![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I read this back in April and I still cannot figure out what I think about it; I think in order to have a proper understanding of it I will need to read it again, but I do not like rereading books very quickly, so it will have to wait for some time to have passed. And yet in the meanwhile I keep turning it over in my mind and having thoughts about it, and as my Goodreads review started to get out of hand in meanderings and musings and speculations, I am bringing them here. This post will contain spoilers, but I will put it all behind a cut tag to protect the unwary.
I did not like much that the book was Hamlet; it felt to me a little facile, because she hits the plot points so closely. It is not that I dislike Hamlet; I was entirely ready to adore a trans Horatio (Eolo) getting a crush on a smart, competent Ophelia (Tikaz), while helping his beloved friend (Mawat, except in this case it is feudal lord, sort of, or at least military commander, whereas Horatio was truly Hamlet's friend) navigate the murky waters of the return to court -- but I wanted to read that book, with all the depth it deserves, including a proper Hamlet who makes it clear why he inspires feverish loyalty even in people who ought to know better -- or who deserves that loyalty until he begins falling apart, stretched to breaking by the things he cannot understand or accept. So as just the framework of plot for the machinations of a god, Hamlet felt unwise; it was either too easy (because of all the shorthand the informed reader provides) or too difficult (because of the expectation gap a reader like me brings to the story).
So there is that, and then I think I did not read with enough care to know each moment that the Strength & Patience of the Hills was manipulating things; what it says becomes true, after all, if not said with great caution, and I suspect that a slower, more careful reading would show me that there are times when what is happening is coming from the humans and the times in which the god is telling the story with deliberation to arrange its freedom. Which of course is my own fault, I was reading quickly and late and although I found the gods very engaging, I was more emotionally invested in the humans, wanting them to have pleasant outcomes.
Yet writing all of this, I realised that the one famous set-piece in Hamlet which is missing is the play-within-the-play -- except if the Strength & Patience was shaping the story judiciously, using its powers, then the entire human plotline is the play-within-the-play of the larger story about the struggles between the gods, and then Mawat is not truly Hamlet at all, Strength & Patience is, and unlike the original Hamlet, it actually succeeds -- the rotten state comes down and the sails on the horizon are not invaders but allies.
I just thought of this and I do not know if it holds up; I suppose I will find out when I reread. I hope it does, Hamlet as puzzle boxes is immensely appealing and besides, I do feel that itch in my sense that Leckie is doing something very intentional but that I could not see it so the book would not come together. It would be so pleasant to have figured it out!
I did not like much that the book was Hamlet; it felt to me a little facile, because she hits the plot points so closely. It is not that I dislike Hamlet; I was entirely ready to adore a trans Horatio (Eolo) getting a crush on a smart, competent Ophelia (Tikaz), while helping his beloved friend (Mawat, except in this case it is feudal lord, sort of, or at least military commander, whereas Horatio was truly Hamlet's friend) navigate the murky waters of the return to court -- but I wanted to read that book, with all the depth it deserves, including a proper Hamlet who makes it clear why he inspires feverish loyalty even in people who ought to know better -- or who deserves that loyalty until he begins falling apart, stretched to breaking by the things he cannot understand or accept. So as just the framework of plot for the machinations of a god, Hamlet felt unwise; it was either too easy (because of all the shorthand the informed reader provides) or too difficult (because of the expectation gap a reader like me brings to the story).
So there is that, and then I think I did not read with enough care to know each moment that the Strength & Patience of the Hills was manipulating things; what it says becomes true, after all, if not said with great caution, and I suspect that a slower, more careful reading would show me that there are times when what is happening is coming from the humans and the times in which the god is telling the story with deliberation to arrange its freedom. Which of course is my own fault, I was reading quickly and late and although I found the gods very engaging, I was more emotionally invested in the humans, wanting them to have pleasant outcomes.
Yet writing all of this, I realised that the one famous set-piece in Hamlet which is missing is the play-within-the-play -- except if the Strength & Patience was shaping the story judiciously, using its powers, then the entire human plotline is the play-within-the-play of the larger story about the struggles between the gods, and then Mawat is not truly Hamlet at all, Strength & Patience is, and unlike the original Hamlet, it actually succeeds -- the rotten state comes down and the sails on the horizon are not invaders but allies.
I just thought of this and I do not know if it holds up; I suppose I will find out when I reread. I hope it does, Hamlet as puzzle boxes is immensely appealing and besides, I do feel that itch in my sense that Leckie is doing something very intentional but that I could not see it so the book would not come together. It would be so pleasant to have figured it out!
