REVIEW: Burn for Me by Ilona Andrews
Readers please note: A reader told me her ebook opened to the first chapter, skipping the prologue, and so she didn’t even know it was there. The prologue is important to the story, so if you get the ebook and this happens to you, I recommend backtracking to read it.
Trigger warnings: In light of our recent discussion of ableist language, I feel a need to state that the hero’s nickname (mentioned far more frequently in this book than his first name) is ableist. Kidnapping and interrogation come up in the review as well. If any of these are among your triggers, you may wish to avoid reading this review.
Dear Ms. Andrews,
Ever since I’ve heard about your new Hidden Legacy paranormal-romance-with-urban-fantasy-elements series, I’ve been eager to read this first book.
Burn for Me begins with an untitled section which explains that in 1863 the Osiris serum was discovered. It had the capacity to awaken dormant magical powers in people, and these abilities were inherited by future generations.
Magical abilities manifest differently in each individual, both in terms of the nature of the power and in terms of its degree, but only the wealthy and socially powerful could afford the serum, so it is they and their descendants who hold most of the magic. Their families or “Houses” remain influential and powerful as a result.
Next comes a prologue that introduces us to Kelly Waller. Kelly’s teenage son Gavin has fallen in with a pyrokinetic named Adam Pierce who involved him in burning a bank. Innocent people died or were harmed, and now the authorities want to capture Adam and Gavin dead or alive. Kelly fears her son will be killed on sight and she approaches her cousin Connor, known as Mad Rogan, for help.
But asking the head of House Rogan for help is dangerous. Kelly hasn’t been in touch with him for years, and he has since grown into a lethal force. His telekinetic power is unbelievably strong, and he is thought to be unstable, perhaps even a psychopath. Kelly fears for her life but oddly, Rogan agrees to find Gavin and turn him in so he can have a fair trial.
The book then switches to first person and our narrator is Nevada Baylor, a private detective. The first chapter, in which Nevada steps in between a cheating husband and the wife who hired her to track him, reveals that Nevada is brave and protective.
Nevada’s only magical power is lie detection, and she keeps it a secret because she doesn’t want to spend her life interrogating others. But even so she can hold her own in a physical fight.
Nevada is also the head of her household. Her family is poor and lives in a warehouse. Her father is dead and her mother,a former sniper, disabled. Her sisters are still in high school and her cousins, who live with them, are in school or in college. Her grandmother, a mechanic who fixes armored vehicles, also lives with them but the family is scraping by. Thus, when Nevada is called in to see Montgomery International Investigations executive Augustine Montgomery, who holds the mortgage for her agency, she has no choice but to report.
Augustine has an impossible mission for her – capture pyrokinetic Adam Pierce alive and deliver him to House Pierce, which has hired MII to do just that. But Adam’s magical classification is prime, the highest, and Nevada has no way to keep him from burning her alive should he decide to.
It’s easy for Nevada to detect the truth—Augustine believes she has no magical abilities and is therefore expendable. He must save face with House Pierce so he’s threatening Nevada with foreclosure to get her to die in place of magical detectives whom he values more. But Nevada can’t bear to see her family homeless, so she agrees.
Things go from bad to worse when Nevada goes home and learns from her cousin Bern, a technology mage (this power made no sense to me) that Mad Rogan is connected to the case. She has a miniscule chance of convincing Adam to turn himself in, but if Mad Rogan decides to interfere, she’ll be up against two, not one, very dangerous men.
Using her investigative skills, Nevada finds a way to get a message to Adam. She meets with him at a park and while he’s not about to turn himself in, she manages to intrigue him enough to stay alive. But after Adam leaves, Nevada finds herself face to face with the terrifying Mad Rogan.
Rogan captures Nevada, chains her in his basement, and attempts to use a magical ability to interrogate her into revealing the nature of her connection to Adam. But Nevada’s own ability is will based, and she succeeds in breaking his spell without revealing the information he wants. Rogan returns Nevada home, but she knows he’ll be back.
I won’t reveal what happens next, except to say that eventually a change of circumstances prompts Nevada to ally with Rogan despite her distrust of him in a partnership that, as she tells him, is strictly professional. Trouble is, Nevada is attracted to Rogan, even though there’s plenty of evidence that he’s bad news. She may need his help to stop Adam from hurting more people, but can she accept it without getting hurt herself?
Reading this book made me think of some of the recent discussions of “id reading” on Sunita and Liz McCausland’s blogs. For me, Burn for Me was an id reading kind of book. This novel taps into some of my favorite tropes and I had a hell of a blast reading it.
This doesn’t mean I didn’t notice flaws, but rather, that although I noticed them, I still had a terrific time. The book also has merits, and I’ll recount both merits and flaws, but keep in mind that this was my kind of catnip.
First, Nevada. I loved her. I loved her down-to-earth quality, her resourcefulness, her role as the breadwinner for her family, her human fears and her bravery in the face of them. I loved her backbone and I appreciated her mixed race background. I loved that she resisted Rogan, kept saying no and laying down her boundaries, instead of jumping into bed with him at the first opportunity. I also loved the way she discovered her full capabilities and powers and came into her own bit by bit.
Since I love morally ambiguous characters Rogan was right up my alley too. He could swing between callous and remote to funny and supportive, so it was hard to get a bead on him. I tend to prefer characters to have a moral compass, even if they ignore it, and I wasn’t always sure whether Rogan had one. I wanted a sense of whether he had a code of honor, whether he cared if people died– sometimes it seemed he did and sometimes it seemed he didn’t.
This was confusing, but it also put me in a similar position as Nevada’s. She has to keep guessing about his true nature. I’m hoping we find out more about this in future books, but regardless of this and regardless of my reservations about Rogan, I loved reading about him.
I also loved the nature of Rogan and Nevada’s partnership. Each was a mentor to the other. Rogan pushed Nevada to defend her life better and to bring her magic to the forefront, just as Nevada was Rogan’s mentor in not killing more than he had to, having a little humiliity, and just in general what it means to be a regular person.
Initially the dynamic between Nevada and Rogan reminded me a little of the first book in Nalini Singh’s Guild Hunter series. In both books the heroine wants nothing to do with the hero because she recognizes the danger he presents, but they must work together to track down a villain. This book is written with more humor and it appears the romantic arc will be more drawn out, which is all to the good IMO.
Another thing I loved was that Nevada and Rogan’s working relationship develops into a full partnership and not just one character always saving the other one. Here they each took turns saving the other, both taught and began to learn from each other and on occasion they each took the other down a peg or two with their banter. It really was wonderful to read, and I love that they didn’t jump into bed and time is being taken with the physical side of their relationship.
The side characters were also great, especially the strong women in Nevada’s family, including her mechanic grandmother and her disabled former sniper mother, both portrayed with dignity and strength. Nevada’s computer geek cousin Bern was also delightful.
The action comes fast and furious for much of this book. It’s not a thoughtful and contemplative read but it sure is exciting, like a high adrenaline roller coaster ride. This may not be everyone’s cuppa but it sure was mine.
Now for problematic elements. Ableist language was used a lot in this book, and there’s also cultural appropriation in a plot twist involving a magical artifact from another country (I’m trying to avoid spoilers here). The hero may or may not have a moral compass; he kidnaps the heroine and chains her in his basement and that’s clearly problematic too.
There are other types of flaws too. The setup takes a while and Rogan and Nevada don’t meet until about a quarter of the way through the book. I got a little impatient waiting for that to happen.
Adam Pierce’s motives are still shrouded in mystery at the end of the book — I hope we learn more about them in the next book.
My other issue had to do with the characters’ magical abilities. The world itself was interesting and entertaining but the way the magic worked seemed inconsistent. I’ll hide these details because they involve spoilers.
Spoiler: Show
This book wasn’t perfect, but I just couldn’t help loving it. It was so entertaining, almost pure fun. I had such a great time reading it that I will be anticipating the next Hidden Legacy novel even more eagerly than I did this one. B+.
Sincerely,
Janine
AmazonBNKoboAREBook DepositoryGoogle
Great balanced review, Janine! I’m going to pick this up as soon as I can. Thanks!
@Kathleen: Thanks. I tried to be thorough in my review, because even though I enjoyed it tremendously, this is the kind of book that will not appeal to everyone, and some will find it upsetting.
Great review Janine, I read the book couple months ago when I grabbed a copy from Vine. Overall I really enjoyed it – the story, the world, the heroine. I found her sufficiently different from Kate (yes, she is a PI but most heroines in urban fantasy are and to me here is when the similarities end) . The hero infuriated me more often than not, but because it is the first book and the author is Ilona Andrews, I am willing to wait and see because of those glimpses you mentioned.
I liked it. Didn’t love it. And here’s why: the publisher opted to sell it as “Paranormal Romance”. If that’s the case, I found the romance remarkably weak. I’d have been totally fine if it had been marketed as UF, but IMHO, this book was not much of a romance. Perhaps glimpses of a romance that will be built, but I went in really desperately hoping for a romance, and I got UF, which disappointed me. I don’t think this is the fault of the authors, it’s the publisher, I think.
I don’t get how the book was culturally appropriative. Borrowing from others myths and legends to create a world is culturally appropriative?
@Jane:
I didn’t read BRM that way either. I would consider it inappropriate if the authors appropriated the culture without reference or respect to its origins, but they did acknowledge what they were referencing and at the end they say something along the lines of **spoiler** the situation wouldn’t have happened at all if the magical necklace wasn’t stolen from India**endspoiler**. I took that as a little quip, and admonishment, about colonizing other cultures ( specifically, that you shouldn’t).
I loved this book a lot. I think a large part of it was because of how morally ambiguous (even quasi-sociopathic) Mad Rogan was. For me it fit right in with the type of power and privilege he had just being who he was. I found him completely fascinating. He was so different from Nevada who was practically glowing in her moral center.
I do agree that the marketing of the book is problematic. I too snagged it months ago as part of Vine, blurb unread just because it was Ilona Andrews. When I finally did read the blurb I was skeptical. When I read the book i was irritated because the blurb just did not fit what was actually in the book. Not because I was expecting romance (I am glad it was more UF) But because I dislike misleading marketing.
Regards The Artifact & appropriation: There was actually a character in the book who explicitly says “It is a lesson for us and a legacy of Colonialism. Stealing another nation’s treasures never turns out well.”
In the end it felt in places like the Andrewses Edge series and yet still different. I am looking forward to next one.
Tina, I was actually surprised that it was less romance than I expected to (very happy do not get me wrong), but mostly because when I read authors mentioning this book at their blog I could have swear that they talked about it as mostly romance. I thought it was mostly urban fantasy, I loved that Nevada was actually investigating stuff. I thought the world was original enough and as I mentioned before I was mostly pleased that Nevada was different from Kate. I have read some reviews and do not understand the arguments that the characters are similar at all. Nevada has family, to me it shaped her very differently than Kate whose family consisted of um, interesting people.
One of the reasons I am so impressed with Andrews’ writing is because in most books I passionately dislike alphahole characters and they managed to make me love Curran (even if I want to strangle him sometimes). Rogan to me goes way above Curran in his arrogance and willingness to kill people who are interfering with his plans. Right now I have no idea what Nevada sees in him – none (almost none?), but as I said because I trust these writers, and I loved everything in this book but the hero, I am willing to continue and see what happens.
@Sirius: We’ve talked in the past about the asshat / doormat ratio. Rogan was an asshat but a fun one for me because of all the snappy back-and-forths with Nevada, who was anything but a doormat. If she had been a shrinking violet, this pairing would never have worked.
@Kati: I’m curious why you and others here see it as urban fantasy. I saw it as PNR with some elements from UF. There was much more focus on the attraction and sexual feelings in this book than in the first Kate Daniels book, which is as far as I read in that series, and even a little more than in the Edge books which were an UF/Romance blend. The last line of the epilogue isn’t about how the world was saved, but about how Rogan feels about Nevada.
Yes, there is an investigative element in this book, but that’s true in Nalini Singh’s Guild Hunter series as well. Yes, there’s a lot of first person narration, but 50 Shades has popularized that for romance. I’ll grant that it takes the main characters a while to meet, but since there will be more than one book about them, the long setup was probably necessary.
@Jane: SPOILERS AHOY
IMO, yes, it is. Esp. since in this case the backstory of the artifact’s destructive power involved the Hindu God Shiva and the third eye, and therefore invoked a religion that is still currently practiced.
Speaking as one whose religion/culture/mythology is constantly being appropriated (in everything from a movie like “Raiders of the Lost Ark” where the Ark, holy to my ancestors, becomes a magical doodad the villains chase, to Christianity’s re-branding of the Hebrew Bible as “the Old Testament”), it’s the kind of thing that bothers me a lot when it involves my own culture.
To give a counter-example, had the villain spent this book hunting down Joseph’s “coat of many colors” (this term is itself a mistranslation) in the hopes that he could use it to dream up a way to destroy Houston, it would have really annoyed me, even though I’m secular and almost never go to synagogue.
Hinduism isn’t my religion so I’m blinded by privilege and that makes it hard for me to judge how people who practice it would feel about this book, but I was coming off my review of The Fire Seer and that book upset Sunita, so I wanted to be more sensitive here and let people who are concerned about this type of trope know that it was present in the book. It’s possible that I overcompensated, but so far the arguments in this thread haven’t convinced me of that.
END OF SPOILERS
@Taylor: I took that quip the same way, but it didn’t change how I felt. There’s a distinction between stealing artifacts from other cultures (wrong, but something the authors criticized) and borrowing from another culture/religion in fiction (troubling to some readers, and something they did in this book).
@Tina: I liked Rogan’s moral ambiguity as well (as I’ve mentioned this type of thing sometimes taps my id vortex and it did so here). My intellectual side says he was an asshat, but he appealed to my emotional side a lot. And his joking, playful aspect was fun. See my earlier replies re. the genre designation and the artifact.
@Janine:
Personally speaking, I am a practicing Hindu and I have no problem with the depiction of Hindu mythology in this book. I am actually really impressed because most PNR/UF use Greek myths/werewolves/vamps, but rarely utilize Asian myths in fiction. It’s nice to see a reference to Shiva instead of Zeus.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m fine with borrowing from another culture in fiction as long as it is respectful. In the Kate Daniels series, each book explores a specific mythology (Celtic, Hindu, Jewish lore…) and the authors do a great job with intertwining the mythology into the worldbuilding. Another example is Rick Riordan. His books are lovely homage to Greek mythology. Just my two cents. :)
@Divya: Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. You’re better qualified to comment on this than I am!
(I’m curious which book is the Jewish lore book. Maybe I should read it to see what I think.)
@Janine:
There is a really interesting scene with rabbis and Jewish lore in Magic Bleeds (the fourth book), but I wouldn’t recommend skipping the first three books. I’m really curious what you would think about it, because the authors purposefully twist some details of the legend (so the story of the first vampire is actually linked to Abraham). I know it doesn’t make sense out of context, but I thought it made perfect sense with the worldbuilding. Andrews doesn’t casually pick and choose mythologies to suit the narrative; there’s a LOT of research and respect for the culture in the book. Of course, I’m not Jewish, so this is my biased perspective.
For me, I’m okay with cultural borrowing except when it ventures into stereotypes or it’s clear that the author did zero research. So for example, I would really dislike it if a book portrayed Hinduism as a religion obsessed with sex by mentioning the Kama Sutra constantly. Or if the author made a mistake by saying that Shiva is the lord of creation. It’s not okay to get those details wrong when the internet is at the author’s disposal.
Thanks Janine for the comprehensive and thoughtful review. I just finished Burn for Me last night, and so your review is quite timely! I really enjoyed it too, and I felt the plot was a bit like Fate’s Edge (the artifact and its powers), but the characters are totally different of course. Ilona Andrews has used Hindu mythology before in her books (Kate Daniels, I think it was Magic Strikes). Rogan is a very different hero from all the others Ilona has written. The various types of magic reminded me a bit of Sharon Shinn’s Mystic and Rider series, but here there is more technology and telekinesis. It was a B to B+ read for me, and the only thing that bothered me was the epilogue as there seemed to be a total turn-around in the motivations of a character (I am trying to avoid spoilers) from the prologue. I suppose it’s a degree of suspension of belief – could someone support a cause so much that they are willing to sacrifice what has always been dearest to them? I suppose if there was compulsion and an amount of brain-washing involved. We will no doubt find out more in the next book, which I am very much looking forward to!
I really enjoyed the book, and think its definitely better than the 1st Kate Daniels, for instance. If trying to introduce someone to Ilona Andrews, I would probably offer this book first and move onto KD later.
Speaking only for myself, I didn’t find the (mild spoilers) use of the artifact problematic, though I do consider myself a (sort of) practicing Hindu. The book more or less just uses some legends about Shiva to give some background about the artifact, and doesn’t really say very much about the myths at all. There was nothing obviously inaccurate or insensitive (in contrast I was annoyed by the discussion questions in Bollywood Affair).
In general, the Andrews use myths from various cultures a LOT in the Kate Daniels series and seem to specifically use Hindu mythology quite a bit, since Dali is a practicing Hindu and Magic Strikes uses Shiva mythology extensively. I saw a recent Q&A that they like using it. It has always seemed well researched to me. Magic Strikes has an irreverent take on Hindu mythology but I found that amusing.
For myself, I would always hesitate to say some Hindu legend is inaccurate because Hinduism always seems so vast to me, and there are so many different versions of legends, that its entirely likely that Hindus in other parts of the world follow that version and I am just ignorant of it. I remember being amused when I discovered in college that Hanuman, whom I was taught to consider a celibate type, is considered a ‘Don Juan’ in some Southeast Asian versions of the Ramayana.
@Divya: I need to read on in the Kate Daniels series anyhow, so maybe it’s time to give book two a shot. I hear everything you and Janhavi are saying — it seems I overcompensated and I apologize for that.
@msaggie:
Thanks for bringing that up– the change in that character’s motivations bothered me too. It seemed to come out of nowhere and also, as you point out, it doesn’t seem to make much sense.
@Janhavi: Thank you. I really appreciate the correction. Sometimes I want to bend over backwards to make sure I’m being sensitive to all possible issues and I go too far as a result. That seems to be what happened here.
@Janine: Oh, I wouldnt call it a correction, I only want to speak for myself and really feel too ignorant to speak about Hindus in general. Someone else may feel it was not okay and as a broad strategy it seems to make sense to err on the side of being cautious.
But anyway, if you liked this, you should pick up the rest of Kate Daniels! The first book is the least good, 2nd better, and the 3rd onwards are all excellent.
They do twist the myths in that series a lot, like Divya said, but I really like it. Its almost a steampunk ish take on mythology? Very grounded in actual myths, they clearly know the mythology and do their research, but they twist stuff to make it fit with the Kate Daniels world of magic. I like that a lot, its one of my favourite aspects of the series. Spoilers for Burn for Me: its a bit like the O Leary cow thing. They take a well established myth, but come up with an alternate version of it which fits the history of the Kate Daniels world.
@Janhavi:
Gotcha.
I’ve heard that before. I loved the first three Edge books and read Magic Bites afterwards. In comparison to them, it was disappointing, but I’ve been wondering whether to give the next couple Kate Daniels books a shot. Multiple people have told me that the series keeps getting better.
@Janine: Definitely. Even skip the 2nd if you don’t quite like it, and jump into the 3rd. Magic Bites is one of their least good books across all their series in my opinion and later KD is much much better (its not bad, but not on par with the others).
@Janhavi: yeah I like how they twist myths too. I cannot speak for other cultures, but the Russian culture references in their books are awesome. I mean, Russian culture is Ilona’s heritage, but I am still so pleased every time I note the reference.
Oh and I started Kate Daniels from book three too and then went back :).
I enjoyed the book but felt that some things that were pointed out were potentially related to the fact that it was the first book. I agree, the prologue vs the epilogue were two different things. But I hope as the conspiracy unfolds over the next few books, we will be able to understand the character better.
I actually thought the use of Hindu mythology was an interesting take. And it seemed less appropriation and more a great power and responsibility type of thing. I felt that ran through the book. There were a lot of people who had been blessed with power and wealth and were extremely irresponsible.
I know people have been commenting on the economic disparity between Nevada and Rogan. But based on the read, it seems like her family has just enough money to run their lives, but not enough that a bad accident would not cause a lot of issues. Primarily due to the massive debt hanging over their head. But definitely better off than Rose from the first Edge book.
I look forward to the next book for more answers.
@Nikki:
I tried to state that in the review. I think I said in multiple places that I’m hoping to hear more about this or that issue in the next book. Were there points made where I did not indicate this that you feel may be related to this being the first book?
I hear you and everyone else on the mythology and I’ve conceded the point.
The economic disparity is an interesting topic. This was actually one of the things that made me feel that this book fit well into the PNR genre rather than the UF genre. Rogan had so much power and money, that he was like the billionaire hero crossed with the paranormal hero (I’m thinking Raphael from Angels’ Blood or Dragos from Dragon Bound).
These heroes tend to be so high not just above the heroine but above most people in the world. It’s part of what makes them leaders, and then you cross that with their skewed sense of how their power needs to be enforced and with how many other women are chasing them, and you get what I expect from a hero in a PNR. Rogan was much more in that vein than the heroes from the Edge books and from what I saw of Curran in Magic Bites.
I’m really interested in the PNR/UF discussion. I’m definitely in the UF camp. If I had thought it was going to be PNR I would have been disappointed. Because I knew it was UF (with thx to Jane) I wasn’t expecting a HEA in this book and I didn’t mind the slow burn start to a romance which will get the HEA only in book 3.
I actually thought Nevada was quite similar to Kate (after about book 3, when Kate starts to build a family from her friends, with Curran and with Julie) and Rogan was (IMO) quite similar to Curran, but just a bit more stark.
I thought Rogan had empathy but he doesn’t value it as much as other things and will sacrifice it for practicality. His actions in relation to veterans indicated to me a strong core of honour and loyalty and empathy. He’s arrogant and used to getting his way but he’s not a sociopath like Pierce. It may be that I imported too much of a Curran into my view of Rogan but I didn’t see them as being so very far apart.
@Janine I’m certain Nevada has lots more to learn about her power. I thought it was pretty clear where things were heading in that regard but I won’t spoil it. I do think she has lots more to learn about her true capabilities though.
I listened on audio and gave the content a B+ too. It was good fun and enjoyable but not without some flaws. There was a thing that happened toward the end of the book which wasn’t sufficiently explained, to me, at least and I thought some of the mental lusting was a bit overdone. But, I definitely enjoyed the snap and sizzle of the banter between Rogan and Nevada and many of the secondary characters were great too.
Regards PNR vs. UF, I didn’t think of this book as PNR mainly because in my own mind I think of PNR as being mainly romance with fangs & fur. The outward trappings may be different but the purpose of the books is to get the couple together.
This felt more UF mainly because it seemed the weight of the book was more on the world building, the investigation and introduction of the characters, but not necessarily the romance. The nascent elements of the romance was there, just not cooked completely.
As I was reading I didn’t see a lot of Kate Daniels in Nevada personally. And believe me, subconsciously I was looking because I can’t help but bring baggage when I am familiar with an author’s other works or style. Kate feels more … relentless than Nevada, imo. Both have a protective nature but that is true of many heroines. To me, I caught more glimpses of Rose and Cerise from the Edge series in Nevada.
Regards the Kate Daniels series, I agree the first two books are difficult. I almost DNF’d the first one figuring it was a series not for me. Glad I stuck with it though. I think of the first two books as sorta like the climb part of a rollercoaster…slow and a bit frustrating. While book three is the book the one that that feels like the series has finally arrived and poises you on top. From there on out the rest of the series is the exhilarating free-fall.
I finished this last night – really interesting comment thread. My two pence on various points:
I think I’d lean towards this being UF with a strong romance, but that’s really because the romance wasn’t front and centre in this book? I may change my mind depending on the later books though. I classify the Edge books as PNR and the Kate Daniels ones as UF, if that helps.
I thought Rogan was very similar to the Curran-style hero. Not that I was thinking of Kate/Curran while reading this book (Nevada and Rogan definitely held their own), but thought there was definite similarities in terms of power, arrogance, and having their own moral compass (because I think Rogan does have one, it’s not necessarily the same as Nevada’s).
World-building bothered me slightly – if there was such a massive change in the balance of power (magic v. wealth) 100+ years ago, I’m not convinced we would have the exactly the same technology (e.g. computers, mobile phones etc) today, so had to suspend disbelief on this part. But I did like the concept of Houses and private armies and so on.
(Also, I almost didn’t pick up the second Kate Daniels book. I’m glad I did as it was so much stronger than the first.)
The prologue thing has happened to me more than once on my Nook. I try to remember to always page back one when starting a new book.
I’ve tried the first book of 2 of Ilona Adrews’s series now- the Kate Daniels one and the Edge one- to the same result. Both books were fine, but they didn’t grab me. I finished both of them and I remember bits of the world building, but I had zero desire to read the rest of the series. I can’t put my finger on why, but I just never connected to them. I think I actually skimmed the last half of the Edge book.
I’ve seen other comments that the Kate Daniels books get better (and I think the other series, too) but I’ve been too meh about them to try again. And again, it’s not that I thought they were bad, I just didn’t feel them and I don’t know why.
@Kaetrin: The HEA point is a really good one. It’s clarified for me that maybe I was (without being conscious of it) not looking at the romance genre as one in which the HEA must be arrived at in book one. I wonder if that’s because of Fifty Shades of Gray and some of the books it inspired? It seems there are so many books with a three book arc for the romantic relationship, but since I haven’t read many of them, what I’m not sure of is whether each of the three books ends with the couple together.
Off the top of my head the only PNR series I can think of that has a three book arc is the Lia Silver series that starts with Prisoner. That first book ends with a HFN (if you can call it that– the characters are together but face a serious external conflict and are still prisoners so their situation isn’t exactly happy). So maybe that one is more of a romance than Burn for Me? I was also thinking of the J.D. Robb books, but on further thought, those were classified as mysteries.
I’ve only read the first Kate Daniels books but Kate made such bad decisions in that book that after reading the first of each series, I have a lot more respect for Nevada. Kate also read to me as a character trying hard to be badass, but Nevada came across more like a normal person with a core of steel. But everyone says the KD series gets better, so I probably shouldn’t judge by the first book alone.
I completely agree that Nevada isn’t done attaining powers and abilities. Her future growth in that arena is one of the things that has me really excited to read the upcoming books.
Re. the mental lusting. That was another thing that made me see it as PNR rather than UF. I’ve never read an UF with that much sexual pull, whereas in romance this level of lust would not be at all unusual. Maybe this book is just in between genres, neither fish nor fowl? But whatever genre it is, I am looking forward to the sequels.
@tina: Interesting definition of PNR, “fangs and fur.” Mine may be different because I started reading it in the old days when there were ghost romances, reincarnation romances and “seer” romances in which none of the characters had fangs or fur. I miss some of those types of books sometimes.
I can understand where you’re coming from on that, mainly because it takes so long for them to meet.
I think I will read the later KD books; you guys are persuading me!
@Li: & @Kaetrin:
So interesting how different readers viewed Rogan. He was inconsistent as a character (contrast saving the city and his employees with his statement that he joined the military in order to kill with impunity–a statement Nevada didn’t detect any lie in) so I can understand the huge difference in interpretations between your view and that of Sirius, for example.
That another thing that made me think of this series as PNR. Nalini Singh’s PNR series are the same way– there should be massive technological changes but people still use cars, cell phones, etc. Ditto the first Thea Harrison book (I haven’t read the later ones). But I do see everyone’s points to the contrary, and Katerin’s HEA point especially.
@willaful: I’m hoping my warning helps prevent it from happening to some of the other readers The reader I heard from wasn’t sure whether Adam or Rogan was the hero at first, due to missing the prologue.
@JewelCourt: The first Kate Daniels book didn’t grab me but I loved On the Edge. If you really want to give her another try, maybe try Bayou Moon or this one, whichever has more appeal?
@tina: yes, I agree Nevada was a lot like Rose from On The Edge too.
By about book 3 of KD, Kate is fiercely protective of her family and very self-sacrificing and that’s where I saw some similarities. Also, Nevada’s snark felt similar to Kate’s: (“here kitty kitty”).
I’ve listened to all of these books and they’ve had the same narrator. I love her work but the heroes and heroines do sound fairly similar (to other heroes and heroines, not to each other) and I think that probably impacts my thoughts in this regard as well.
@Janine re the HEA thing, I think it’s getting complicated with trilogies that don’t have a HEA until the end of the third book. For my part, whatever we call it, I want to know up front so I can decide whether I want to read it at all, wait until all the books are out or adjust my expectations – as we have discussed before, if I’m expecting a HEA and I don’t get one I get stabby. :-)
@Janine: Hi Janine! Just sharing my thoughts because it was nice to see everyone’s thoughts about the book. I apologize for the comment as it came across poorly. I will say, based on their writing so many books in between, they have definitely gotten better at the first book in a series thing. Like others, I remember reading Magic Bites and thinking you could be interesting but meh. I think it was their first Kinsmen short story that sucked me in. From there I fell into the autobuy.
I think there has been an increasing trend in UF or perhaps just the wider melting pot of UF/PNR towards extreme financial disparity. I am seeing a lot more situations where billionaire/wealth is supposed to give the whole background on how the hero is capable and an alpha. What bothers me more is that many of these men have inherited wealth which makes me think spoiled and not necessarily competent. I think there was a discussion of this on DA in the past, but the agency of the heroine in regards to wealth is an issue for me. Right up there with the heroine in danger from an abuser trope. But I do wonder if it becomes a reader based perception issue. (AKA it is my fault that I am annoyed.)
But thanks for an excellent review and discussion thread.
@Kaetrin:
Yes I agree this needs to be said upfront. It would be good if publishers labeled the romance trilogies but it seems to fall on authors to let their readers know. I think I did see Andrews say something about that but obviously that doesn’t reach every reader.
@Nikki: You have nothing to apologize for, disagreement is always welcome. I was trying to understand your comment better but I agree with the sentiment that a lot of the confusing things in this book might be clarified in future books.
I agree with about inherited wealth but the 25 year old self-made billionaire is equally problematic. As a commenter once said, unless you are Mark Zuckerberg it just doesn’t happen. Usually people don’t become billionaires until their forties and they work so hard they have no time for family/romance. (Paraphrasing from memory– the commenter had personal experience in this arena). So the wealthy hero is problematic either way.
I think the billionaire hero is a fantasy. In the US we left the British class system behind and created our own class structure, with billionaires at the top of it. The billionaire is like the English duke that dominates historical romances. It is a problematic trope but it’s not going away soon.
I actually think inherited wealth fits Rogan’s character, since he does come across as privileged. I also wondered if his magical power is having a psychological effect on him, as well. And whether his emotional development was stunted by things that happened in his childhood as in the one incident he told about his grandfather’s death.
We all have different sensitivities and preferences, but IMO it is not your fault because the billionaires are so predominant in romance right now. I find the more common a trope is the easier it is to get annoyed about it. When it was all virgin heroines all the time they annoyed me more than they do right now .
I agree that Nevada had agency, regardless.
I’m a bit late chiming in – I just re-read the book, which I think helped a lot with the epilogue whiplash. I do find that Ilona Andrews books withstand re-reading better than many others, and I appreciate that quite a bit. I rate re-readability higher than books that are ‘good first read, but boring on a second read.’
I’ve read commentary that the system of magic and the world-building is… lacking… in this book. I wouldn’t disagree, actually. I visited the authors’ Hidden Legacy website, though, so if you liked the book otherwise, I’d suggest visiting the Ilona Andrews webpage for more info.
I do have a different view now, after the second read, of the disparity between the prologue and the epilogue. Re-reading, I can see that some of the internal monologue *can* be taken a different way, more in-line with the ending, than what I’d thought in the initial read. I, too, was surprised by the epilogue – it was pretty crazy, but there were earlier layers that I had missed, or had downplayed in importance. [Trying hard not to spoiler!]… the Galleria meeting was where the book turned for me. At that point, I got the feeling that the next two books would expand on the situation in Burn for Me, rather than being an “investigation of the week” type series.
There was also a discussion above, regarding wealth – and the lack of it for heroines – and economic disparity. FYI: Ilona Andrews did a Reddit AMA, and that was one of the questions she answered (Gordon answered other questions, but this was Ilona). I found the answer very interesting (no spoilers): http://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/2ksi80/we_are_bestselling_authors_jocelynn_drake_and/cloee1j?context=3
I’d recommend reading the rest of the AMA if you’d like more of the backstory, but there are spoilers (and spoiler markings, so you can avoid spoilering yourself somewhat, if you haven’t read Burn for Me yet). Also, there’s a few questions about Kate Daniels series; not much, though.
Last, and perhaps most controversial: the character of Rogan. I was prepared not to like him, at all, especially after reading a few reviews. The kidnapping incident… yeah, that didn’t help! But I do think that, if they pull it off, the character will be more interesting for the differences between our first impressions versus what we learn as the series goes on. In this first book, we do get hints that there’s more to Rogan than just the hardcase: the description of him in the video when he was 19 and he unleashed all his power in Mexico; the story of his grandfather (and grandmother’s reaction); the way he talks about the Houses and the expectations of a Prime/heir. I’m glad we don’t get to see everything about him – it’s unrealistic, for one, as most of the story is not in his POV. Also, he is an incredibly powerful, wealthy scion in a society that worships the very attributes that make him a ‘hard case’ and above-the-law. I think the book does make commentary on the cost to society of putting these people up on pillars.
Re: the romance aspect: I knew, going in, that the first book would not end in a HEA. The authors were pretty clear in social media that the trilogy – not the first book – would have a more romantic emphasis than Kate Daniels, but that it would be a *slow* burn romance. With that expectation, I didn’t feel disappointed by the ending. I thought the book was a good introduction and it caught my attention. It gave me enough to be satisfied by the read, but it left points of intrigue to make me interested in the greater storyline of the series. I loved Nevada’s family. I’m also looking forward to reading more about Rogan, if (and how!!) Nevada’s view of him changes, Nevada’s abilities, and her father’s linage. I think the latter will be a big, interesting point!
@Elf: That’s good to know, about the epilogue and the prologue. I’ve been wanting to reread the book, we’ll see if I can make time.
I found the magical system confusing and contradictory. If you click on “Show” after “Spoiler:” in the review you can see what my issues were.
I think I’ve said this in my review of On the Edge but it bears repeating– I *love* the way Andrews writes about characters who are struggling to make ends meet. It has the ring of truth and I’m not surprised it’s based in personal experience. The issue is more with Rogan’s extreme wealth; it’s an overused trope in romance right now.
Re. Rogan. Yes I agree there are hints that there’s more to him. I’m looking forward to learning the details of that. But there were statements he made (saying he joined the military to kill with impunity; threatening Nevada’s mother– after she threatened him, but still) that make me wonder what exactly could be going on that would account for those as well as for the hints you mentioned. On the first read, anyway, he seems somewhat inconsistent as a character. I enjoyed reading about him but it will be interesting to see where the additional information in future books leads.
Re. genre — I really don’t understand why Avon didn’t put a genre on the spine.
I am very much looking forward to Nevada’s further self-discovery and growth in power. I agree about her father’s lineage.
I dunno, the issues with Nevada’s power made sense to me. Yes and no is easiest because it’s either the truth or a lie, flat out. People could be lying to themselves to the extent that they think they’re telling the truth, lying by omission, or shading the truth. In some of those cases, Nevada might know that they’re lying but not know what the truth is. If someone says yes and is lying, then she knows the correct answer is no.
And asking someone a question you know the answer to might be bullshitting, but it isn’t lying.
@Liviania:
SPOILER
But then why did she not sense it when Rogan was bullshitting her? And if she didn’t, how could she later say her powers never failed her?
END OF SPOILER
@Janine: Janine, can you clarify your confusion on this, because I don’t understand. Asking her if her father had been in the military wasn’t a lie in any way, so I’m not sure why you think Nevada should have known he already knew the answer. I took it as a general question to start a conversation and get Nevada to talk to him. Bullshit maybe, but not a lie, because he never said he didn’t know. (It also makes me wonder if he was in the military, and Nevada doesn’t know about it, but that might be me being paranoid.)
Loved the book, and I had to go back and re-read the prolouge again to catch that there could be alternative interpretations of his cousin’s thoughts, too. It’s very subtle. Almost too subtle, but on a re-read you can find it. Can’t wait for book 2!!
I’m curious about the types of magic possible, because, while I think the world was set up pretty well, it does seem like there is a magic type for everything (cyber, breaker, hexer, elementals, animators, etc. -it’s a lot!), and I’m not sure how that many variances and power levels within variances could be created in such a (relatively) small amount of time. It makes it a little difficult to figure out what is possible with magic, but that might be expanded on in a later book.
@Becky:
SPOILERS
My confusion lies in the conversation about Nevada’s “passive field.” I don’t have the book in front of me but I think the gist of it was that Nevada didn’t even have to try to tap her magic to know when someone was lying. Yet in the same book, she says she needs to ask it as a Yes or No question. That alone would seem to indicate that it *has* failed in the past, when the question was phrased differently. I feel like the whole “OMG your magic is infallible” conversation was in the book for added drama, and not because it’s an accurate description of Nevada’s abilities.
Because I feel that way, I’m also anticipating that some of Rogan’s statements, like the one about why he joined the military, will turn out to be not-entirely-truthful, even though I think at the time he said it, Nevada took it for the truth. If her ability is NOT infallible out side of yes or no questions, then I think she should have been expecting Rogan to try to mislead her and she would not be so outraged about his bullshitting, or fall for any other things that we may later find out aren’t truthful.
In other words there were too many contradictory statements about this– to say nothing of her floating / levitating (Rogan’s ability, not hers–and wasn’t it said telekinesis wasn’t the same as levitation, too? So how did she tap into it?) at the end of the book.
Rogan’s abilities were even more confusing / contradictory though.
END OF SPOILERS
@Becky: I am also really looking forward to book 2.
I don’t recall the Foreword that well, but my interpretation of that was that the magic was already there in people before they drank the serum, but dormant, and the serum activated it. That would account for the variances– just as human beings have different aptitudes in other areas of life, in this world, they have different aptitudes for magic.
@Janine: Thanks for explaining, I see where you’re coming from now.
SPOILERS:
I’m approaching it somewhat differently, in that I don’t think Rogan’s statements will turn out to be not quite truthful. The big example is joining the military b/c he could kill people. I think that’s true. Not the whole truth (he elaborates a bit more later with additional reasons – escaping family/society expectations), but I think the initial statement he makes is completely true, and I think it has to do with the nature of his magic. While he can be worn out doing other things, the only time he can reach the highest power of his magic is during his “ascent”. The only problem is that once he starts, he can’t stop. So here we have a (teenager? I can’t remember) young man with an awesome amount of power that he can’t use without massive death and destruction. On the other side, is the military, saying “Hey, we’re cool with that. We’ve got some bad guys that need to be killed, so you can totally let go and hit that high part of your magic.” That must have been very appealing. That’s my take (rationalization?) on it. But, like all Ilona books, I’ve been thinking about it waaaay too much, so I might have lost perspective of the original text. :)
End SPOILERS.
Janine: Oh – I get your point now, about the powers! Yeah, I saw the same thing – it didn’t exactly throw me out of the book, I think I had more of a confused puppy head-tilt going on during the “never a failure / no false positives” scene. Up to that point, I had thought that Nevada’s magic rated the truth or falsity of answers to questions… but did not necessarily flag a person’s underlying motivations or sneakiness during conversation. Thus, I didn’t get a red-flag from the “was your father in the military” conversation – I didn’t even think that Nevada’s “passive field” would be able to dig up that he was asking the question as a form of lying.
I did think that Nevada had to *pay attention* somewhat, in order to get a truth/lie result from her powers. Recall the scene where her family asks if she’s sure Rogan wasn’t involved in the arson? She says she “asked” Rogan, and “monitored” the experts. (I do know she was glossing over reality on the former, but the latter verb – monitored – stood out to me.)
But really, I do understand how an advertant reader could easily make a case for confusion about her abilities, as-written.
(I, personally, had some difficulty with the “harmonizing” talent… not that there could be such a talent, per se, but the different ranks of it. What – would a Significant feng shui a place faster than a Notable? Or their designs are more impactful? More effective…? In fact, I almost felt like the harmonizing ability was created for the character, who was designed to be a foil for Nevada: look at the poor ‘failed vector,’ so sad… Also, it could be used as shorthand to underline the rest: her looks, her values, her sexual partners, e.g., “eww, look how gross and fluffy she really is.” I had more issues with that. Ahem – getting into a personal hobby horse zone.)
About Rogan’s personality, I think he’s written as pretty blunt… maybe he’s gone from “shy” to “this is who I am: like it or lump it!” I think it goes back to how Primes are affected by their society’s expectations. As a confused 19-yo who probably kind of hates his power (since it traps him into the “gilded cage”) and therefore maybe hates himself… yeah, I can see how externalizing some of that rage into, “whee, killin’ people” – in a juvenile, not-understanding-war-yet way. Also: the threat to Nevada’s mother, the sniper… and the orphans comment. Yeah. But I thought it was softened a bit by his next statement, “… but I expect your daughter will shoot me first.” It’s still a warning, I agree. As self-described, he’s “shooting first,” even if it’s verbally.
But this is why I think it’s a fun book – again, I can see how he comes off badly… and I can see how he might be redeemed, later. Thanks for the discussion!!
@Becky: POTENTIALLY SPOILERISH FOR FUTURE BOOKS
I like your theory a lot actually. Do you think Rogan needs to use maximum power not to suffer some kind of side effects, or do you think it’s simply a matter of wanting to test out the full extent of his power, express his ability, or practice and get better with what he can do with it?
END OF SPOILERS
@Elf:
SPOILERS
I think you mean monitored the answers. But I read the original scene referenced there, not the one where her family asks her about it but the one where she interrogates Rogan, as the first time Nevada used her active field. It was the reason Rogan could tell she was a Truthseeker–because she actively pulled the answers out of him against his will, and it cost her effort to do it. Her protectiveness toward her grandmother enabled her to do this and that was how Rogan later knew that protectiveness was the trigger for her active field.
The passive field is different than what took place in that interrogation. The passive field, as Rogan explains it to Nevada, is the skill that requires no active effort. The aquakinetic’s awareness of water sources. The passive field is only tiring when there is no water for them to find (like in the desert) which implies that for Nevada, passive lie detection would only be draining if everyone within her passive field range suddenly became completely honest.
This is why I find that whole discussion of passive/active fields, though very cool, contradictory to the other things we saw earlier.
END OF SPOILERS
@Elf: Good points re. the harmonizing character– Rogan’s condemnation of her bothered me too, because (whether intentional or not) it read as if the authors wanted me to share it.
Lots of interesting theories about Rogan! I do agree that the contradictions are part of what make his character fun, even though I don’t yet understand how the pieces all fit together.
Janine:
SPOILER:
On the arson experts, yep – she tells her family, who I guess are most familiar with her powers, that she “asked” Rogan, and that she “monitored” the experts as they answered. If she was 100% infallible about every potential shading of lie – as opposed to needing to “concentrate” or “focus” or “pay attention” – I’d think her family wouldn’t have asked if she was sure that Rogan was cleared.
As to the aquakinetic talent example: I think they also said that when the aquakinetic uses the passive field only, but they’re asked to consciously pinpoint the location of water, that they can’t do it. That’s what I recall, anyway. So I get the feeling that the talents may work similarly, but not exactly the same – either that or there’s a difference in how passive fields operate from talent to talent. Because obviously, Nevada knows truth from lie consciously, using the passive field. Alternatively, to your point, perhaps there’s a logical disconnect in the talent system as-written, so far.
Or maybe we’re over-thinking, which I know I can do at the drop of a hat – that’s MY talent!
EVEN BIGGER SPOILER / SPOILER THEORY:
I wonder, too: at the end of the novel, when they’re in the casting room, trying to get the location of the final piece, Augustine says that there are only two “Breaker Primes” in the continental U.S., and that a Breaker Prime would be the only one who could overcome the hex. So, is Nevada not only a Truthseeker, but also something even more rare?
END SPOILERS.
@Elf: Well, we wouldn’t be debating it / overthinking it if the way it was written had been perfectly clear. And for me thinking about the way active and passive fields would work is fun.
SPOILER SPOILER
I took the Breaker Prime to be a type of Truthkseeker who are capable of breaking a prime’s hex. And yes I think Nevada is one. There were multiple hints that she was a Prime and didn’t know it.
END OF SPOILER
@Becky: @Janine: FWIW, I think that Rogan was telling “a” truth when he told Nevada he joined the military to kill people. It wasn’t a lie but there was also more to it than that. And when Rogan asked Nevada about her father, I thought he wasn’t lying because it’s not a lie to ask a question.
As for Nevada levitating at the end, for some reason I thought that was to do with Rogan’s power and her being within his magic circle rather than it being a power of her own. I don’t know if that’s true – guess we’ll find out in future books! :)
@Kaetrin:
SPOILERS
Re. Rogan– quite possibly, but the discussion of how Nevada’s passive field is infallible still doesn’t make that much sense to me.
Re. Nevada — yes, that must have something to do with the circle but if everyone could access other people’s magic by stepping inside a circle with them, we would have seen others use that, I would think. So there has to be more to it than just that.
I also wasn’t sure how Rogan could levitate himself when earlier he said he couldn’t levitate people, or use his abilities on anything but inanimate objects.
END OF SPOILERS
@Janine:
Spoiler:
I don’t know thay there would be side affects from not using his peak power, I hadn’t considered that. I was mainly thinking it was an emotional/mental desire or curiosity to see what he could do. The way he describes the ascent in the epilouge was interesting – serene and both a palace and prison. The pridon is easy to see, he can’t break out of the ascent until his magic is spent, which leaves the palace side where everything is serene and emotionless. The idea that he equates that with “palace” is very interesting, especially since he’s so interested in Nevada’s emotions and “color” breaking him out. He’s a fun character to think about!
End Spoilers
@Janine: I didn’t think all that much about the passive/active stuff – but I’m not entirely sure that those things can’t be true even as there are ways around her abilities.
As for the circle – my impression was that once the circle was made and the magic started, people couldn’t get into it. I’m not sure exactly why I had that impression. Clearly it was possible for Nevada to have left the circle because Rogan told her not to. I think when Adam Pierce made a circle at the park that first time, Nevada could get only so close and no closer – I guess I just assumed all circles were somehow like that. Not just anyone could walk into them.
Re the levitation – I’m not sure I thought about his actions as “levitating” as such. I felt it was more, a… byproduct of the massive level of power he was using and not a conscious action. I think I gained that impression because it was something that happened as his power output increased. So I think it *could* be true that he can’t levitate himself or others at will, but that he sometimes does levitate when using his power. Or, alternatively, I’ve just completely made that up!
@Becky:
SPECULATION / POSSIBLY A SPOILER?
The reason I wondered if he has to use his power to avoid side effects was because he was discussed in terms of mental illness and I think in the prologue Kelly saw him as almost not human due to the level of power in his eyes (I could be misremembering this). That made me wonder if the power has a psychological effect on him (affecting his brain physiology and therefore his behavior). Also, if expending the power alleviates something like that,it would give him another strong motive for joining the military. But I think your reasoning (that he was curious about what he was capable of) might fit his personality better, and is actually more interesting in that way.
END OF SPECULATION / POSSIBLE SPOILER
Yeah, he’s a lot of fun to think about!
@Kaetrin: I really wish the word infallible hadn’t been used in regard to Nevada’s passive field because I think that’s a lot of what’s throwing me off there. And I say it read to me like that scene was mostly there for maximum dramatic effect, not because it fit with the rest of what we know of her powers.
And yeah, I can also come up with reasons for why things worked or didn’t work (for example I thought maybe Nevada was able to levitate inside the circle partly because her own magic was will based) but I’m also not sure if I’m making that up. These things weren’t that clear in the book.
@Janine: “I like your theory a lot actually. Do you think Rogan needs to use maximum power not to suffer some kind of side effects, or do you think it’s simply a matter of wanting to test out the full extent of his power, express his ability, or practice and get better with what he can do with it?”
This is me projecting, but if I were Rogan and my magic was ridiculously powerful/dangerous, I would feel *strange* if I never used that maximum power. Like I would be denying/pushing down a core facet of my being. Sort of like how some fictional shapeshifters go crazy if they don’t shift frequently. Or like how Judd (from Nalini Singh’s books) needs to use his Tk powers constantly to burn off some steam (and if he doesn’t, he becomes dangerous). Rogan can’t really use his maximum magic in a non-warlike setting. This is just my theory, but maybe entering the war was the only way he could let his magical side loose and not be constantly pressured by the unused magic wanting to break free.
No one else has discussed this, but I like the way the book talked about veterans. The scene where Rogan interviewed the vet really moved me. The vet’s struggle of finding a job due to a lack of degree is something that can happen in our society. If anything, I liked Rogan more because of it. For someone who’s been through a hellish war, he clearly understands the value of soldiers and does his best to provide vets with a job.
When I reread the book, I had to remind myself that everything we see is through Nevada’s biased perspective and that she is predisposed to think the worst of Rogan. I look forward to seeing her opinion change in future books.
Re: the harmonizing girl. Yeah, that scene bothered me, too, but not enough so that my enjoyment of the text was broken.
@Divya: Your theory about Rogan is actually pretty close to what I started thinking after Becky commented that (paraphrasing slightly) Rogan may have needed to or wanted to kill because of the nature of his power. I like her idea that Rogan may have wanted to test his limits a lot, too, but our theories and hers are not necessarily mutually exclusive– it could be a combination of both.
The scene with the veteran was terrific. So moving. I too saw a different side of Rogan in that and I too was aware that everything we know about him is filtered through Nevada’s POV and she’s hostile to him. But still, there were moments when he did seem very dangerous — kidnapping Nevada and chaining her in his basement, threatening her mother, and also, killing the leader of that group near where Bug lived — I forgot that guy’s name, but Rogan seemed almost gleeful to take his life. I loved reading about Rogan, but I’ll need to see more than we’ve seen so far to be convinced that he has a moral compass.
@Janine:
I think he does have a moral compass, but it’s different than the one Nevada and I have. That’s understandable, especially if you think about his aristocratic/loveless childhood (the horrible scene with his grandfather’s death) and then the war where he pretty much destroyed buildings 24/7.
I’m not excusing his actions, but trying to analyze the way his brain thinks. In Rogan’s world, force seems to be the easiest way to accomplish things (e.g. kidnap Nevada instead of politely talking to her). Part of the soldier mentality may explain his tendency to jump to brute force at the first sign of threat (e.g. killing Peaches, the gang leader). But at the same time, he does have his good points (e.g. tried to help his cousins, hiring vets, wanting to protect the city, etc).
I have a feeling that if he wants to be successful in his courtship with Nevada, he’ll need to change some morally-ambiguous characteristics. That’s why I’m thrilled that this is a trilogy; a character like Rogan needs to undergo three books worth of character development! The Rogan in the end of BFM is nowhere close to being HEA-ready. Basically what I’m trying to say is that I’m excited to see Rogan redeem himself in later books!
@Divya: I agree with you Divya – I’d only add that when Rogan kidnapped Nevada he thought she was one of Adam Pierce’s “floozys”. He was very wrong of course, but he did have *some* basis for his view and I suspect that informed his actions.
Spoilers ahead!
I finally got a chance to read this — it was my first Ilona Andrews book — and I loved it. Some of my enjoyment is pure ego-based reading (what other people see as id, I tend to place at the ego level): scrappy heroine who has a protective nature, a strong ethical foundation, and who everyone expects to fail; morally ambiguous hero against whom the heroine feels she needs to defend herself emotionally because she believes that a relationship with him would be too dangerous; the ball-busting but still loving grandmother (OMG the crack about Brides Magazine at the end is one of my favorite lines in the whole book); the loving but quirky family.
Beyond that, though, I thought the novel was investigating all sorts of theories about social action, social theory (utilitarianism figures strongly in this book), justice, and power. And it does all this without easy answers. For example, Rogan does come off as someone who knows how to use to advantage what other people want or need and have those things work within his system. At the same time, look at how some of his people engage with him. For example, his doctor. Her story about how Rogan saved her and the loyalty she has to him are not forced or based in fear, She truly seems to respect and like him. And she’s a strong, strong person. As someone else mentioned, the veteran issue — there is a lot in this novel about the fate of veterans, especially POW’s, and how society does not do well by vets, especially those who have served in combat. And IMO it does so without simple moralizing or chest thumping patriotism.
As for the issue of cultural appropriation, I think the novel is absolutely, 100% criticizing the appropriation of belief systems and symbols from other cultures. The scene where Piece is standing with the artifact on his head and trying to burn down the city shows his actions to be incredibly ugly, and not just because he’s a selfish and immature jerk who has been manipulated into thinking he’s engaging in social liberation. Now, I do think there’s an interesting discussion here about the extent to which one has to be culturally appropriative in order to critique cultural appropriation, but I also think that’s a complex topic without any easy answers.
Re. the “ableist” use of “Mad” in Rogan’s nickname – technically speaking, it’s definitely ableist. However, I also think the novel is using such language with a self-conscious critique of stigmatizing guys like Rogan, who have been used as tools of military power and who come back to society in a way where they are feared and, consequently, unknowable. In Rogan’s case, I think it’s even more complicated, because in so many ways he’s extremely privileged — he’s rich, he’s from one of the most powerful families, he’s handsome, he’s magically powerful — and so what’s left to use against him? We’re often used to this kind of stigmatizing language being used against people who are not so privileged, and it’s use in Rogan’s case is purposeful, IMO, in the sense that it’s a construction employed to make him an object of fear and derision. And he does nothing to quell these perceptions until he meets Nevada, and suddenly he cares about what she thinks of him. Before that point, he seems to have found a way to let that stigma serve him, which is, again, IMO, a function of his privilege. Which I think the novel is very aware of and is subtly interrogating.
As for Rogan’s moral ambiguity, for me the epilogue resolves a good deal of the ambiguity. Sure, Rogan is still much more ruthless than Nevada, but it also may be that Nevada needs to gain a broader view of social good to do some of the work she’s now doing, while Rogan needs to tap into his own sense of personal loyalty and connection. Still, I think it’s clear from early on that he has a lot of decency in his character, which is reflected in part through the people who are loyal to him. Even his early actions are driven by a knowledge of what and who Adam really is and how dangerous that likely is — not to mention Rogan’s desire to find Gavin.
And I completely agree with this:
When I reread the book, I had to remind myself that everything we see is through Nevada’s biased perspective and that she is predisposed to think the worst of Rogan. I look forward to seeing her opinion change in future books.
Nevada has to keep her distance from Rogan – at least she believes so — because he feels so overwhelming to her. And although she’s all like ‘oh, he could hurt me because I would be in so deep with him,’ the one glimpse we get into her romantic history suggests to me that she’s got some relationship commitment issues, as well, and that we’re going to see those more as they get closer. Her one relationship was with a guy she didn’t really care about losing. What does that say about her own emotional and romantic risk quotient?
@Robin/Janet: I completely agree with you about Rogan. I didn’t find him all that ambiguous either. He’s just got a different threshold than Nevada.
I have read almost all of Ilona Andrews’ other books and there seemed, to me, to be a lot of similarities to both the Edge and Kate Daniels series’. I enjoyed Burn for Me very much but it didn’t feel completely fresh and new for me. It felt a bit like Kate or Rose had been put into a different world; Curran too. You haven’t read those books, so those aren’t issues for you. But I basically agreed with everything you said – because it wasn’t a new experience I probably rate it a little lower than you did but I don’t disagree. The things you pointed out are why I enjoy their books so much.
@Kaetrin: I started the first Kate Daniels book over the weekend, and already I can see parallels. Although this one definitely seems more UF than PNR to me, while the Daniel book feels more PNR with a side of UF, if that makes sense. I’m actually glad I started with this one, although I am so used to starting series late that I was super frustrated there were no more books yet! Do you have any idea when the next one is coming out? I totally volunteer to review it, lol.
I love the way you phrase Rogan’s moral or ethical comparison to Nevada has having “a different threshold.” Yes, I think that’s exactly it, and part of their coupling needs to be a negotiation of those differences, for each to grow.
I was so happy to hear you loved this, Robin. And whether id or ego reading, all those same things hit the spot for me too. The second book in the Edge series, Bayou Moon, has a character who is a bit like Nevada’s grandmother–Cerise’s aunt. I loved her, too.
Re. the cultural appropriation critique– I read that differently, more as lip service to such a critique than as a serious and felt critique of it within the book. Maybe because the authors were doing so many other things in this book, it didn’t feel like a theme in the novel and so the line about how things never come out well when you steal from another culture felt flippant.
I agree 100% with this. That was really great! And FWIW it didn’t trigger me.
The touchiness in the community that we discussed in the thread for your op-ed piece had me worried it still might trigger others, since we’ve also got Nevada, the heroine, applying this kind of language to Rogan.
Also, Rogan had no problem killing the mentally ill gang leader, Peaches. The causal way in which he did that really bothered me.
Re. Rogan and the loyalty of his employees. I agree the doctor’s loyalty isn’t based in fear and also that Rogan does great things for her and for other veterans (and I too loved the way the book portrayed them) but the book allows the reader to read it in two different ways– either Rogan empathizes with and wants to aid the veterans, or he’s made the calculation that he can buy their loyalty and he needs it. I suspect it will turn out to be a combination of the two, but to me, his character didn’t feel as clear as it did to you. He is good to the doctor, but he seems to have no compunction about threatening Nevada’s mother and she is also a veteran –and one who has mental health issues as a result of her military experiences.
Honestly I’m a little surprised you and Kaetrin are making these excuses for him. To me, his kidnapping of Nevada and chaining her in his basement to break into her mind (and later, the attempt to use a spell on her in the restaurant without her consent), says a lot about how privileged he is and how he knows that allows him to get away with almost anything.
If he thinks Nevada is an accomplice of Adam’s, why not follow her to her car, get her plate numbers, and find out who she is, at the very least, before taking this step? Or offer her a reward for turning on Adam? There were so many other things he could have done.
It’s quite possible that Rogan has a moral compass but the book was written so that his character could be interpreted in more than one way. He wasn’t the most consistent of characters, also.
@Robin/Janet:
LOL. My feelings about the two series are exactly the reverse of that!
Janine, these two episodes you described about Rohan *really* bothered me. I mean, yes, I can see the possible ambiguity about him that he cares about his people and his people are loyal to him. But I guess for me, I just do not see how these two episodes could be interpreted as in any way ambigious. I mean, anything can be forgiven in Romance land, I understand that, but for me as a reader I think the killing of Peaches was even worse than what he did to Nevada. Not that I liked what he did to Nevada, do not get me wrong, I extremely disliked that, but this is such a common trope that I can see how it could be explained away in several ways.
If there is something I am having a hard time forgiving in romantic lead though is the casual killing. I can totally see especially in UF the characters having to kill doing their job, killing if Peaches was preventing them from moving. But he was not attacking, it was just so cold, that I think this was the moment that I started hating him. Couple it with him joining the army because he enjoyed killing (even if he lied, and I doubt that he did) and I am very curious to see how this could be possibly explained away in the next book.
Granted, maybe the writers won’t consider this episode even needing to be explained, I am just talking about how I felt as a reader.
@Sirius: I agree with you. What happened with Peaches was one of the reasons I wasn’t at all sure that Rogan had a moral compass.
Re. ambiguous interpretations, I think a reader who wants to do so can rationalize away a lot. For example, a reader could reason that Peaches was dangerous and unstable, had threatened them verbally, and getting the information from Bug quickly was crucial to saving other lives. In my opinion that’s a little facile; I think Peaches could have been temporarily incapacitated instead of killed, and it’s possible that treatment for Peaches’ illness could have made him more stable or less dangerous.
The way the character of Peaches was written, with no good qualities that we saw, might also make it easier for some readers to dismiss his death. It didn’t for me. I think there was a conscious choice on the authors’ part to make Rogan scary. Part of what makes him fascinating and appealing is the aura of danger, power, and mystery. But because of that, he was also portrayed inconsistently.
I hope Robin and Kaetrin and/or others who felt Rogan had a moral compass weigh in on Peaches because I’m curious about their perspectives.
@Janine: Re. the cultural appropriation critique– I read that differently, more as lip service to such a critique than as a serious and felt critique of it within the book. Maybe because the authors were doing so many other things in this book, it didn’t feel like a theme in the novel and so the line about how things never come out well when you steal from another culture felt flippant.
In so many stories of this kind it’s SOP to have a magical object imported out of another culture, appropriated and/or decontextualized, and nary a question is asked of that in the text. In fact, as I was reading, I was thinking about Indiana Jones and how so much of those films relies on precisely this kind of appropriation, and because of Indie’s role as a scholar, it’s IMO implicitly justified.
Here, though, the scholar is the one who delivers the line about how it’s bad to steal objects from another culture. In fact, the only people who take a positive view of this object’s appropriation and decontextualization are those who are trying to exploit it for its power, again in a way that’s completely disconnected and appropriated from its home culture, and intended for destruction. We know the object has been stolen (i.e. taken unlawfully), and in the second (current) stealing, I think the book makes pretty clear via Adam (and later in the Epilogue) that the motives for doing so are purely self-indulgent and therefore bad. In fact, I appreciated that the authors don’t spend pages upon pages telling us how wrong appropriating such an object toweled be. Instead, I think they illustrate it pretty strongly in the way Piece tries to burn the city down for completely ridiculous ego-driven reasons. And for me, that dry line about how it’s bad to steal objects from other countries underscored the lesson more than something more extensive could have at that point. In other words, it read more as subtle than flip to me.
Also, Rogan had no problem killing the mentally ill gang leader, Peaches. The causal way in which he did that really bothered me. . . .
He is good to the doctor, but he seems to have no compunction about threatening Nevada’s mother and she is also a veteran –and one who has mental health issues as a result of her military experiences.
What I think is that Rogan *appears* to lack sentiment, which makes him almost hyper-equitable in the way he exercises his power (it’s the utilitarianism you refer to). That is, he does not favor or disfavor anyone based on their circumstances. As you point out, he kidnaps Nevada, too. It’s interesting, IMO, to see that across the board neutrality and apparent lack of sentiment, because it goes against what we’ve been conditioned to view as humane. And I’m not suggesting we should adopt Rogan’s position – just that his apparent lack of sentiment about these things can seem more or less brutal depending on one’s perspective. It’s almost like fairness in the extreme, which for those of us who are conditioned to feel sentiment, can appear extremely unfair. But I think the book is inviting us to ask some of those questions. What, for example, makes it okay that Nevada compels Rogan to speak, but why is it not okay that he tries to do the same to her?
As for Peaches, it was definitely a decisive and unsentimental death, and I agree it was disturbing. However, we are, again, viewing this through Nevada’s perspective, and she is invested and sensitive in ways Rogan does not appear to be at this point. We don’t know what he is or isn’t feeling at the moment, only that Nevada has certain judgments about Rogan that highlight his lack of sentimental attachment and “humanity.” Still, even from her we know Peaches was threatening Rogan and Nevada. Nevada herself was contemplating shooting him. Had he shown more warmth or concern or regret when he acted aggressively toward anyone else, I think I would have been disturbed in a way that made me feel that mentally ill people were being targeted. But at this point I think Rogan’s kind of an equal opportunity asshole, especially as we see him through Nevada’s eyes. For example, did Rogan perceive Peaches as a threat to Nevada? How would that scene have played out if Rogan were narrating?
Similarly, when Rogan threatens Nevada’s mother, we are also seeing this through Nevada’s POV, IIRC, and I would expect it to seem cruel from her perspective. However, hasn’t she just told him that she was ready to shoot him from her vehicle? Or am I mixing up scenes.
Because of Rogan’s apparent lack of sentiment, not to mention Nevada’s persistent refrain that he’s “ruthless” and “brutal” and whatever other words she uses, I agree that Rogan’s actions can definitely appear to be more brutal than they might otherwise. Furthermore, we’re invited to empathize with Nevada, and we know her motives and what drives her, but we don’t know Rogan that way (yet). We only know what Nevada thinks they are.
Where you see me “making excuses for” Rogan (and it definitely feels like there are some implied judgments there), I see it as interrogating a) what we see through Nevada’s eyes, b) what Nevada believes about Rogan and all the reasons for that, some of which IMO relate to what comes across to me as her own fear of strong romantic emotions, and c) all of the other clues we get about Rogan. For example, we know from the epilogue that he did care about his country and his service. We know that he now seems to be emotionally dead, which makes actions that one might see as good, appear merely advantageous. And yet, when Nevada first watches the video of Rogan leveling the Mexican city, she looks in his eyes and sees “Not exactly sadness, but a kind of self-awareness, underscored by a slightly bitter smile. Almost as if he knew he was a human hurricane and regretted it, but he wouldn’t stop.” That, for me, sets the tone for Rogan’s character, because it hints at something that could very easily turn one way or another — toward complete regret and therefore possibly suicide, or toward a complete lack of sentiment that allowed one to feel distance from all of those self-destructive emotions.
I absolutely believe it’s the second of those things, and IMO we get a lot of clues about that, some of the most direct appearing in the epilogue. That doesn’t mean I think everything he does is fine – he does some “bad” things. And CLEARLY he’s privileged. He knows that. It’s not a secret to anyone, least of all himself. But I also think that for him, this situation is war, and he’s going to do everything he has to do to win – as he has been trained and conditioned to do.
Now, had he kidnapped and tried to trap Nevada later on in the book, I would have a different perspective on his character. Actually, I would have expected Nevada to place exactly that kind of magical trap as Rogan did in that restaurant, were the circumstances reversed. What’s the difference between Bern using all that technology to spy on people and get their private records and Rogan using his magic? Both are weapons in their way.
Could Rogan have taken more time and tracked Nevada down as she did Pierce? Sure. Should he have kidnapped her? No. But maybe Nevada shouldn’t have tried to break Emmens near the end of the book, either. Maybe she shouldn’t have implanted those shockers in her arms. I think this is the question of “threshold” that Kaetrin posits. And because we are in Nevada’s head, we only see her decision-making process. What we see of Rogan is in pieces, and we have to put those pieces together.
For example, there are so many references to eyes and eyesight and the third eye and all these different forms of blindness and I think that’s in play here, too, because in some ways Rogan is more clear-eyed than Nevada, and in others, he’s much more short-sighted. Also, I thought it was interesting the way Adam seems like a character of such passion, but at the end of the day it’s really narcissistic chaos, while Rogan seems so controlled, but when you see what he can do, and how much damage that can cause, maybe it’s not so surprising that a guy like that might want to just shut down *all* of his emotions.
But I also know there is going to be a romance between Nevada and Rogan, and in order for that to work, Rogan is going to have to get in closer touch with his sentiment and his “humanity,” and Nevada is going to have to de-personalize certain things that she suffers over now. Rogan is, in some ways, a variation on the bored billionaire who feels dead inside from a past loss or tragedy. I think the novel is using him to ask some interesting questions about how we value different things in life and how we place moral and ethical judgments. But there are also some stereotypical elements to Rogan’s character that for me predict a major emotional thawing in the near future (and I cannot even imagine what that’s going to unleash). His perceived “sterility” can certainly make him appear amoral or even immoral, but like I said, I feel as if we’re being cued to see him on a journey somewhere else emotionally, especially here:
“And then he had felts her. She was warm and golden and she tore through the sterility of ascent and reached for him. She kissed him and as she shared all of her fears and wants, he felt alive. He had shrugged off the cold serenity for her, and the world around him bloomed. He felt like an addict who, after abusing a narcotic for years, somehow found himself sober, wandered through his house, opened the front door, and saw a beautiful spring day.”
That last scene between them is interesting to me, too, because despite Rogan’s desire and its enormity, despite the fact that he’s experiencing this rush of emotion and warmth, he does not force himself on her. He admits that he has something to prove to her, and he leaves. Sure, he does his macho badass arrogant swagger thing, but that’s part of what makes him so frustratingly appealing to the level-headed Nevada. And when you think about the “sterility” of her romantic life and history, I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets seriously scared off once Rogan’s more ardent emotions begin to manifest themselves.
@Janine: Okay, so we’re either “excusing” Rogan or “rationaliz[ing] away a lot.” These phrases just come across as so judgmental to me. I get that you don’t think Rogan’s actions are okay. But a different reading doesn’t equate to immorality. You think Captive Prince demonstrates moral ambiguity and I do not. I suspect you’d find it offensive if I accused you of “rationalizing away a lot” or “excusing” things I might find inexcusable.
@Sirius: Here’s what Rogan — in his own POV — says in the epilogue about why he joined the army:
“He’d fought for this country and the safety of its people because he believed in it and in them. The system wasn’t perfect, but it was better than most of what he saw outside of it.”
To me that’s pretty much the opposite of joining because he liked killing people.
@Robin/Janet: I agree that it is the opposite and if it will be shown that he could fool Nevada’s magic and lie to her, then half of my issue disappears very quickly. Right now I have two statements that to me are both true facts and because he was shown to do away with Peaches in a way that annoyed me a great deal I am more inclined to believe the first one. But I do want to see him as more likeable (for me) character, because I loved everything in this book except him. And I love Kate Daniels so much that I really want to love everything they write. I grew more and more bored with Edge series, but I hope this one would grow on me more, not less.
From Nevada’s own POV:
“Peaches waved his arms. . . . He’d work himself up to violence in a minute. . . .
“His hand barely missed me as he flailed around. I took a step back.
‘Don’t you fucking move! Shoot her if she moves.’
The man on the left clicked the safety off his Glock.
Peaches leaned closer. I tell you what, if I was in a good mood, I’d fuck you up and send you back without your bitch, but I’m in a bad mood. I’m in a bad mood, punk. I’m gonna shoot your bitch right here and then I’m gonna put you in a hole. You worth money, punk, because you look like you worth money.’
I could shoot Peaches from where I stood. I’d shot through my pocket before. I would have to kill him, though, because if he lived, the flies he summoned would turn me into a cluster of boils. Aiming through a pocket was tricky. ”
When Rogan tosses Peaches in the water, Peaches starts the poisonous flies swarming.
I actually think Nevada makes it clear that there is no way they are getting past that point without killing Peaches. Is it brutal? Yes. Is it disturbing? Yes. Especially because we have absolutely not one moment of this scene from inside Rogan’s head. Had Nevada done it would it have been better? Because she was aiming for him. Do you think Rogan knew that and kept her from having to make that kill? The thing is, we don’t know, because we’re seeing everything through Nevada’s eyes, and she has a lot of conflicting perceptions and judgments about Rogan.
Now, if your argument is that she should never have written a character like Peaches, that’s a completely different argument. There are many people in the novel who do awful things who do not have mental illness. Actually, we don’t know for sure Peaches is mentally ill. Nevada calls him “batshit crazy,” and perhaps she’s doing that in a stigmatizing way. People do talk like that without thinking, and we’ve talked about how that’s problematic. Maybe that should have been omitted from the text, because I don’t remember any official diagnosis of Peaches, and often “batshit” is used in a way that’s not synonymous with mental illness.
@Sirius: Because we get so very much of this book from Nevada’s POV, I guess I’m willing to hold out until we get more of Rogan’s story from his own POV. Because when we get into his head at the very end of the book, it seems much different there than the way Nevada interprets things. Now, if he doesn’t get any deeper or more humane, I’m not going to read any further, because that’s not what I’m looking for, either.
@Robin/Janet: Ah see this is interesting. I read the book several months ago when it was made available for Vine so I went and checked. I do not read this as if she was aiming at him – I read this as if she was thinking about aiming at him, but never doing it.”I could shoot Peaches from where I stood. I’d shot through my pocket before. ” – “I could”, not I was trying to or attempting to.
Would it be better if she shoot him? Not really, for me I mean, but at least he threatened her verbally so if I wanted to justify I could use that. I do not mean to make any judgments by the way about how other readers read when I use the word “justify”, I am only talking about how I read. If I like the character and he does something awful, I often want to justify or explain what he did for myself otherwise if it is sufficiently awful I can start hating him and I do not want to.
Maybe Rohan was trying to spare Nevada having to shoot Peaches? Maybe. I have no idea.
I do not think she should not have written Peaches, no.
@Robin/Janet: Certainly when I have read the epilogue, I remember thinking basically “huh?”. I have no intentions of giving up yet – I have not read the last book of “Edge”, but that’s because each book has a different couple and the third book tried my patience a lot. I do not think I will give up in the trilogy about same couple till the end. But we shall see, because if Rogan will continue kill and torture people who did not directly threaten him or Nevada (or what other loved ones he may have), it will try my patience a lot as well.
@Robin/Janet: I apologize for my judgmental language. I don’t equate a different reading to immorality, at all. If it sounds that way then it was very badly worded.
And re. Captive Prince and other books, perhaps I would get defensive in that situation, but I think there is a process of rationalization that happens to me when I read. If I fall in love with a story and with characters, I will see their actions in a more favorable light, the way we can see the actions of people we love in a more favorable light than others do. Perhaps “rationalize” and “make excuses” aren’t good words to use to describe that experience, though.
(BTW, have you read Volume 2 of Captive Prince?)
It’s precisely because of this that I saw the line the professor delivered as flip. It seemed to me that the authors were using a standard fantasy trope that involves cultural appropriation (it’s often done by the villains in fantasy books, too, so that aspect didn’t seem innovative) and then inserting a brief line to make it clear that despite doing this, they’re not on the side of cultural appropriation. I don’t think they should have included a long lecture about the evils of cultural appropriation (that would be preachy), but that line struck me differently than it did you. I saw it as tacked on rather than organic to the rest of the novel and its themes, and therefore I didn’t buy in.
It comes across as a lack of compassion to me, and and perhaps also an inability to tell right from wrong.
It’s not okay for Nevada to force Rogan to speak. I would have had less sympathy for her, though, had she done so before Rogan kidnapped her based on suspicion alone, and had her own actions involved kidnapping him and chaining him in her basement. As it was, what she did was still wrong, but came across as a balancing of the scales.
Emmens consented to what Nevada did to him, and even so, it’s not clear if she would have done it had Bern not been put in danger. Nevada took on the risk of being implanted with the shockers on herself, but I did think that was a questionable decision when she made it. It seemed to me that she did it because she felt backed into a corner, not because it was such a great idea.
This to me is the most interesting question of all of these, because it’s the only one I hadn’t thought about before. What Bern does is wrong too, yes, but I let him off the hook a bit because he’s a teenager and his cousin’s life was in danger. In a way, Nevada exploits Bern’s abilities, so maybe as the adult, it’s really on her. But the family’s poverty, too, makes it easier for me to understand.
(As I said in the review, Bern’s power made no sense to me. People who work with technology are only as good as their skills and their tech, and it’s hard for me to understand how magic could change that, nor was that explained.)
I think there’s a world of difference between shooting to incapacitate in a situation like that, and killing. Nevada was also waiting for Peaches to make a move before shooting him, whereas Rogan just took Peaches at his word.
I never felt Rogan was targeting Peaches for being mentally ill. But (this is hard to articulate) I did feel that Peaches’ being mentally ill and dangerous fit a certain stereotype and that made it easier for the novel to take readers past that incident. It was used — not by Rogan– but by the writing, to partially dismiss the value of Peaches’ life. If the danger Peaches presented to Nevada and Rogan was attributable to his illness, then maybe he wouldn’t be a villain if he were well, which means that should be taken into consideration in a decision to kill him. But it’s exactly the fact that Peaches didn’t present warmth, regret or concern that made me feel his character fit a certain stereotype, and I felt the novel relied on that stereotype, a bit (though it did a great job with mental illness when it came to Nevada’s mother).
And re. Nevada’s mother, yes, she did aim at Rogan first– but he had kidnapped, etc. her daughter. If Rogan has empathy for veterans, shouldn’t he have felt some for her?
Re. Rogan
Oh yes absolutely, we’re being cued to see him on a journey somewhere else, and to see Nevada on a journey too. I really look forward to that! But in the meantime, he doesn’t come across as consistently moral or consistently amoral, to me, but rather, inconsistently somewhere in between.
@Robin/Janet: Good point about the insect summoning. I had forgotten Peaches had that ability.
@Sirius:
This is how I read the scene too.
@Sirius:
I felt some amount of that as well. Rogan made contradictory statements about his reasons for joining the military and I think Nevada registered the first thing he said to her about it as true.
Okay I’ll weigh in. In relation to Peaches I don’t know that I read him as mentally ill. I read him as a criminal who ruled by force and fear, terror and coercion. I thought both Rogan and Nevada were directly being threatened. I think Rogan tried to do something less than lethal by putting him the river but then Peaches summoned the flies. At that point, in my view, Rogan decided that killing Peaches was the least worst option. If he had’ve merely incapacitated Peaches, Peaches’ soldiers would have started shooting and there would have been a bloodbath and plenty more people would have died and possibly Rogan and Nevada would have been injured or killed as well. We know Peaches had killed before and had no compunction in doing so again. I think Rogan made a cold and calculated decision to take Peaches out in order to destabilise the leadership. In fact, Nevada had already told Rogan how it worked in that area. Whoever killed the leader, was the new leader. That meant the other people pointing guns at them would stop. It seems eminently practical to me. It seemed to me the sort of thing that a military guy would do (in the sense of it being a practical battle plan) and it seemed to me to be very consistent with the sort of thing Curran would do. I didn’t have a problem with it at all. I didn’t think Peaches was sick and I didn’t feel sorry for him. I thought he was a vile criminal who would not hesitate to kill or maim or or hurt others. For me the reference to “batshit crazy” here was code for “you can’t reason with this guy, you can’t appeal to his sense of logic or fairness. This guy just wants to fuck you up.” I didn’t feel conflicted at all frankly.
Rogan was a lot like Curran to me. Now, Curran is a shifter and I suppose that might mean that readers are prepared to accept a greater degree of ruthlessnes in his character than they might be prepared to do for a human (even a magical human) like Rogan. I don’t really see a difference myself. Curran has done plenty of ruthless things – like killing shapeshifters who go loup. He doesn’t like it, he doesn’t enjoy it, but it has to be done. (I have refrained from mentioning other developments later in the series regarding loupism for Robin’s benefit).
As for Rogan kidnapping Nevada, well I didn’t *like* it but it made sense for him. He wanted information and he wanted it fast. He had this spell all prepared – he thought he was getting a Pierce groupie. He didn’t know Nevada and had no particular affinity for her. He was acting out of family loyalty to find Gavin. Time was of the essence. He took practical steps. The spell itself wasn’t painful and if Nevada had been a groupie, presumably, she’d have coughed up the answers and Rogan would have let her go, not all that much the worse for wear. He didn’t use torture and he didn’t use sexual violence. I think Rogan has a very practical view of morality and it is subservient to practicality.
I expect as the series progresses, Nevada will become more practical and Rogan will become more “moral”. I’m not making excuses for his behaviour. That’s how I read the book.
In many ways I felt Nevada was a hypocrite. She didn’t like Rogan doing bad things but when she did them it was okay because she had a good reason. I think its very likely Rogan thought he had a good reason too.
Kaetrin, I just wanted to weigh in about Curran. Actually him being a shifter has nothing to do with me giving him more leeway . I said it before – the fact that Andrews made me like him is a miracle, truly. In the 99 percent of the stories character like Curran would make me run away screaming, but the bottom line is they showed to me enough to make me believe that no matter how much Curran may want to be a caveman in a sense that he would want to protect Kate from the world, often enough he respects her and let’s her make her own decisions. Maybe that’s why I often give him leeway, because I see it so rarely with characters like him.
And it is funny re: loupism, because I actually consider this an ultimate act of nobility on Curran’s behalf, because IMO to say that he does not like it is an understatement, considering how much he tries to do to stop it. So I don’t consider it an example an awful thing personally.
But I completely agree that he does a plenty of awful things. If you want an example of the recent one that made me cringe, it was what he did to B and J ;). Yes. I know he had a very good reason, I still thought he acted as an animal there, not as a person who goes furry sometimes and practices mental discipline or whatever Barrabas wrote.
I guess bottom line is for me that I see a balance of things good and bad in Curran – I do not see nearly enough good in Mad Rogan yet to like him, but I am looking forward to see if I will.
@Sirius: I don’t know how “could” is anything but Nevada contemplating the possibility of shooting Peaches. Rogan moves on him right after she has that thought, so she does not have to act, but since she’s going through the mental gymnastics of thinking about how she’d do it, I don’t see it as a mere intellectual exercise.
@Janine: For me, Rogan is still somewhat of an unknown, so what I’m really objecting to is the insistence that he is a certain way, when almost his entire story is narrated and interpreted through another character, one who has her own reasons for seeing Rogan a certain way and whose own moral system does, as Kaetrin notes, bring her awfully close to hypocrisy. And I’m so damn tired of feeling like we can’t talk about characters without being accused of endorsing them in some way. So I appreciate your apology, because frankly your comments surprised me.
I’ve tried to read volume 2 of CP about five times now and I just haven’t been able to get through it. But that’s another conversation. Back to BFM:
As it was, what she did was still wrong, but came across as a balancing of the scales.
But why does this not, then, put her on the same moral playing field as Rogan?
It seemed to me that she did it because she felt backed into a corner, not because it was such a great idea.
But think about how much more evidence we have to understand why Nevada is doing anything. Why does her interpretation of Rogan’s motives go unquestioned?
I think there’s a world of difference between shooting to incapacitate in a situation like that, and killing.
But she’s not going to shoot to incapacitate. She explicitly muses that she will have to kill him. And then Rogan takes the choice out of her hands. But as I said to Sirius, I don’t see her “could” as anything but contemplating the possibility of how she would shoot him. She’s walking herself through the steps when Rogan moves in and takes the situation over. Also, while I don’t have a definitive take on Peaches as mentally ill or not, I agree with Kaetrin that we do not have any official diagnosis, and are merely inferring this from what could be a comment that is not intended to reveal mental illness. Nevada even compares Peaches to a child molester at one point, and then claims that Rogan’s killing of him was “justified” even though it happened so quickly. It’s not his death that bothers her but the decisiveness of Rogan’s movements. Again, Nevada is measuring Rogan by her yardstick, and she’s filtering almost everything through her own moral system. I keep thinking of it in terms of the way Rogan “appears” to us, because Nevada judges him all over the place. It’s interesting, in fact, because one of his comments to her is “I don’t judge”– whereas she does, all the time, including judging him. As much as I enjoy Nevada’s POV, I’m not convinced she’s a completely trustworthy narrator, at least not when it comes to Rogan.
If Rogan has empathy for veterans, shouldn’t he have felt some for her? Again, how do we know he doesn’t? His own POV at the end of the novel would suggest that he does, in fact.
But the family’s poverty, too, makes it easier for me to understand. They did not read as impoverished to me, especially since Nevada demonstrates a lot of pride in how she has successfully built the business since her father’s death. They are in debt, certainly, and the agency is owned by Montgomery, but she even says refers to herself as “successful enough to keep the roof over our heads and be respected by my peers.”
@Sirius: I guess bottom line is for me that I see a balance of things good and bad in Curran – I do not see nearly enough good in Mad Rogan yet to like him, but I am looking forward to see if I will.
Yes, I think this is a good way to put it – we haven’t seen enough yet. One thing I do like, though, is the way Rogan’s *apparent* anti-social behavior (as in, it appears that way through Nevada’s interpretation) invites us to question the so-called “moral” characters. For example, when Rogan asks Nevada why she does something, the way he focuses on her motivation is, IMO, an invitation for the reader to question those things we take for granted in our own interpretation of character motives and values. I found that really provocative in the story, because without Rogan, it would be really easy for me to see Nevada’s perspective as easily superior. But with Rogan as a foil, even if she’s constructing him that way for her own purposes, it made me think twice about what the known differences between them and their sometimes similar actions might be (with no easy answers, at least not for me).
@Sirius: Perhaps killing loups was not my best example! LOL. I think the thing is, in Kate Daniels, Kate starts off just as ruthless as anyone in the series. Trust no-one, befriend no-one and survive. That’s her code. What makes her so interesting (to me anyway) is how she changes. I think Curran changes too but he is definitely ruthless.
As I said (way) above in this thread, because I saw Curran and Rogan as so similar to one another I can’t know how much of “Curran” I imported into my reading of Rogan. But I didn’t have that negative a view of him at all. Of course, it could just be that I’m hard! LOL
Also, FWIW, I didn’t mean to imply that anyone in particular gives Curran more leeway because he’s a shifter. I’ve seen it written elsewhere and others have seemed to agree that the “animal nature” of shifters allows them to accept a certain level of violence that they would not be able to in human characters. I wondered if some people who gave Curran and early pass would feel the same way about Rogan. It was really more of an idle thought. :)
@Kaetrin & @Robin,
I took Nevada at her word when she contrasted Peaches with Montrel who could “be reasonable” (to me this implied Peaches wasn’t unwilling, but rather incapable of, reason) and said Peaches was “batshit crazy.” Her later statement that he looked like a child molester and had “something deeply unsettling in his gaze” doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility that he was mentally ill.
The poisonous swarm of flies, which I had forgotten about, did make it necessary to kill Peaches, but maybe more to the point, Rogan doesn’t appear to feel any regret that this was the case.
@Kaetrin,
I’ve only read the first Kate Daniels book so I can’t say how Rogan compares to Curran over the course of that series. Curran just annoyed me with his high-handedness and bad decision-making in Magic Bites; I wasn’t fascinated with him as I was with Rogan.
I disagree with this part of what you say about the kidnapping. If Rogan thought he needed a spell to get the answers out of her and that she wouldn’t volunteer them, then he had to know he was doing that against her will. Breaking into someone’s mind to get information out of them is a violation. Being kidnapped by a stranger and chained in his basement would be a traumatic experience to many women even without a mind-violating spell. Without knowing Nevada, how could he know this would do her no harm? He could have triggered PTSD in her for all he knew. She could have been the single mother of a small child left with a teenaged or even preteen babysitter. He hadn’t found out anything about her.
I apologize for that phrasing.
@Robin/Janet: I agree Nevada is contemplating shooting Peaches but she had to work herself up to it when she does, later shoot some of the bad guys who are working with Adam. IMO chances are she would have killed Peaches, but it’s not a 100% certain thing. And I think she would have felt regret over taking his life in a way Rogan did not.
They were bad choices of words. But I do think for me there is, if not a rationalization process, then something very like it, goodwill toward a character and an author which develops (or one could say is earned) via my enjoyment of the reading experience.
I agree 100% that Nevada was an unreliable narrator when it comes to Rogan. I actually said that in my earlier comment, and then edited it out for length. But even taking her unreliability into account, I found Rogan inconsistent. For example, his POV in the epilogue said he’d joined the military for different reasons than the one he gives Nevada: “I joined because they told me I could kill without being sent to prison and be rewarded for it.” Nevada’s truth sense says this is a true statement.
Also, his magical powers seemed inconsistent to me in various ways — like why did the tactile ability only get used for sexytimes? And other questions I had about his magic, and Nevada’s too. And for me these inconsistencies added up to a little less trust in the authors to successfully resolve every contradictory thing than you and Kaetrin feel.
Ilona Andrews could still prove me wrong on this and I hope they do! But they didn’t do that in the Edge series. And Rogan seemed amoral at times, and moral at other times, and though I loved reading about him, this inconsistency still was an issue that stuck out at me and that I therefore wanted to mention in my review.
Because he is still far more powerful than she is and he doesn’t stop threatening her or her family members? Also, maybe “he started it” is a childish argument but it carries some weight with me. Nevada would have done nothing to Rogan if he’d left her alone. The same can’t be said in reverse.
I think if he felt empathy for her than he should have been able to understand that her fear for her child’s safety could be terrifying and made some allowances for that instead of threatening her and potentially making that terror even worse.
I had the impression they were scraping by because Nevada had had to drop out of school to work, they had to sell their house and move into a warehouse, the grandmother was helping to support them (unless she and Nevada’s mom had their kids as teenagers, she is over retirement age), Bern could only go to college because he had a scholarship, and even so, the family was in debt to Montgomery under unfavorable terms. Keeping a roof over one’s head doesn’t necessarily mean one isn’t poor. And the respect of peers doesn’t necessarily translate to a good wage, either. Would that it did.
Robin: re: Nevada’s actions, I find myself agreeing with Janine – she may have done questionable things in response to what Rogan did to her, but to me the fact that she did in response and never once was an agressor pretty much absolves her. It is the same way as I would think about let’s say two countries battling a fictional war (I won’t go into real wars here) in a fantasy book – sure bad things happen at war and of course they often happen from both sides. But to me, I would still always put more blame on the agressor than on the country which defends itself no matter what horrible things such country would do in response. (and I am not sure that what she did equals in “badness”, but I will concede that it is a possibility if we will hear another POV). Hope I am making sense here.
But sure, Nevada needs to realize that she can be ruthless too, needs to question herself as well more than she does no matter what she did or not do. She needs to be more self aware in some ways IMO.
Kaetrin, Kate absolutely started very ruthless, but see I started reading series from the book three (reading series from the beginning is overrated I think ;)), I tend to do it often) and went back to read book one and two. In book three she already is shown as having friends whom she would go on a limb for even if she is ruthless – she is already changing IMO. I do not know if I would have continued the series if I started from book one.
And I thought book three also shows a perfect snapshot of why . He would growl and be mad if his people do not listen to his orders, but when push comes to shove he won’t take their heads for doing the right thing (even if against his orders) and he would still let Jim choose the teams and run the show instead of firing him for disobedience and we know that he disobeyed Beast Lord big time.
But once again, he of course does plenty of ruthless things – I was very angry with him in book six for example, but after book three I was thinking wow, more please.
When she said stop in that bathtub, he did stop. Loved that.
Also I always thought of Andrews’ shapeshifters as people with extra abilities as I mentioned before, because I felt that this is how they view themselves. Wasn’t Curran once asking Kate whether he was not human or something, when she was saying something about doing something with humans and I judge them accordingly.
As I said, I thought in book seven in that moment Curran behaved as angry animal, not as human and good reason or not, I cringed big time and wished that play by play description would be over soon.
There are books though, where I think I gave shifters some leeway because they did not view themselves as fully human. I am drawing a blank on the titles though.
Oh Robin, also forgot to add that yes, I agree that Nevada was contemplating shooting Peaches and if she did it, I would be very likely to be just as annoyed with her. I just did not see her actually physically preparing to do it, just thinking about it. And who knows maybe indeed those poizonous flies were ten time more dangerous than we know and that was the main reason for Rohan doing it.
@Janine: Rogan doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who wastes much time on regret.
As for Kate Daniels – I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you hadn’t read the whole series. Both Kate and Curran have a character arc for the series but both of them do some pretty ruthless things over the course of it.
My own take on Urban Fantasy is that it’s a different world, as distanced from my own as Middle Earth is. The rules and moralities which apply in those worlds don’t necessarily have to reflect the rules and moralities of my own world as long as they are internally consistent. Human life is generally held less dear in urban fantasy. I expect the body count to be high. Of course, maybe I’m just hard!
@Kaetrin: No, I don’t think you’re hard. I agree the worlds in the urban fantasy genre are places where we meet some tough characters and where the bodies can pile up. But even within this genre, the main characters aren’t always like that. For example Ben Aaronovitch’s Peter Grant series has a central character who, although good with magic, is decent and sweet. He defends his life and others’ but he feels loss of life deeply.
@Janine: And I think she would have felt regret over taking his life in a way Rogan did not.
Absolutely. But the way in which she would suffer is part of my question. Is it better that she would suffer for that action? Rogan, via Nevada’s narrative, does not superficially demonstrate regret for much, so I would not expect it in this case. But whereas some readers might view that as immorality, I see Rogan’s portrayal as more *amoral* and that’s really interesting to me, because when he says “I do not judge,” he really seems to mean it. And I’m very, very intrigued by that quality in a Romance hero, because in some ways I think it would make him a really interesting counterpoint to the judgments the likes of Nevada, Pierce, Montgomery, and even readers might make. What about our particular judgments are good or desirable or superior?
But even taking her unreliability into account, I found Rogan inconsistent. For example, his POV in the epilogue said he’d joined the military for different reasons than the one he gives Nevada: “I joined because they told me I could kill without being sent to prison and be rewarded for it.” Nevada’s truth sense says this is a true statement.
To me, that statement only becomes potentially inconsistent if you infer enjoyment or satisfaction from killing. And I’m not ready to do that, because even from Nevada’s narrative, we see that sense of regret in Rogan’s eyes in Mexico, we see Nevada’s sense that he does what he does with resignation, we see Adam’s statement that once he starts his magic, Rogan is unable to stop until things are destroyed, and we see the epilogue, where Rogan’s belief in his military service, in his country, and in his fellow service people is revealed. Not to mention the first few pages, where he’s speaking with his sister, who is begging him to go after his nephew. There’s that interesting exchange between Rogan and his sister — and that section of the novel is narrated from the sister’s POV — where Rogan tells her that he’s basically a different person since the war and he kind of mocks her into calling him by his current name, “Mad Rogan,” rather than Connor. Of course, we find out more about her gig in the epilogue, so all the ways in which she characterizes him become suspect by that point.
So I can absolutely see him telling the truth in that statement, where the truth is that a guy like him, with magic that causes so very much destruction, and a knowledge of how he will be unable to avoid being used as a weapon because of it (think about how his parents engineered his skills and his birth), would want to be somewhere he would not be punished with prison for that. I sure as hell would.
Because he is still far more powerful than she is Do you think so? I definitely agree that his magic is much more physically destructive and that in terms of pure physical strength he can take her. But she’s got a power to break him mentally, and she’s got her shockers, and she’s got the extent of her own magic (and I’m kind of waiting for her to be declared some kind of orphan Prime or something), which she hasn’t even yet begun to tap.
Without question he was an aggressor in this book, and for the most part Nevada was a reactor. But I think you need both, and that there were times in the book where Rogan’s aggression saved Nevada from having to do something that would have harmed her emotionally. At this point I guess i’m less interested in his motives, in part because we don’t really know them, and in part because his POV in the epilogue revealed that the life he was living before that scene with Nevada was almost one-dimensional and therefore a reflection of a guy cut off from, well, a lot.
I suspect, though, that what I’m interested in with Rogan is different from what you are hoping for. ;D
I had the impression they were scraping by because Nevada had had to drop out of school to work, they had to sell their house and move into a warehouse, the grandmother was helping to support them (unless she and Nevada’s mom had their kids as teenagers, she is over retirement age), Bern could only go to college because he had a scholarship, and even so, the family was in debt to Montgomery under unfavorable terms. Keeping a roof over one’s head doesn’t necessarily mean one isn’t poor. And the respect of peers doesn’t necessarily translate to a good wage, either. Would that it did.
I saw that Bern had an academic scholarship based on merit, but can you point me to the place where it says he had to have it to go to college? I missed that. I also couldn’t find a reference to the grandmother helping them make ends meet. I found the place where Nevada asks her if she could knit and she looks at Nevada like she doesn’t understand what she’s saying, so I came to a different inference than you, I think, about her work. Also, I lived for many years from paycheck to paycheck, with no savings or fallback, but I would never characterize myself as poor. So that definitely affects how I would characterize the Baylor family. I saw Nevada in the same place. She has a successful business in her terms, a 20K foot furnished and renovated warehouse to live in, and a college degree. I agree that the father’s disease put them into a lot of debt – they had to sell their house and move into the warehouse (that they also owned), then sold the business, including the warehouse, to the Montgomery’s, so they basically rent it all back, I think, but overall they seemed pretty solidly middle class to me.
like why did the tactile ability only get used for sexytimes? I figured that this was the only real time Nevada experienced it, so that’s what we experienced, too. His sister notes that he can read emotions at the beginning of the book, but, again, we only get that scene from her POV. I’m hoping we see more of his magic in the next book, and more of his POV.
@Sirius: Nevada indicates right afterward that Rogan was justified in killing Peaches; she was just put off by the decisiveness of it.
I think because the book had a pretty diverse portrayal of characters working with various conditions (I won’t say limitations or disabilities, because I don’t think that’s what they are) and various backgrounds (especially vets), that I’m less likely to see the book as stigmatizing mental illness. But I definitely understand why you disliked his portrayal.
***SPOILER ALERT***
@Robin/Janet: Well, you said it first so I guess that means I can say it too. Nevada is totally a Prime. That’s what the dude who installed her shockers was exclaiming about and Rogan definitely knows too. I expect that at some point Nevada will have to deal with some anger about this information being kept from her. Presumably it was done to protect her somehow. Her parents knew – her mother knows now. Given the dude who installed the shockers, I’d say her grandma knows too. I believe she is at least Rogan’s equal in terms of magical ability – she just doesn’t know it yet.
@Robin/Janet:
You keep repeating this and it is getting frustrating to me because nowhere did I say that I saw Rogan as immoral. What I’ve said repeatedly is that I saw him as alternately moral and amoral, in a way that felt muddled to me.
(Perhaps the source of the confusion is that I said I wasn’t sure he had a moral compass? But that’s how I see amorality.)
You’ve made a good case for why his character isn’t muddled in your eyes, and I’ll agree that it *could* all be due to Nevada’s blind spots. I’m less inclined to think so partly because of my experience with the Edge series, where some things I wanted clarification on remained inconsistent right up until the end, without ever being clarified, and also, a big plot thread was left hanging in the last book.
Not necessarily. It may also be inconsistent if he joined so he could gain power through killing, or if there was some other self-serving (rather than country/system-serving) reason for him to want to kill. This is the part of Rogan that felt inconsistent to me. Was he mostly self-serving, or did he have an agenda that was about helping others? At times it felt like the first was true, and at other times, the second.
I thought we were discussing the scene where she first interrogates him. At that point in the story she’d only discovered she had the power to do that whereas Rogan has been practicing magic all his life. Nevada didn’t know she could do that until that moment. Rogan is also loaded, is the head of a powerful House, and has loyal employees to help him whereas Nevada is mortgaged to Augustine and has to jump when Augustine says jump. So to me her interrogation of him isn’t enough to put them on a level playing field. As the book continues, and she learns to use her shockers, learns to shoot to kill, learns to break the spell, she gains more power. By the end they are much closer to a level playing field, and as I fully agree that she’s a prime, I’m certain she will become more powerful in the next book (not to mention that Rogan is falling for her). But at that moment that she forces him to tell her if he attacked her grandmother– no, she’s not equal to him in power yet during that scene.
To me this one-dimensionality is really interesting and I hope we learn more about that in future books.
Honestly, that sounds a little patronizing because actually I haven’t even articulated what I’m hoping for to myself. I don’t have fixed ideas about what’s coming or what I want to see happen, other than that I’m sure Nevada will grow in power and that I hope when the series is done the characters, world, and magic will have a complete (by which I mean whole and consistent) feel.
I would enjoy that too.
@Kaetrin: No actually, Elf and I said it more than two weeks ago, here.
@Robin/Janet:
I couldn’t find it so I likely inferred that by mistake.
It wasn’t explicitly stated but Nevada’s use of “our” and “we” when referring to finances, such as “every month we squeaked by with the minimum payment” made me feel they were getting by on more than just Nevada’s earnings.
If I had to say what most gave me the feeling that things were financially tight for the family, though, it was “After we had to sell the house and move into the warehouse […]” I don’t think anyone moves their family into a warehouse if they are comfortably off. And there was also the fact that Nevada’s father hid his illness because the family couldn’t really afford his care.
@Janine: ah I missed that. I had been avoiding saying it out loud myself because I thought it was a bit spoilery. But I think it’s pretty obvious that’s where things are heading.
@Janine: You keep repeating this and it is getting frustrating to me because nowhere did I say that I saw Rogan as immoral. What I’ve said repeatedly is that I saw him as alternately moral and amoral, in a way that felt muddled to me.
If I meant you, I would have said you; I think it’s clear from my comments as a whole that I have no issue dealing directly with what I think are conflicting opinions. And I keep repeating it, because for me it’s key in not taking sides between Rogan and Nevada, and because much of our conversation is focused on her moral system relative to his. And yes, I also think have different definitions of amorality, and in part because I’m not just discussing this with you, I don’t want to be misunderstood by anyone who might read these comments.
I thought we were discussing the scene where she first interrogates him Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. This was not clear to me, especially because we were discussing the whole balancing the scales thing.
Honestly, that sounds a little patronizing because actually I haven’t even articulated what I’m hoping for to myself. I’m sorry if I came across that way. I was really going off this comment of yours from the review:
Since I love morally ambiguous characters Rogan was right up my alley too. He could swing between callous and remote to funny and supportive, so it was hard to get a bead on him. I tend to prefer characters to have a moral compass, even if they ignore it, and I wasn’t always sure whether Rogan had one. I wanted a sense of whether he had a code of honor, whether he cared if people died– sometimes it seemed he did and sometimes it seemed he didn’t.
This was confusing, but it also put me in a similar position as Nevada’s. She has to keep guessing about his true nature. I’m hoping we find out more about this in future books, but regardless of this and regardless of my reservations about Rogan, I loved reading about him.
It sounded here — and in all of our discussion since, including your comment about the Edge series — like you wanted resolution to his character, whereas I am almost dreading that. This section also gave me the sense that we might define amorality differently, too, and I’ve bolded the section where I got that sense (does moral compass = sense of honor and/or sense of right and wrong?). A friend asked me recently why characters even need a moral compass, and I have to say I’ve really been thinking about that since, and I don’t have an answer at this point. Maybe I was thinking Rogan would be a good test case of that hypothesis.
@Kaetrin: I figured that’s what the shocker guy was telling Nevada’s grandmother, and didn’t Montgomery have a similar moment?
I’ve been thinking a lot about your threshold comment, and I think it applies to a lot of my feelings about this book and how it’s going to evolve into a series. We’ve talked a lot about Rogan, but one of the reasons I think Nevada has been able to have such a strong sense of right and wrong is because she’s largely been able to make decisions that affect her and her family. Even her PI work seems relatively personal in some of her cases. But what she’s been dealing with in this book is so much bigger, and Rogan got to do a great deal of the heavy lifting when it came to destruction and violence. I hope that Nevada will have to deal with more of that as the series goes on, not because I want her to be some kind of ‘bad girl,’ but because I don’t think she’ll be able to handle the force of her own power if she doesn’t deal with some of her own safety issues.
@Kaetrin: Agreed. The hints were pretty strong.
@Robin/Janet: Yes, I think so – around when she was getting information from Emmett (?name). I figured that’s why Rogan made the deal to change her contract first.
Yes, it was fairly easy for Nevada to sit back and make the moral judgements because she wasn’t forced to do anything that caused her moral conflict. I wonder if she is faced with a decision between damaging the few to save the many she might be a little less judgey than she has been? It makes sense to me that someone with that kind of power (Rogan) and who does face those kinds of decisions, would shut down at least part of his emotions so as to protect himself.
I have this mental picture of them each having a cost/risk equation:
Rogan
Will it work/achieve my goal? +10
Will it cause harm? -1
Is there another way that is efficient? No – +5 / Yes -5
Nevada
Will it work/achieve my goal? +10
Will it cause harm? -10
Is there another way that is efficient? No +1/Yes -10
@Robin/Janet:
I’ll apologize again, then. You were repeating it in comments addressed to me, so I got the wrong impression.
I don’t actually feel more on Nevada’s side than on Rogan’s, even if I’ve given that impression. I loved reading about Rogan and I think he’d be a lot less interesting if I could relate to all his decisions. My comments about Rogan vs. Nevada have come from a place of wanting to give examples of why I wasn’t clear on whether or not he had a sense of right and wrong and why that made his character feel inconsistent to me.
Oh yes, I meant that when I read that scene, I saw Nevada’s actions as balancing the scales — and really I should have said as a big step toward balancing the scales, because that’s a more accurate statement of how that scene read to me.
I’m not sure what you mean by resolution. I want consistency, and what I mean by that is not a one note character, or even necessarily a fully transparent and understandable character, but a character who feels wholly believable. Which is a strange statement to make about a character with magical powers, but I mean, someone whose existence I can fully buy in the context of the book. Rogan as portrayed in this book wasn’t quite there.
When I wrote that “I tend to prefer characters to have a moral compass, even if they ignore it, and I wasn’t always sure whether Rogan had one” I didn’t mean that I needed Rogan to have one in order for me to like him or to enjoy reading about him. I was trying to communicate to readers that his character pushed my boundaries, but in a way I found thoroughly enjoyable.
The next sentence, about wanting to know if he had a code of honor, was actually relating back to the earlier line about how I couldn’t get a bead on him. He read as being all over the place to me; he’d do one thing in one scene and something different in another and it didn’t always feel like the same guy who said or did X was also the one who said or did Y.
With regard to the Edge series, it’s hard to explain without going into detail about those books, but for example, one of the things that annoyed me was that a magical rule was applied inconsistently. There was a set of villains named The Hand, who had been modified, and when a strong magic user came into contact with them for the first time, their presence had a weakening effect on that magic user. This effect was mostly applied to the heroines, who got weak in the knees and had to be propped by the heroes. But when other magic users were exposed to The Hand for the first time, they didn’t always suffer this effect. Basically, the rule was only applied when it suited the plot, and not when it was inconvenient. And this continued throughout the series.
The other thing was that there was a big question mark about the villain — he’d ingested something that might have made him invincible– it wasn’t entirely clear and was never clarified, and I don’t think he was dispatched in the last book, either, and he still hated the protagonists of the series and was fighting them almost to the end. I was left feeling he’d be back to hurt them.
There were other issues, too, which are detailed in my reviews of those books.
It’s these kinds of things that frustrated me, and lead me to feel that consistency isn’t something that can be completely depended on with Andrews, and that a conversation like the “You mean your powers are infallible”, active field vs. passive field conversation in this book may not have been fully thought out in all its implications, and the same could be true of Rogan’s character. I could be wrong about that though, and as I’ve repeatedly said, I hope I am!
To me moral compass= sense of right and wrong, but these do NOT necessarily equate to a sense of honor. A person can tell right from wrong and still lack a sense honor. For example a swindler can know what he’s doing is wrong but not care. But to have a sense of honor does imply to me that one has a sense of right and wrong, or at the very least, a glimmer of such a sense. I mean, a sociopath can emulate honorable behavior, but does such a person really have a sense of honor?
Well, I’m not saying characters need them (though I’ve generally tended to prefer that in my reading) but rather that I don’t want to feel like a character has a moral compass in one scene but not in the next scene, and then he’s back to having one.
@Kaetrin: The judgment issue is so interesting in this book, and I keep thinking about it, especially because when Rogan says, “I don’t judge,” he really means it! And it’s not that I dislike Nevada’s need to judge, but I do get the sense that it comes from a need to feel emotionally safe, and I think it’s going to be interesting watching her struggle with that. Were you the one who said that Nevada was kind of a hypocrite, or was that Sirius? Anyway, I do think the more Nevada judges, the harder it’s going to be for her to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. Although I appreciate that she seems to be pretty honest with herself, about her own feelings, so if her character continues to develop along its current trajectory, it’s gonna be an interesting battle.
@Janine: I think a big part of the problem here is that we don’t just disagree about individual scenes and characteristics when it comes to Rogan’s character; we disagree about whether or not his character is inconsistently drawn. So when we talk about where his character is going, we’re doing so from very different places vis a vis the text, and thus, I think, with necessarily different expectations.
@Robin/Janet: that was me :)
@Kaetrin: Thanks! I was too lazy to go back through the comment thread to check, but I thought it was.
@Robin/Janet:
Yes, that’s the crux of it. For me, this perceived inconsistency is the main issue, and not whether Rogan is moral enough.
Yep that was definitely Kaetrin :).
@Janine: Yes, I think that’s right. I know I’m not the most sensitive reader but I didn’t particularly see Rogan as inconsistent the way you did.