Book 1

Book 2

In particular I want to discuss Tristan d'Arcenne, the narrator of The Bandit King and the heroine's love interest in The Hedgewitch Queen.

This post is full of spoilers for both books, so I suggest you skip it if you have any wish to read them.


In the first book, The Hedgewitch Queen (henceforth THQ), we see events unfold from the first person point of view of Duchesse Vianne di Rocancheil,  lady in waiting to the Heir apparent of the throne of Arquitaine, a fictional fantasy Kingdom modeled after France.  As such we only know what she knows, what she thinks, what she believes and suspects.

In the second book, The Bandit King (henceforth TBK), we see events unfold from the first person point of view of Tristan d'Arcenne, Left Hand of the (now deceased) King, Captain of the Royal Guard and Vianne's Consort.  While the events are after The Hedgewitch Queen and tell the tale of the siege and revolution, it harkens back to the events of Book 1, but we never directly witness those events.

In THQ Vianne is in awe of Tristan, but having been basically told she was inferior to her Princesse Lisele, she doesn't think too much of everyone's jesting that he is besotted with her.  Despite him all but throwing himself at her feet and begging for her love.  Its interesting because while Vianne catalogs and recognizes his many devoted acts, she dismisses them as easily.

From time to time she suspects him of a deeper game, wonders at some of the smaller details in the tales he told her, but overall she doesn't suspect him of the crime that got him locked up--regicide (that is the murder of his King).

Therein lies the problem--everyone, except for two people who appear later on with their own agenda and axe to grind against the King, and thus appear 'biased' against Tristan--swears themselves blue that Tristan is a good person.  He's loyal, he's devoted, he's hard-working, everything a person should be and aspire to be.  I'd say about 85% of THQ is Tristan being set up as some sort of noble hero, who may have gotten his hands dirty but not because he's a bad person.  His King, who he was utterly loyal to, asked it of him so how could he refuse?

And then the hammer falls.  Remember THQ is still from Vianne's viewpoint so she is shaken, but willing to concede that things may not be as they seem.  It did not sit right.

TBK begins with Tristan enumerating every single thing that a person bearing the title of Left Hand has to endure.  He remarks, a few times, that he has had to do the lowest of the low for his King, but that's to be expected.  The book continues as he tries to understand what Vianne was told to distress her, his eavesdropping of the full report and lastly his arrest for treason.

Throughout this entire arc (the first quarter of the book) he has two thoughts dominate--how to spin the story so that Vianne does not despise him and how much he wishes she knew that he did it for her.  Everything he did was for her.  He tells her his tale--how he fell in love with her on sight, how he rose through the ranks to gain her attention, pleading with the King to grant him permission to court her, the King's intention to barter her away to some petty noble of another land--how he did everything for love of her.

As if this makes it right.

As if this makes it better.

I won't spoil how she reacts, nor how their story ends, but let me ask you--how far can a person go before the excuse 'I did it for love of you' is no longer valid?  When does a feeling go from love to obsession?   When does a man who is propped up as a hero become a villain because of his 'love'?

Its important to note that the King was not a particularly good ruler.  I think the Court was modeled after Versailles in that while the King and courtiers partied hardy, everyone suffered under heavy taxation, starvation, sickness and neglect.  The King let his brother the 'villain' of this duo of books (d'Orlaans) basically get away with murder (often literally) as long as he could hold his parties and host his fetes.

Not once does anyone think to hold this up as a good reason to a) overthrow/murder the King, b) as a slightly more palatable excuse as to why Tristan did as he did (he should have asked Jaime Lannister for some tips in that regard) or c) as a lesson to learn.  I don't think it even crosses any of their minds.  Certainly Tristan sole unhappiness with the late King centered around the man's refusal to let him court Vianne (I don't think he even regretted what he did for him), he didn't even seem to spare a thought for the peasants.

And there's the crux of the matter--at some point in the decade plus he's known/watched Vianne his love became a jealous obsession.  He admits at one point that he couldn't see her married off like some pawn in a game and thus the King had to die.  He then spends most of TBK wondering why Vianne would be scared of him, after learning it.  Call me simple, but maybe she doesn't want history to repeat itself?  She can't possibly believe just how deep his obsession goes. 

There's one other way I probably would have accepted his almost Christian Grey level of obsession with Vianne.  The Aryx, which is the pendant belonging to the rulers of Arquitaine (assuming they are worthy, which none have been until Vianne) has been shown to manipulate things to suit its own agenda.  Kind of.  Its not quite explicitly stated so, but Vianne muses on it in THQ (as always Tristan could care less since its not about his love for Vianne).

While I wouldn't have been happy with that excuse, if Saintcrow had even halfway implied that the Aryx kind of...influenced Tristan, I would have accepted it more than he did it for his love of Vianne.  I can't reconcile that with the fact Saintcrow has put him as the 'hero'.

But that's my opinion.  How do you guys feel about a hero who goes to such extremes?  Has anyone else read either one?  How did you feel about it?