In Which Sev Bestows her Critical Eye Upon a Variety of Thingeys.
Okay, so first of all, I get nervous when talking about things "critically". It's such a pretentious word, first of all, and I'm like so totally not pretentious, y'know? Who am I to critique anything, really? Blah, and so on.
Second of all: OK, so you all may or may not know this about me, but I am a horrible debater. This is because I was raised to see both sides of the issue, and to think about everything involved, and to never pass judgement on people at all. Now, this may sound like I'm blowing my obviously lofty character our my ego, but - wait a second before you write this off, ok? This means it's really hard for me to form an opinion. I literally cannot argue. I start seeing the other person's point, and I start understanding what they're saying, and before I know it whatever "argument" I had has gone down the tubes. It means I can't really decide how I feel about abortion, or the war, or anything serious -- or better, maybe I do know how I feel, but it's hard for me to talk about any of it with anyone. It's really not all that good.
It also means I change my mind, a lot, and often based on things other people say -- if someone makes a point I hadn't thought of, for example, it may make me look at something in an entirely new light. I like to gather lots of information and put off actually committing to an opinion as long as possible (hey, Myers-Briggs test? I am INTP, and that P is like basically 99% P. Decisions? I hate you!).
As such, it's kind of mushy for me to talk about even things like this (a CD, some books, etc) because I always want to consider all sides of everything, and I don't really like passing the "I just didn't like this" judgement because, hey, I seriously might change my mind tomorrow. I have done this.
---
So my mother bought me Afterglow by Sarah McLachlan for Easter. I used to be a really, really big Sarah McLachlan fan; I don't really dislike her now, but at the same time, my musical tastes have really just moved on. That being said, it's really pretty easy to please me on the surface when it comes to music. Is it neat? Is it entertaining? Then I'll probably like it. I may not listen to it for years, but I'll probably like it. I even liked a John Mayer CD once*.
Sarah still has one of the most unique voices ever. It's soft, it's lush, she does that yodel-like jump from her low voice into her high voice seamlessly, it's still great. I still like and honor that. And her songs flow well, and they're orchestrated well. But...
I think what I was looking for was some ...spice? Maybe something a little bit different? But a lot of her songs sound very similar to me. And I think it's mostly her lyrics.
Most of her songs are romantic pieces, and I don't really dig the romantic, so that's part of it? But it also feels like her lyrics all jump from one cliche phrase to the next. "I'm a train wreck waiting to happen." "The world is on fire."
I mean:
Truth be told I've tried my best
But somewhere along the way
I got caught up in all there was to offer
And the cost was so much more than I could bear
It's a very pretty image? But all the words have been tied together about a million times before. There's nothing really new about that verse, at all. "tried my best" ... "somewhere along the way" ... "all there was to offer" ... "more than I could bear" ... all cliches, all words that kind of intuitively go with each other. There's no poetry, no stretch.
I think Fiona Apple's poetry has spoiled me for lyrics - her words are all unusually-strung-together, and it creates very meaningful images that are really, reallu unique.
However, if you listen to the album and listen to her voice as an instrument rather than listening to the lyrics, it's still beautiful. She arranges the phrases very well within the songs, so you think there's more being said than really is due to the emotion that's carried. I'm not sure why the monotony of the lyrics hit me so badly, then -- I think it's because the style of music was a little soft and romantic for my tastes and so I ended up listening to the words more rather than the song as a whole. People who can enjoy the song as a whole will certainly like it: beautiful is a very good word for describing it.
I don't want to say the lyrics spoiled it for me. The songs are all straight-forward, pretty, romantic, lush with Sarah's voice and the orchestration and straight-forward, pretty piano parts. I did like it, but I'm not sure if it will stick around in my Top Albums Ever list. All the songs kind of ...sound the same.
So conclusion: Very enjoyable CD for someone other than me. She still has a lot of talent and makes great music. It's just not up my main alley.
*I shouldn't be admitting this in public. It was his newest one (at the time, I don't follow him), and it was entertaining, and it was a little blues-y or something, and most of all it wasn't Your Body Is A Gay, Gay Wonderland.
---
OK, so I know at least two of you have read Robin McKinley's Sunshine, and I am expecting the third to do so soon (*AHEM*), so I figure I'd talk a little about why I liked this book so much.*
I don't know! Because it's really good!? This is harder than I thought.
I love the way RMcK writes, first of all. I have read every single one of her books, and I just love the way she strings together sentences. Her other books have all been 3rd person, so to actually be inside Sunshine's head in this particular book was really awesome. Her language is brilliant, and the way she phrases things is just ...GAH. I LOVE HER SENTENCES. I just - I strive for her style. Other people may not, but I think she's just got this snarky, witty, subtle and yet extremely heart-painingly good way of putting her words together. Maybe it's just me! Anyway, one million <3s at her. ♥
As for Sunshine specifically, what I like the most -- well, what I like the most are the characters, so let's go there first. I love Sunshine because she isn't great. She's a high-school dropout, but she's a great cook. She's a huge coward, but doesn't let it stop her. She's got powerful magic, but would rather make cinnamon rolls. She's so far from the perfect heroine that I absolutely love her, and yet you know there's something special about her from the moment she transmutes that key. I just ...after so many maaagical princesses and everything, it was nice to see ...well, a Blaise with frosting on the end of her nose. i told you i could quote the book at you
And obviously, there's Con. Who doesn't like Con! Seriously, who. Tell me so that I can convince you. I. Um. I love him. He's evil that isn't evil. It's Beauty and the Beast - which, by the way, RMcK has written two published versions of and admits to basically writing into every single story she's ever written because she loves it, so yeah, if you got the undertones, you were right. Con is priceless. His language is awesome. His cryptic sense of humour. Yes, yes yes.
The rest of the cast is wonderful too IMO, for all that you don't see much of anyone other than Mel, Aimil, and the SOFs. But even small characters - Maud - come away with so much feeling to them.
The other great thing about Sunshine is the worldbuilding. Look, I'm not saying you have to, but the second time through the book you really start to realize how much work went into pulling together this post-apocolyptic world-that-isn't-our-world - all the little details that you brush over the first time because you don't get it. All of her books are like that. RMcK has very solid ideas as to what the magics/powers/numens of her worlds can and cannot do, and she's defined very well the way things break down. I really respect this and I wish more writers could do the same. I love this part of Sunshine, and I really wish she allowed fanfic because I'd like to play in her world sometime.
The world's made so realistic, through both this magical world of the Others and the realistic, mundane bakery. It's a perfect way to world-build, IMO. The realistic and the magical all kind of blend together, and it makes it more believable. I think her worldbuilding, especially for Sunshine specifically, was fantastically creative.
I've seen the book get two main complaints online, and I can completely acknowledge them, even though neither one ruined the book for me. (See? This is even-minded Sev again.)
The first one is that people find Sunshine to be a whiny heroine. I mean, I can see this. She was whiny. She was afraid. She was terrified, even of Con, who was her ally. She didn't really know what was going on. See, to me, this is why I like Sunshine more -- she's an unlikely heroine, and it isn't so much that she finds some hidden strength inside her that she just plain old stubbornly does it. I guess for people who are looking for stern priestesses and fated princesses and women with swords and girls with destinies and hidden powers, Sunshine probably reads like a wibbly pile of goo. But? To me? That makes her real. Let's face it, I'd probably be a wibbly pile of goo. (Also, I like Sunshine's sense of humour. It's realistic.)
Even her ZOMGtragicpast, secret!forbidden!family!background - it didn't read anything like you'd expect. Sunshine just wanted to hide and bake a cake, rather than puff up her powers and get out there. I - okay, here's my thought.
I think a lot of people might have been looking for a vampire fighter? Like a "Buffy" in kind? Somebody who kicked and punched and wielded weaponry? In that case, Sunshine might have been a more disappointing heroine. But! This is not your typical vampire-cliche novel! (In fact, she subtly mocks these novels in the story itself.) If you were looking for sexy-style vampires and literal-ass-kicking heroines, you are in the wrong section.
The second is that too many things in the book go unanswered. I'm not sure how to address this one, because - yes, there's a hell of a lot in that book that isn't explained, but - I still enjoy the book, and I see no reason why RMcK should have to sit down and explain everything to the reader. At the same time, I would've loved some more detail on a couple things (Mel, bad spots, Sunshine's dad, Sunshine's Gran, Mel again - srsly wtf is up with Mel, the Voodoo Wars in their entirety, and the goddess of pain, as a first sampling). There were a lot of chances she could have had to flesh out certain parts of the world that simply weren't taken at all. A lot of things had to be taken for granted, on Sunshine's word, since it's from her POV.
I guess it's a good criticism, although I'd say if it ruined the book for you then you don't read like I do. I don't really mind having certain holes in the story as long as the main plotline is justifiable, which I think in this case it was. Also, I think RMcK is also leaving herself a path for a sequel -- not that this is an excuse, but for some authors it may be a plot device.
I also have read plenty of RMcK's work, and I know that she likes to leave a lot of things open and unexplained - usually it is just the right amount, so you still enjoy the story without feeling like you want more. And of course I want more of Sunshine's world, but I still feel the story stands on its own as it is.
Anyway! I'd love to hear thoughts. Now that I'm done rambling. ♥
*OK, if you want this book, pretty much all you have to do is ask. And give me your address. Seriously. I mean I draw the line at sending out like 1000 copies but if I know and like you, chances are I will send you one.
---
So Ira sent me the Kushiel series, which I of course got during FFEX and couldn't read. I managed to finish the first over Easter weekend (I am a fast reader, which is not bragging, it's a detriment -- often I have to read things 2-3 times to figure out what the hell is going on), and so I figured I'd ramble about it here as well so that Rina and Ira and I can geek on it.
I enjoyed the book, a lot. I really like political-intrigue-mystery stories, and I also like survival-against-the-odds stories (which a good deal of this book was, really). The plot was good, the characters were stand-out, and the world-building was really creative.
One thing that hit me really hard at first was the pile of names, people / cities / countries / Houses / races / whatevers. It looked like really dangerous alphabet soup, and it was really hard to take on in the beginning because, well like I said, I read really fast so I'd get to the end of a paragraph and have no clue what the fuck I just read at all. It was just like a big pile of letters and I'd have to go back and be all "OK so who the hell is that? Oh yeah." Eventually I realized that Phedre (meaning, the author) would explain to herself who each person was when they met, kind of as a refresher for the reader -- and I moved on, depending on that tool to tell me who was important to know and who I could skim.
But like I said, eventually I got a handle on that - and more importantly, on which characters were important and which were side-characters. One of the things I liked best was the way that Phedre related to most of the main characters -- her envious/loving relationship with Alcuin; her strangely hero-worshipping yet distant relationship with Delaunay; the heavily twisted and erotic relationship with Melisande; the solid, dependable, heart-breaking friendship with Hyacinthe (her safe-word!!) that had to end (*SOB*); the transition of Joscelin from a stoic and humourless stick-up-his-arse knight into the pivot-point of her own survival. I. I don't have enough to say with the way that these characters were all described through Phedre's eyes -- it was so, so perfectly done. You really felt how Phedre felt about the characters themselves.
I actually didn't find the book overly erotic, and I say that as a good thing. (Not that porn is bad! Do not misread me!) But in many cases the sex (or sex-related business) was plot, or part of the plot, and it was really treated like an acceptable part of the culture (more on this in a second). Also, it wasn't particularly graphic or over-described or over-wrought -- I thought it was sexy, yes, but I wasn't squirming awkwardly at the end of it. I did think it was very, very well-done. The sexiest part of the book to me was Melisande, honestly, because of the build-up of sexual tension between the two. I loved the tension. Sexy.
Which leads me to another point: for a while, I'll admit, I had a really hard time buying why Phedre was so special. I liked the concept of sex-service as worship, that was OK, but I wasn't really getting what the big deal was. So she enjoys some pain; yeah, this makes her a unique and interesting sex-peddler, but ...why is she a spy, then? What makes her such a special tool? Who says that the big-important-people-to-be-spied-on are necessarily going to want a sub? I admit: it took a while for me to buy into it.
I think in the end what got me was the seamless way that the service of Naamah was built into the world as a whole. This is a world where sex/romance/lust/etc is a commonplace business, and as such Phedre makes a good tool on her own. The dart of Kushiel in her simply allows her to take more pain without feeling like she has to give in. It makes her "stronger" to pain, in a way (although feeling pleasure for it is also a weakness). I think? I don't know. Eventually I bought it and was able to move on with the story.
I liked Phedre. A lot. She was another well-balanced heroine: likeable and deep and religious and very intelligent, but with a streak of narcissism that balanced her out so she wasn't a Mary Sue.
I - OK, I have to work now, for real, sadly. I will ramble more on Kushiel later; let me post this for now.
OK: this is a huge-ass entry. Sorry!
Second of all: OK, so you all may or may not know this about me, but I am a horrible debater. This is because I was raised to see both sides of the issue, and to think about everything involved, and to never pass judgement on people at all. Now, this may sound like I'm blowing my obviously lofty character our my ego, but - wait a second before you write this off, ok? This means it's really hard for me to form an opinion. I literally cannot argue. I start seeing the other person's point, and I start understanding what they're saying, and before I know it whatever "argument" I had has gone down the tubes. It means I can't really decide how I feel about abortion, or the war, or anything serious -- or better, maybe I do know how I feel, but it's hard for me to talk about any of it with anyone. It's really not all that good.
It also means I change my mind, a lot, and often based on things other people say -- if someone makes a point I hadn't thought of, for example, it may make me look at something in an entirely new light. I like to gather lots of information and put off actually committing to an opinion as long as possible (hey, Myers-Briggs test? I am INTP, and that P is like basically 99% P. Decisions? I hate you!).
As such, it's kind of mushy for me to talk about even things like this (a CD, some books, etc) because I always want to consider all sides of everything, and I don't really like passing the "I just didn't like this" judgement because, hey, I seriously might change my mind tomorrow. I have done this.
---
So my mother bought me Afterglow by Sarah McLachlan for Easter. I used to be a really, really big Sarah McLachlan fan; I don't really dislike her now, but at the same time, my musical tastes have really just moved on. That being said, it's really pretty easy to please me on the surface when it comes to music. Is it neat? Is it entertaining? Then I'll probably like it. I may not listen to it for years, but I'll probably like it. I even liked a John Mayer CD once*.
Sarah still has one of the most unique voices ever. It's soft, it's lush, she does that yodel-like jump from her low voice into her high voice seamlessly, it's still great. I still like and honor that. And her songs flow well, and they're orchestrated well. But...
I think what I was looking for was some ...spice? Maybe something a little bit different? But a lot of her songs sound very similar to me. And I think it's mostly her lyrics.
Most of her songs are romantic pieces, and I don't really dig the romantic, so that's part of it? But it also feels like her lyrics all jump from one cliche phrase to the next. "I'm a train wreck waiting to happen." "The world is on fire."
I mean:
Truth be told I've tried my best
But somewhere along the way
I got caught up in all there was to offer
And the cost was so much more than I could bear
It's a very pretty image? But all the words have been tied together about a million times before. There's nothing really new about that verse, at all. "tried my best" ... "somewhere along the way" ... "all there was to offer" ... "more than I could bear" ... all cliches, all words that kind of intuitively go with each other. There's no poetry, no stretch.
I think Fiona Apple's poetry has spoiled me for lyrics - her words are all unusually-strung-together, and it creates very meaningful images that are really, reallu unique.
However, if you listen to the album and listen to her voice as an instrument rather than listening to the lyrics, it's still beautiful. She arranges the phrases very well within the songs, so you think there's more being said than really is due to the emotion that's carried. I'm not sure why the monotony of the lyrics hit me so badly, then -- I think it's because the style of music was a little soft and romantic for my tastes and so I ended up listening to the words more rather than the song as a whole. People who can enjoy the song as a whole will certainly like it: beautiful is a very good word for describing it.
I don't want to say the lyrics spoiled it for me. The songs are all straight-forward, pretty, romantic, lush with Sarah's voice and the orchestration and straight-forward, pretty piano parts. I did like it, but I'm not sure if it will stick around in my Top Albums Ever list. All the songs kind of ...sound the same.
So conclusion: Very enjoyable CD for someone other than me. She still has a lot of talent and makes great music. It's just not up my main alley.
*I shouldn't be admitting this in public. It was his newest one (at the time, I don't follow him), and it was entertaining, and it was a little blues-y or something, and most of all it wasn't Your Body Is A Gay, Gay Wonderland.
---
OK, so I know at least two of you have read Robin McKinley's Sunshine, and I am expecting the third to do so soon (*AHEM*), so I figure I'd talk a little about why I liked this book so much.*
I don't know! Because it's really good!? This is harder than I thought.
I love the way RMcK writes, first of all. I have read every single one of her books, and I just love the way she strings together sentences. Her other books have all been 3rd person, so to actually be inside Sunshine's head in this particular book was really awesome. Her language is brilliant, and the way she phrases things is just ...GAH. I LOVE HER SENTENCES. I just - I strive for her style. Other people may not, but I think she's just got this snarky, witty, subtle and yet extremely heart-painingly good way of putting her words together. Maybe it's just me! Anyway, one million <3s at her. ♥
As for Sunshine specifically, what I like the most -- well, what I like the most are the characters, so let's go there first. I love Sunshine because she isn't great. She's a high-school dropout, but she's a great cook. She's a huge coward, but doesn't let it stop her. She's got powerful magic, but would rather make cinnamon rolls. She's so far from the perfect heroine that I absolutely love her, and yet you know there's something special about her from the moment she transmutes that key. I just ...after so many maaagical princesses and everything, it was nice to see ...well, a Blaise with frosting on the end of her nose. i told you i could quote the book at you
And obviously, there's Con. Who doesn't like Con! Seriously, who. Tell me so that I can convince you. I. Um. I love him. He's evil that isn't evil. It's Beauty and the Beast - which, by the way, RMcK has written two published versions of and admits to basically writing into every single story she's ever written because she loves it, so yeah, if you got the undertones, you were right. Con is priceless. His language is awesome. His cryptic sense of humour. Yes, yes yes.
The rest of the cast is wonderful too IMO, for all that you don't see much of anyone other than Mel, Aimil, and the SOFs. But even small characters - Maud - come away with so much feeling to them.
The other great thing about Sunshine is the worldbuilding. Look, I'm not saying you have to, but the second time through the book you really start to realize how much work went into pulling together this post-apocolyptic world-that-isn't-our-world - all the little details that you brush over the first time because you don't get it. All of her books are like that. RMcK has very solid ideas as to what the magics/powers/numens of her worlds can and cannot do, and she's defined very well the way things break down. I really respect this and I wish more writers could do the same. I love this part of Sunshine, and I really wish she allowed fanfic because I'd like to play in her world sometime.
The world's made so realistic, through both this magical world of the Others and the realistic, mundane bakery. It's a perfect way to world-build, IMO. The realistic and the magical all kind of blend together, and it makes it more believable. I think her worldbuilding, especially for Sunshine specifically, was fantastically creative.
I've seen the book get two main complaints online, and I can completely acknowledge them, even though neither one ruined the book for me. (See? This is even-minded Sev again.)
The first one is that people find Sunshine to be a whiny heroine. I mean, I can see this. She was whiny. She was afraid. She was terrified, even of Con, who was her ally. She didn't really know what was going on. See, to me, this is why I like Sunshine more -- she's an unlikely heroine, and it isn't so much that she finds some hidden strength inside her that she just plain old stubbornly does it. I guess for people who are looking for stern priestesses and fated princesses and women with swords and girls with destinies and hidden powers, Sunshine probably reads like a wibbly pile of goo. But? To me? That makes her real. Let's face it, I'd probably be a wibbly pile of goo. (Also, I like Sunshine's sense of humour. It's realistic.)
Even her ZOMGtragicpast, secret!forbidden!family!background - it didn't read anything like you'd expect. Sunshine just wanted to hide and bake a cake, rather than puff up her powers and get out there. I - okay, here's my thought.
I think a lot of people might have been looking for a vampire fighter? Like a "Buffy" in kind? Somebody who kicked and punched and wielded weaponry? In that case, Sunshine might have been a more disappointing heroine. But! This is not your typical vampire-cliche novel! (In fact, she subtly mocks these novels in the story itself.) If you were looking for sexy-style vampires and literal-ass-kicking heroines, you are in the wrong section.
The second is that too many things in the book go unanswered. I'm not sure how to address this one, because - yes, there's a hell of a lot in that book that isn't explained, but - I still enjoy the book, and I see no reason why RMcK should have to sit down and explain everything to the reader. At the same time, I would've loved some more detail on a couple things (Mel, bad spots, Sunshine's dad, Sunshine's Gran, Mel again - srsly wtf is up with Mel, the Voodoo Wars in their entirety, and the goddess of pain, as a first sampling). There were a lot of chances she could have had to flesh out certain parts of the world that simply weren't taken at all. A lot of things had to be taken for granted, on Sunshine's word, since it's from her POV.
I guess it's a good criticism, although I'd say if it ruined the book for you then you don't read like I do. I don't really mind having certain holes in the story as long as the main plotline is justifiable, which I think in this case it was. Also, I think RMcK is also leaving herself a path for a sequel -- not that this is an excuse, but for some authors it may be a plot device.
I also have read plenty of RMcK's work, and I know that she likes to leave a lot of things open and unexplained - usually it is just the right amount, so you still enjoy the story without feeling like you want more. And of course I want more of Sunshine's world, but I still feel the story stands on its own as it is.
Anyway! I'd love to hear thoughts. Now that I'm done rambling. ♥
*OK, if you want this book, pretty much all you have to do is ask. And give me your address. Seriously. I mean I draw the line at sending out like 1000 copies but if I know and like you, chances are I will send you one.
---
So Ira sent me the Kushiel series, which I of course got during FFEX and couldn't read. I managed to finish the first over Easter weekend (I am a fast reader, which is not bragging, it's a detriment -- often I have to read things 2-3 times to figure out what the hell is going on), and so I figured I'd ramble about it here as well so that Rina and Ira and I can geek on it.
I enjoyed the book, a lot. I really like political-intrigue-mystery stories, and I also like survival-against-the-odds stories (which a good deal of this book was, really). The plot was good, the characters were stand-out, and the world-building was really creative.
One thing that hit me really hard at first was the pile of names, people / cities / countries / Houses / races / whatevers. It looked like really dangerous alphabet soup, and it was really hard to take on in the beginning because, well like I said, I read really fast so I'd get to the end of a paragraph and have no clue what the fuck I just read at all. It was just like a big pile of letters and I'd have to go back and be all "OK so who the hell is that? Oh yeah." Eventually I realized that Phedre (meaning, the author) would explain to herself who each person was when they met, kind of as a refresher for the reader -- and I moved on, depending on that tool to tell me who was important to know and who I could skim.
But like I said, eventually I got a handle on that - and more importantly, on which characters were important and which were side-characters. One of the things I liked best was the way that Phedre related to most of the main characters -- her envious/loving relationship with Alcuin; her strangely hero-worshipping yet distant relationship with Delaunay; the heavily twisted and erotic relationship with Melisande; the solid, dependable, heart-breaking friendship with Hyacinthe (her safe-word!!) that had to end (*SOB*); the transition of Joscelin from a stoic and humourless stick-up-his-arse knight into the pivot-point of her own survival. I. I don't have enough to say with the way that these characters were all described through Phedre's eyes -- it was so, so perfectly done. You really felt how Phedre felt about the characters themselves.
I actually didn't find the book overly erotic, and I say that as a good thing. (Not that porn is bad! Do not misread me!) But in many cases the sex (or sex-related business) was plot, or part of the plot, and it was really treated like an acceptable part of the culture (more on this in a second). Also, it wasn't particularly graphic or over-described or over-wrought -- I thought it was sexy, yes, but I wasn't squirming awkwardly at the end of it. I did think it was very, very well-done. The sexiest part of the book to me was Melisande, honestly, because of the build-up of sexual tension between the two. I loved the tension. Sexy.
Which leads me to another point: for a while, I'll admit, I had a really hard time buying why Phedre was so special. I liked the concept of sex-service as worship, that was OK, but I wasn't really getting what the big deal was. So she enjoys some pain; yeah, this makes her a unique and interesting sex-peddler, but ...why is she a spy, then? What makes her such a special tool? Who says that the big-important-people-to-be-spied-on are necessarily going to want a sub? I admit: it took a while for me to buy into it.
I think in the end what got me was the seamless way that the service of Naamah was built into the world as a whole. This is a world where sex/romance/lust/etc is a commonplace business, and as such Phedre makes a good tool on her own. The dart of Kushiel in her simply allows her to take more pain without feeling like she has to give in. It makes her "stronger" to pain, in a way (although feeling pleasure for it is also a weakness). I think? I don't know. Eventually I bought it and was able to move on with the story.
I liked Phedre. A lot. She was another well-balanced heroine: likeable and deep and religious and very intelligent, but with a streak of narcissism that balanced her out so she wasn't a Mary Sue.
I - OK, I have to work now, for real, sadly. I will ramble more on Kushiel later; let me post this for now.
OK: this is a huge-ass entry. Sorry!