Spellmaker

Charlie Holmberg weaves a truly fantastic world through the Spellbreaker Duology. I really enjoyed how the magic system worked in these two books, and book 2 really bright to light some of the more interworkings of how spells are learned and passed down through the generations.

However, I do feel book 1 told a better, more thrilling story with better character development, book 2 was still quite enjoyable all the same. I hope to read more novels set in the same world in the future.

This was so disappointing.

The series description and initial set-up make it seem as if the novel will be invested in upsetting the systems of power that create severe inequity and oppression. Instead, by the end of this book, I'm left with the impression that the author is truly more invested in a world that is peaceful rather than just.

I don't know if the issues I have with the book are more to do with its themes or the poor execution of what is otherwise a good idea. I think that in more recent books, readers and authors have become enamoured with the idea of a sympathetic villain; one whose motives and emotions you can sympathize with even if you don't agree with their means. However, I think that sort of villain is incredibly difficult to pull off without absolutely invalidating their worldview, which is what I think happened here. If you make me sympathize with your villain's goals (particularly if they are fighting to end systemic inequity), then I need to see narrative and character investment in ending those inequities even after your villain has been nullified. Otherwise, it seems as if the book is suggesting (which is what happened here), that rather than incredibly flawed systems, the real problem is individuals like the villain. And really, the world as it currently is is not that bad wouldn't you know