The Traitor's Heir

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.

---

WHAT'S THE TRAITOR'S HEIR ABOUT?

When the book opens, Eamon Goodman, the orphaned son of a bookbinder currently a cadet in the final stages of his training as a member of the army of the Master of the River Realm. He doesn't seem to be very good at being a soldier but is committed to passing and taking the oath. Beyond that, his heart doesn't seem to be in it, either—but maybe it's just the best route for some sort of security for him.

He seems to be a decent guy in an army that doesn't have a lot of them—although those traits seem to be highly valued. After taking his oath, and achieving more success than seems deserved he meets someone who claims to be a descendant of the true king, deposed some centuries ago. Eamon agrees to work for this King in the capital.

Eamon isn't the Chosen One—that's (presumably) the King. However, Eamon is a direct descendant of the last King's First Knight—champion and advisor. He's not the Chosen One—he's more like the Chosen Sidekick. Eamon's calling seems to be to aid the King to reclaim the throne and serve him.

He goes to the capital and follows the King's wishes. Until, with the help of a beautiful noblewoman, he gets distracted and serves the Master. Then circumstances lead him back to the King. And then...he ping-pongs between the two until he makes a final choice.

WHAT I DON'T GET...

I've run into this issue before, this isn't me picking on Thayer. The reader is clearly to get invested in this struggle between the King and the Master, we're supposed to want to see the Master defeated and the King to retake the throne. But...

There is no reason to root for the King and his forces here beyond "generations ago his ancestor lost the throne due to the duplicity of his trusted knight. We have no vision of how he'll improve anything for anyone but those supporters of his that have to hide their allegiance or have to live in his secret campground. His being on the throne would allow them to live openly and/or in society. Yes, he seems to be kind, compassionate, and honorable, but...there are a lot of good guys who happen to be related to someone who used to be in power that shouldn't be put back in a position of authority.

There aren't a lot of reasons for the reader to want to see the downfall of The Master. Sure, he treats those sewing dissension in the populace and/or actively working to bring down his government harshly. But...what government doesn't? The methods he uses seem extreme and capricious, but also seem like the kind of thing a government in this setting would do.

Don't get me wrong, it's clear that The Master is evil, he manipulates Eamon throughout—and anyone who gets "behind the curtain" to see how the government is run should have qualms about it. But John and Jane Smith working away in their village outside the city aren't being oppressed. They're not being starved. They're not being exploited. The same is true for Jill or Joe practicing their trades or selling their wares in the cities.

I can tell you why Panem's President Snow should be defeated. I can tell you why the Golds should be replaced by the government that Darrow's revolt made possible. The Sheriff of Nottingham? Oh, absolutely—Robin Hood is in the right. The White Witch and her never-ending (and Christmas-free) Winter need to be overthrown. But I can't tell you how things are going to be better for the River Realm or its people. That's really hard for me to push past.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT THE TRAITOR'S HEIR?

Thayer has a thinly disguised allegory here—our protagonist is a good man who has sworn an allegiance to an evil master while being given grace by the rightful king, who appeals to him to freely choose to serve this king. Allegories aren't necessarily supposed to be subtle, but this was just one degree shy of Pilgrim's Progress-level obviousness. Go for allegory if you want, but unless you're Bunyan, do something other than use it like a 2x4 in the hands of "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan.

Eamon didn't struggle between the two who wanted his allegiance. If you think of his allegiance as a number line from -10 to 10, he was wholly devoted to -10 and then swung to the other extreme. Then he'd rush back to -10. He never spent any time at 5, or -5—always the extreme. Show me some wavering. Show him spending some time around 0, teetering in each direction. Give me conflict. All I see is a flake that two antagonists are vying over—for no discernible reason than his status as Chosen Sidekick.

Eamon is a problematic character for me—even without his wavering allegiances. I clearly can't buy into the political struggle. I'm dissatisfied with the world-building (I had a section detailing it, but deleted it because this post was becoming too negative). This book was headed for the DNF pile...and yet.

And yet...

Thayer kept ensnaring me. I couldn't stop reading. I wasn't enjoying anything, didn't think I was reading a decent book—but I had to know what the next page held. And the next. And the next. Sure, I kept checking the page number so I knew how much longer this would go (and kept wishing the number was closer to 541)—but I'd have to see what 253 held. It makes no sense to me—but Thayer got her hooks in me. Her knack for that means I can't go lower than 3 (begrudging) stars

So yeah, this was a compelling, if frustrating, read. Your results may vary. I know at least one friend/sometimes reader of this blog will disagree with me (he is, after all, who recommended the book to me). Others are more than welcome—encouraged, even—to weigh in and tell me what I missed. Give this a shot if the idea appeals to you—the trilogy looks like it'll take a different shape than most. Just that novelty may be enough to intrigue you (it pulls on me).