Hundred Thousand Kingdoms (Jemisin), take two

[cahn]

winterfox's excellent review panning Hundred Thousand Kingdoms (thanks for the link!) pointed out that Jemisin says (about the character who most embodies my complaints about Eeeeeevil characters) the following:

See, the way I see it — others’ mileage may vary — one of the staples of epic fantasy is clearly-delineated good and evil... So I needed there to be one absolute, unadulterated ratbastard in the story, and [character redacted] was it.

And to keep [] absolutely evil, I needed to keep [] relatively unknown. I don’t know []'s back story.
...
But this is all I know about []. It’s all Yeine needed to know. And it’s all either Yeine or Iwanted to know, because it’s hard to plot another person’s death if you know them and understand them.

There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that this is completely contrary to my entire philosophy of life and literature. I have gone from "not really interested in next book" to "by no means picking up next book."

Comments

[julianyap.livejournal.com]

I have to agree that I think a lot less of it after reading that interview segment.

[thistleingrey.livejournal.com]

hmm. That strikes me as odd, too, and not what I'd have expected given Jemisin's dayjob (counselor).

For my part I'll still read the next book, perhaps because I wasn't reading this one for either its romance or its good/evil dichotomy. *adjusts oblivious shields(?)*