I began to suspect a missing episode in this series right from the beginning. I find that I was right--I really need to get hold of a volume called Exile's Song, to get a fuller development of things people keep referring to in the recent past.
There's enough exposition that I can get a moderate idea of what happened--but I still want to see the previous volume.
Especially, I want to get an idea of Margaret Alton's career at University, which I gather is an entire University planet.
There are many familiar characters in this book, and more than a smattering of new ones--including some who must have been around earlier (not only Priscilla Elhalyn, but also Mikhail Lanart-Hastur's sister Liriel, for example).
One basic question that doesn't seem to have been answered is why CAN'T the Elhalyn monarch be a woman? Even if it weren't a purely ceremonial role, what would be the basis for such an argument? It's stated earlier in the series that laran in most Comyn families is fully developed only in the males--but there are so many exceptions to this that the exceptions prove the rule--and prove it mostly untrue.
I note that there are more scholars and archives in this book than in most of the earlier books. I suppose I must attribute this to the coauthor.
I've gotten only about halfway through, and I find that I can only vaguely anticipate what comes next. I'll keep on.
I understand that this essentially becomes the second leg of a trilogy, or rather (since this is a double volume) the middle two volumes of a tetrology in one volume. Since this book was published only 2 years before Bradley's death, I would suspect that this was probably the last subseries in the Darkover series.
I do note some inconsistencies in the characters of some people in the stories. One of them is the supposed character of Derik Elhalyn's ghost. Derik Elhalyn was not merely eccentric--he was downright mentally disabled. He didn't have anything even remotely like a forceful character. And whatever his relationship with his sister (which seems to have been more than a little bit incestuous), he was sincerely attached to his fiance, with whom he died. So where is she in all this?
Maybe it's explained more in the second 'book' in this volume.
No such luck. The sister Priscilla is simply killed off, for no obvious reason, and the children fostered by Mikhail. The second volume ('book') in this (almost) trilogy-in-one-volume has more children in it than most of the rest of the series. They're real children, too, with personalities and biographies, however short they may be by this point. In some ways, indeed, it's easier to tell the children apart than the adults, especially if you haven't read the other books in the Darkover canon.
By this point the Terran 'Empire' of earlier days has become a Federation, and there are elements in the Federation Senate and Representative Council who are trying to eliminate the Protected status of those planets not already forced into full membership. They're also trying to eliminate the humanities and focus the sciences on only militaristic technology. Where have I heard that before?
One point that really irritated me was the consistent confusion between 'council' and 'counsel', which are two ENTIRELY different things, and yet the words are repeatedly used interchangeably, and too often inappropriately. A council can give counsel, and a counselor may be part of a counsel, but the two are NOT identical.
The end of the second book and the beginning of the third is in the form of a summons to Mikhail and Margaret to go to the ruins of Hali tower in order to be transported back into the past. This summons is so powerful that it kills two people (one of whom is identified, and the other never is), and injures quite a few others. I understand the desperation involved, but this sort of 'collateral damage' can NEVER be justified, no matter how great the need. It can only be hoped that Varzil was not aware of what effect his summons would have.
The 'Book 3' in the Ages of Chaos is full of exhortations to ruthlessness, and the protagonists are FAR too receptive to the seductions of arguments as to why one can (and even, it's argued, should) deny one's compassion to others. It's not a matter of what the victims of the protagonists do, or even of how they justify what they do. One of the people who are murdered (and make no mistake, if you abandon a helpless and injured person in a building you're destroying, it IS murder) is a CHILD. Not an 'innocent' child, no. But 'innocence' matters a lot less than people are led to believe. The child in question is a child soldier, as much as the non-leronyn around her. Rescued and properly fostered, she might well have recovered her sanity and humanity, and done as much good in the world as she did harm in the service of her family. But we'll never know now, will we? Because she's abandoned to become just another ghost.
In truth, it's the argument that people CAN forfeit their right to sympathy, humane treatment, and redemption that creates people like the helpless murder victim in the story. And, for that matter, that creates people like the victim's rather less horribly murdered brother. The argument that it's less horrible to kill somebody in 'a fair fight' than (as in the first 'book') to slaughter people essentially paralyzed by an irresistible command is to a certain extent specious. No matter how a death is procured, it's still unrecoverable. But placing people beyond the reach of forgiveness or even sympathy is almost as final, since too often it's used to 'justify' murders.
Despite the above doubts, the resolution of the story is very compelling, and I wouldn't have skipped it. I would, however, have liked to hear a better investigation of what ailed Diotima Ridenow. One of the main problems I have with the concept of non-medical 'healers' is that their treatments are non-exportable. If there could be enough healers to treat everybody, it might not matter. But if the skills needed to heal are not teachable, there's no way of increasing the number of such healers. Maybe that's one of the things programmed into Varzil's ring-matrix. Let's hope so, anyhow.
Having read the prequel (Exile's Song), I'm reading this again. Though I read it less than a fortnight ago, I'm still encountering things I overlooked in the first readthrough. I expected to understand more once I got the first book read, but I'm also noting things that don't depend on knowing what happened in the earlier book, but which I now have time to note because I'm not trying to reconstruct the earlier book using allusions in this volume.
I'll finish the book again, and see if my conclusions change much--and in future, I'll be more careful about not reading the second book in a trilogy first.
Bradley used to say that she tried to write her books so that you didn't have to read them in order. I don't think she always succeeded, but in this trilogy, it's definitely a good idea to read them in order...at least so far.
There are still parts that I find inconsistent with the earlier Darkover books. I do NOT approve of trying to revamp Darkovan society into strict serial monogamy. I also don't like the elements of homophobia. It might be that just the individual characters are personally homophobic--but I still don't like it.
I should point out that the concept that monogamy is more congenial to free choices by women and to individual freedom than formal and/or informal polygamous systems is not consistent with anthropological and ethnographic data. It's not just true polygamy that has legal and social advantages for marriage partners (including, but not limited to, equitable distribution of resources)--the same applies to polyandrous and the much more common polygynous households.
Why? Because the social, legal, and other protections provided to secondary wives (and, less commonly, husbands), concubines (called 'barragana' on Darkover), and other formal or informal non-monogamous relationships are lost when a society begins to de-legitimize these relationships, without any real gain in freedom for either the monogamous partners or those not in relationships.
This is amply documented in studies of societies being forced into monogamy, where both legal wives and husbands lose ground. In 'formerly' polygynous societies, for example, the men don't change their behavior--they still take lovers, particularly if they go into cities to get jobs that pay in cash rather than in kind. But since they're legally forbidden to regularize the situation by marrying their 'mistresses', everybody loses: the legal wives, the mistresses, and the husbands. The legal wives lose not only the material and emotional support they would formerly have been guaranteed (as well as laws, customs, and social mores CAN guarantee good behavior) from husbands, co-wives, and other guarantors in the community. The 'mistresses' lose support also from their lovers, co-wives, family, law, and community; and the husbands lose guarantees in matters like custody of children.
Also, as the Tiv women point out in Laura Bohannon's work, men are generally bigger and stronger than women, so if the women have no co-wives to support them, the men have the potential to become terrible bullies. You'd think that Margaret Alton, who has a background in ethnology (at least to the point of ethnomusicology), would KNOW that sort of thing.
One thing more: I don't agree that empires, federations, etc are inherently unstable. I find predictive models of expansion and decline of large social organizations inherently limited by a very small number of samples. The Terran Federation of the Darkover stories has a little more material, maybe. But it's still not much more than a third again as much as we have in the present day. And for contrast, even by the most conservative estimates of the length of human tenure on Earth, this is STILL less than 20%. Better than an n of 1: but still not big enough to make any deterministic predictions. And this is assuming that deterministic predictions are even POSSIBLE with intelligent beings--and that's arguably a less than probably assumption.
I've acquired the third book in this trilogy (Traitor's Sun, and may I point out from a start that I HATE the title), so I'll get to that and read it in sequence.