in Richard. Yes, he raised taxes, and upset the wrong people, but that is going to happen when one is king. I guess if there was a fatal flaw in Richard it was that he wasn't a particularly strong king. I say that because not only did he get deposed, but because his rival, Henry Bolingbroke, was able to rally support against him. I guess he also wasn't a particularly bright king either as he went to Ireland to fight a war there and pretty much left the kingdom open to Bolingbroke to take it from him. However, I guess that may be the purpose of the history plays, as here we see the end of the Plantagenat dynasty, however the mess that begins with Bolingbroke's usurption will end with the mess that becomes the War of the Roses.

A few other points I wish to raise, and that is that Bolingbroke, when he captures Richard, locks him up. However this isn't in a dungeon or such, but rather in a castle. This is a very luxurious prison, but a prison nonetheless. Further, Richard's death is strangely reminiscent of the death of Thomas Becket. Henry II is said to have cried out 'who will rid me of this troublesome priest' at which point some knights took it upon themselves to kill him, against Henry's wishes. The similar thing occurs here (and it is interesting to note that both incidents involve a Henry). Henry, exacerbated, makes a statement that he does not mean, and assassins that go to Pomfret Castle and slay Richard (though Richard does actually put up a fight - never accuse Shakespeare of being light on the action). However, it appears that this event occurred according to his source, Holingshed. It is also interesting that Richard's assassin is exiled and that Henry mourns over his death. It seems that even though he took his throne, he could not bring himself to kill Richard, for even though he may no longer king in actuality, he is still the king, and to kill him is regicide. Whatever happens to Henry I guess we will see unfold in Henry IV.

By the way I recently watched a Royal Shakespeare Company production of this place, which happens to have David Tennant as the lead role. I have written a post on it (and a more detailed analysis of the play) on my blog.

This is by far and away my favourite Shakespeare play. It is a very dark and brooding play that is not only incredibly violent, but also ends very badly for most of the main characters. King Lear is one of Shakespeare's great tragedies (along with the Scottish Play and Hamlet) though I find that Hamlet is a lot tighter and the plots are a lot more intertwined than King Lear.

What I mean by this is that there are, I'll say two, plots running side by side and then merge at the end of the play. It is noticeable that both of these plots deal with the same theme, and that is of love. This first plot involves King Lear and the second involves Edgar, his bastard half-brother Edmund, and their father the duke of Gloucester. Lear believes that he has become too old to be a king and decides to divide his kingdom between his daughters, and the biggest portion will go to the one who loves him the most. Two of the daughters put on a song and dance about how much they love him, while the third, who truly loves him, can only be honest. Lear is angered at what he considers a pathetic response, and banishes her from the Kingdom, and divides it between his remaining two daughters. Lord Kent rebukes Lear for this, and Lear banishes him as well.

The Edgar/Edmund plot involves the villain Edmund, who is bitter at being a bastard and schemes to destroy his legitimate brother and take his place. He deceives his father, and Edgar flees to the moors where he disguises himself as Mad Tom, and then brands his father as a traitor (he is aware that the King of France is landing an army in England to restore Lear's third daughter, Cordielia, to the throne, particularly since her sisters have stripped Lear of his kingdom), and then strips him of his dignity by blinding him, and then banishes him to the moors.

As mentioned, the theme of this play is about love. King Lear simply wants to be loved, but does not understand that love is defined by actions not words. This is very clear with Lord Kent who, despite being banished, disguises himself and returns to serve Lear, and despite Lear being stripped of his authority, still recognises him as the true King of England. It is interesting to note that at the close of the play, once Lear has died and Kent is offered the crown, he refuses it, and instead hands it to Edgar, who has been vindicated (and was also the one to defeat Edmund in an epic sword fight). We see a similar theme with Edgar and Gloucester who he finds wondering the moors as a blind man, and assists him to return to his glory (before he dies).

While there is a lot more to this play, another interesting aspect is the division of the kingdom. It is quite anachronistic for the period in which the play was written (or when it was set, in a mythological pre-Roman era – the sources for the play would be Monmouth's Kings of Britain), however during the era of Charlegmaine, this was something that would happen. One's kingdom, and property, were not handed down to the first born, but divided between the male heirs to the throne. This is probably the main reason why Charlegmaine's empire did not last much beyond his lifetime.

I have written a much more detailed analysis, for those who are interested, on my Blog (though this was after watching the Ian McKellan version of the play).