Scan barcode
fastasashark's review
4.0
I really enjoyed this book for the background lore on how the Girdsmen came to be. The Deed of Paksenarrion trilogy makes some side references to the peasant revolt origins of the Girdsmen and paladins of Gird, and it was cool to see where all the terminology like Bartons, Yeomen/Yeomen Marshalls, cohorts etc came from and why, as alternatives to standard military terminology. For fans of the original Paks trilogy, I think it provides some cool additional info and content.
The other thing I enjoyed about it - for similar reasons as the original trilogy - is Elizabeth Moon's style of storytelling. I think some readers who strongly prefer standard modern storytelling structures with in depth character development as a "must" etc may feel a bit put off by it. But for me, I find her style is very reminiscent of Icelandic sagas and medieval Arthurian legend. Just as far as the way the plot moves and flows, it's very much just about telling the tale rather than spending a great deal of time on in-depth character development, various side plots etc. The whole point is just to tell the story itself, which can mean the sort of time jumps or scene jumps that you see more in medieval literature or in folktales/fairy tales. Personally, that more folkloric or saga-like style is one of the things that attracts me to this series. Not to say I don't also enjoy other styles, but I find something very cozy about her storytelling.
The Paksenarrion books also always dealt very heavily with the topics of morality and ethics, and main characters with very strong moral codes. I honestly kind of like Elizabeth Moon's approach to this in the Paks books, now including in Surrender None with Gird himself. In a lot of modern fantasy, there's an obsession with "morally grey characters" as "more realistic" (which I don't think is always true) or seeing good/evil as a grey area. Which, indeed what different people consider good/evil can certainly differ a great deal, but I do enjoy the portrayal of characters like Paks (and to an extent Gird) who just generally try to be a good person, who hold higher moral standards for themselves. Even when they fail, they ultimately strive to be better human beings. Yet at the same time, Moon's main characters also struggle with their own desire to do good and sometimes get drawn down darker paths. I really like the manifestation of that with the cult of Liart, and how that ill-intent or darkness acts like a poison that can slowly start seeping its way into people who may otherwise have good intentions. But also distinguishing those situations from villains who are indeed quite obviously evil. I think there is this reaction against so-called "cartoonish evil for the sake of evil villains" in more recent fantasy, but frankly I find"monstrous" villains (who may well be evil for the sake of it) pretty relevant and realistic. Looking at some of the truly monstrous politicians or CEOs of today, many who unreservedly don't give a shit about the lives they destroy, the misery or death they cause while putting profits above all else. I'm not particularly interested in looking at them in a "morally grey" or "more compassionate" way as they happily destroy the lives of millions. One can acknowledge people as very human while also understanding that humans can become fundamentally terrible, committing heinous acts. No one is "born evil", but some "leaders" in today's world show the human ability to become pretty damn monstrous. So yes, I do quite like her treatment of good and evil, but also the way any person might unintentionally do harm without necessarily meaning to or even noticing the change in their behaviour. It's certainly not black and white, but imo draws necessary lines in the sand.
The only thing about this book that eventually caused me to hesitate with a 4-star rating was that after a while I started getting a bit annoyed with Gird's character. I definitely prefer Paks! He started off fine, but I think what eventually came across as a paternalistic role and seeing other peasants essentially as children bothered me a bit. As much as there was a challenge to the feudal and ethnic structures that oppressed peasants and subordinated them to the nobles from old Aare, eventually it came off as Gird being the exception of the "intelligent peasant/not like the other peasants". It just also seemed a bit odd to see him essentially take over as sole leader of such a massive movement (though he kept claiming otherwise) without getting to see much of the "collaborative" or "collective" side. That said, I know that the story is meant to have religious/spiritual parallels (as the original trilogy did), so it could be where that paternalism is coming from, as far as essentially being the origin story of a new saint/deity.
That said, despite my eventual issues with Gird's character, I really enjoyed the additional lore and background info on the eventual world of Paks. Loved the storytelling, atmosphere, themes and much more. There is ultimately something very magical about this particular world that I really enjoy. I suspect others enjoyment depends on how their preferences jive with the above factors.
The other thing I enjoyed about it - for similar reasons as the original trilogy - is Elizabeth Moon's style of storytelling. I think some readers who strongly prefer standard modern storytelling structures with in depth character development as a "must" etc may feel a bit put off by it. But for me, I find her style is very reminiscent of Icelandic sagas and medieval Arthurian legend. Just as far as the way the plot moves and flows, it's very much just about telling the tale rather than spending a great deal of time on in-depth character development, various side plots etc. The whole point is just to tell the story itself, which can mean the sort of time jumps or scene jumps that you see more in medieval literature or in folktales/fairy tales. Personally, that more folkloric or saga-like style is one of the things that attracts me to this series. Not to say I don't also enjoy other styles, but I find something very cozy about her storytelling.
The Paksenarrion books also always dealt very heavily with the topics of morality and ethics, and main characters with very strong moral codes. I honestly kind of like Elizabeth Moon's approach to this in the Paks books, now including in Surrender None with Gird himself. In a lot of modern fantasy, there's an obsession with "morally grey characters" as "more realistic" (which I don't think is always true) or seeing good/evil as a grey area. Which, indeed what different people consider good/evil can certainly differ a great deal, but I do enjoy the portrayal of characters like Paks (and to an extent Gird) who just generally try to be a good person, who hold higher moral standards for themselves. Even when they fail, they ultimately strive to be better human beings. Yet at the same time, Moon's main characters also struggle with their own desire to do good and sometimes get drawn down darker paths. I really like the manifestation of that with the cult of Liart, and how that ill-intent or darkness acts like a poison that can slowly start seeping its way into people who may otherwise have good intentions. But also distinguishing those situations from villains who are indeed quite obviously evil. I think there is this reaction against so-called "cartoonish evil for the sake of evil villains" in more recent fantasy, but frankly I find"monstrous" villains (who may well be evil for the sake of it) pretty relevant and realistic. Looking at some of the truly monstrous politicians or CEOs of today, many who unreservedly don't give a shit about the lives they destroy, the misery or death they cause while putting profits above all else. I'm not particularly interested in looking at them in a "morally grey" or "more compassionate" way as they happily destroy the lives of millions. One can acknowledge people as very human while also understanding that humans can become fundamentally terrible, committing heinous acts. No one is "born evil", but some "leaders" in today's world show the human ability to become pretty damn monstrous. So yes, I do quite like her treatment of good and evil, but also the way any person might unintentionally do harm without necessarily meaning to or even noticing the change in their behaviour. It's certainly not black and white, but imo draws necessary lines in the sand.
The only thing about this book that eventually caused me to hesitate with a 4-star rating was that after a while I started getting a bit annoyed with Gird's character. I definitely prefer Paks! He started off fine, but I think what eventually came across as a paternalistic role and seeing other peasants essentially as children bothered me a bit. As much as there was a challenge to the feudal and ethnic structures that oppressed peasants and subordinated them to the nobles from old Aare, eventually it came off as Gird being the exception of the "intelligent peasant/not like the other peasants". It just also seemed a bit odd to see him essentially take over as sole leader of such a massive movement (though he kept claiming otherwise) without getting to see much of the "collaborative" or "collective" side. That said, I know that the story is meant to have religious/spiritual parallels (as the original trilogy did), so it could be where that paternalism is coming from, as far as essentially being the origin story of a new saint/deity.
That said, despite my eventual issues with Gird's character, I really enjoyed the additional lore and background info on the eventual world of Paks. Loved the storytelling, atmosphere, themes and much more. There is ultimately something very magical about this particular world that I really enjoy. I suspect others enjoyment depends on how their preferences jive with the above factors.
dommdy's review
2.0
Too long, hard to “get” characters. Not interesting enough. Too long, jumps around clumsily through different time periods. Meh. Not recommended
edyta's review
2.0
I read the Paksenarrion series and I was happy to find two more books set in the same universe. I was also excited to learn more about Gird. This book has been quite disappointing.
It starts with a lot of violence. As the story progresses we learn more about Girt but the story skips large parts of his life. The other novels set in the universe had compelling characters and interesting political and economical background. I found these elements were lacking in Surrender None.
It starts with a lot of violence. As the story progresses we learn more about Girt but the story skips large parts of his life. The other novels set in the universe had compelling characters and interesting political and economical background. I found these elements were lacking in Surrender None.
tome15's review against another edition
4.0
Moon, Elizabeth. Surrender None. 1990. Legacy of Gird No. 1. Orbit, 2000.
The Gird trilogy is a prequel to 1988’s The Sheep Farmer’s Daughter and its trilogy. The world here is straight-up fantasy, heavily influenced by the iconography of Dungeons and Dragons and its ilk, with mages, gnomes and warriors of various kinds. Our hero, Gird, is a sturdy peasant who signs on as an ostler and guard to a caravan but soon finds himself touched by a deity and leading a peasant army against a powerful evil king. It would be forgettable if that was all it was, but Gird is a more nuanced character than one might expect. He must wrestle with the ethical dilemmas provoked by his actions. He grows morally as the novel progresses in a way most genre characters never approach. I am told there are many spoilers to the next trilogy, but I have not read it, so be cautioned.
The Gird trilogy is a prequel to 1988’s The Sheep Farmer’s Daughter and its trilogy. The world here is straight-up fantasy, heavily influenced by the iconography of Dungeons and Dragons and its ilk, with mages, gnomes and warriors of various kinds. Our hero, Gird, is a sturdy peasant who signs on as an ostler and guard to a caravan but soon finds himself touched by a deity and leading a peasant army against a powerful evil king. It would be forgettable if that was all it was, but Gird is a more nuanced character than one might expect. He must wrestle with the ethical dilemmas provoked by his actions. He grows morally as the novel progresses in a way most genre characters never approach. I am told there are many spoilers to the next trilogy, but I have not read it, so be cautioned.
fastasashark's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I really enjoyed this book for the background lore on how the Girdsmen came to be. The Deed of Paksenarrion trilogy makes some side references to the peasant revolt origins of the Girdsmen and paladins of Gird, and it was cool to see where all the terminology like Bartons, Yeomen/Yeomen Marshalls, cohorts etc came from and why, as alternatives to standard military terminology. For fans of the original Paks trilogy, I think it provides some cool additional info and content.
The other thing I enjoyed about it - for similar reasons as the original trilogy - is Elizabeth Moon's style of storytelling. I think some readers who strongly prefer standard modern storytelling structures with in depth character development as a "must" etc may feel a bit put off by it. But for me, I find her style is very reminiscent of Icelandic sagas and medieval Arthurian legend. Just as far as the way the plot moves and flows, it's very much just about telling the tale rather than spending a great deal of time on in-depth character development, various side plots etc. The whole point is just to tell the story itself, which can mean the sort of time jumps or scene jumps that you see more in medieval literature or in folktales/fairy tales. Personally, that more folkloric or saga-like style is one of the things that attracts me to this series. Not to say I don't also enjoy other styles, but I find something very cozy about her storytelling.
The Paksenarrion books also always dealt very heavily with the topics of morality and ethics, and main characters with very strong moral codes. I honestly kind of like Elizabeth Moon's approach to this in the Paks books, now including in Surrender None with Gird himself. In a lot of modern fantasy, there's an obsession with "morally grey characters" as "more realistic" (which I don't think is always true) or seeing good/evil as a grey area. Which, indeed what different people consider good/evil can certainly differ a great deal, but I do enjoy the portrayal of characters like Paks (and to an extent Gird) who just generally try to be a good person, who hold higher moral standards for themselves. Even when they fail, they ultimately strive to be better human beings. Yet at the same time, Moon's main characters also struggle with their own desire to do good and sometimes get drawn down darker paths. I really like the manifestation of that with the cult of Liart, and how that ill-intent or darkness acts like a poison that can slowly start seeping its way into people who may otherwise have good intentions. But also distinguishing those situations from villains who are indeed quite obviously evil. I think there is this reaction against so-called "cartoonish evil for the sake of evil villains" in more recent fantasy, but frankly I find"monstrous" villains (who may well be evil for the sake of it) pretty relevant and realistic. Looking at some of the truly monstrous politicians or CEOs of today, many who unreservedly don't give a shit about the lives they destroy, the misery or death they cause while putting profits above all else. I'm not particularly interested in looking at them in a "morally grey" or "more compassionate" way as they happily destroy the lives of millions. One can acknowledge people as very human while also understanding that humans can become fundamentally terrible, committing heinous acts. No one is "born evil", but some "leaders" in today's world show the human ability to become pretty damn monstrous. So yes, I do quite like her treatment of good and evil, but also the way any person might unintentionally do harm without necessarily meaning to or even noticing the change in their behaviour. It's certainly not black and white, but imo draws necessary lines in the sand.
The only thing about this book that eventually caused me to hesitate with a 4-star rating was that after a while I started getting a bit annoyed with Gird's character. I definitely prefer Paks! He started off fine, but I think what eventually came across as a paternalistic role and seeing other peasants essentially as children bothered me a bit. As much as there was a challenge to the feudal and ethnic structures that oppressed peasants and subordinated them to the nobles from old Aare, eventually it came off as Gird being the exception of the "intelligent peasant/not like the other peasants". It just also seemed a bit odd to see him essentially take over as sole leader of such a massive movement (though he kept claiming otherwise) without getting to see much of the "collaborative" or "collective" side. That said, I know that the story is meant to have religious/spiritual parallels (as the original trilogy did), so it could be where that paternalism is coming from, as far as essentially being the origin story of a new saint/deity.
That said, despite my eventual issues with Gird's character, I really enjoyed the additional lore and background info on the eventual world of Paks. Loved the storytelling, atmosphere, themes and much more. There is ultimately something very magical about this particular world that I really enjoy. I suspect others enjoyment depends on how their preferences jive with the above factors.
The other thing I enjoyed about it - for similar reasons as the original trilogy - is Elizabeth Moon's style of storytelling. I think some readers who strongly prefer standard modern storytelling structures with in depth character development as a "must" etc may feel a bit put off by it. But for me, I find her style is very reminiscent of Icelandic sagas and medieval Arthurian legend. Just as far as the way the plot moves and flows, it's very much just about telling the tale rather than spending a great deal of time on in-depth character development, various side plots etc. The whole point is just to tell the story itself, which can mean the sort of time jumps or scene jumps that you see more in medieval literature or in folktales/fairy tales. Personally, that more folkloric or saga-like style is one of the things that attracts me to this series. Not to say I don't also enjoy other styles, but I find something very cozy about her storytelling.
The Paksenarrion books also always dealt very heavily with the topics of morality and ethics, and main characters with very strong moral codes. I honestly kind of like Elizabeth Moon's approach to this in the Paks books, now including in Surrender None with Gird himself. In a lot of modern fantasy, there's an obsession with "morally grey characters" as "more realistic" (which I don't think is always true) or seeing good/evil as a grey area. Which, indeed what different people consider good/evil can certainly differ a great deal, but I do enjoy the portrayal of characters like Paks (and to an extent Gird) who just generally try to be a good person, who hold higher moral standards for themselves. Even when they fail, they ultimately strive to be better human beings. Yet at the same time, Moon's main characters also struggle with their own desire to do good and sometimes get drawn down darker paths. I really like the manifestation of that with the cult of Liart, and how that ill-intent or darkness acts like a poison that can slowly start seeping its way into people who may otherwise have good intentions. But also distinguishing those situations from villains who are indeed quite obviously evil. I think there is this reaction against so-called "cartoonish evil for the sake of evil villains" in more recent fantasy, but frankly I find"monstrous" villains (who may well be evil for the sake of it) pretty relevant and realistic. Looking at some of the truly monstrous politicians or CEOs of today, many who unreservedly don't give a shit about the lives they destroy, the misery or death they cause while putting profits above all else. I'm not particularly interested in looking at them in a "morally grey" or "more compassionate" way as they happily destroy the lives of millions. One can acknowledge people as very human while also understanding that humans can become fundamentally terrible, committing heinous acts. No one is "born evil", but some "leaders" in today's world show the human ability to become pretty damn monstrous. So yes, I do quite like her treatment of good and evil, but also the way any person might unintentionally do harm without necessarily meaning to or even noticing the change in their behaviour. It's certainly not black and white, but imo draws necessary lines in the sand.
That said, despite my eventual issues with Gird's character, I really enjoyed the additional lore and background info on the eventual world of Paks. Loved the storytelling, atmosphere, themes and much more. There is ultimately something very magical about this particular world that I really enjoy. I suspect others enjoyment depends on how their preferences jive with the above factors.
leahcorduroy's review against another edition
3.0
I liked this book much better the 2nd time around. It works better as the supporting lore for Paksworld than all by itself as a story.
More...