Why a Hard Brexit is the only Logical Option (Opinions from a Remainer)

What's the point of having the worst parts of being in the EU and the worst parts of being out the EU? i.e. a Soft Brexit. There isn't. Hence a Hard Brexit.

With Theresa May’s majority (and consequently authority) having been removed in the latest general election, people have called for the Prime Minister to provide a Soft Brexit rather than a Hard Brexit. I voted Remain yet I don’t want a Soft Brexit.

I voted Remain not because of the economy or a European identity, but more for preventing the long, convoluted process that leaving would be. There are better things to do with government’s time. Plus people using it as a protest vote against the UK government makes little sense (which I have complained about before at length). But as this is what we now have, I am happy to live with it.

Many see Soft Brexit as a compromise between Leavers and Remainers. I don’t see it that way. Sure, the UK would retain access to the Single Market and all those benefits with a Soft Brexit, but the UK would no longer have a say in creating EU laws, laws which the UK would still have to follow. Plus the UK would have to contribute to the EU budget and, most likely, lose the substantial rebate that Margaret Thatcher arranged for us. What sense is there in following rules when you have no power to make or change those rules?

Further, the reason most people voted to leave was for the UK to regain full sovereignty of itself. So a Soft Brexit, a Brexit where the UK would regain no sovereignty, would be ignoring what the people voted for and that would be a major mistake for any politician to make.

Like I said before, I wanted to Remain. I was more than happy for EU to have authority over the UK. It didn’t bother me in the slightest and I would be fine for it to continue, but ONLY if we had some control over the authority. Being a member of the EU means regulating EU laws whereas a Soft Brexit means no power to regulate EU laws yet still have to follow them.

A Soft Brexit would give the UK a relationship with the EU akin to one between child and parent. That’s not a sensible position to be in. That would make the UK worse off than it being a member so, in this eventuality, the UK, gaining nothing but losing everything, should logically remain a member of the EU. If the UK is to the leave the EU, it should fledge the best rather than staying to hold its hand. 

As I said before, there's no point of having the worst parts of being in the EU and the worst parts of being out the EU like a Soft Brexit would provide.

Critique: Last Battle of the Icemark (Stuart Hill)

***SPOILERS***

Not long after the second book, the Icemark has to do battle with the Dark Realms and the Artimision, Hypolitans of the South. It was fun and sufficiently dramatic for the closing book in a trilogy. My main criticism of the last book was about how not keeping a mystery alove (especially one central to the plot) curtailed suspicion of belief. Throughout this book, the reader is consistently reminded that Oskan has a secret weapon, keeping the mystery alive and thus justifying its existence. Plus Oskan, my favourite human character, got back his personality of humour and grins, even despite stress. That was great.

There were several things that were done really well. Artemision (the warring nation) is a clear reference to Artemis, a Greek goddess of war. Adronicus (‘andro’ as in ‘male’), one of the generals, is fighting the female warriors. The Emperor was very sweet, his meeting with Thirrin was moving, and the pairing of Cressida and Leonidas is wonderfully adorable. A personal favourite feature of mine was Medea’s ‘chair-that-was-almost-a-throne’.

There were also several things that were stupid mistakes. There is no beating around the bush with any of these.

First. Sharley looks for snow leopard footprints even though moments before it is stated that snow leopards don’t leave footprints. How did this get pass editorial? How did this even get written? It was too stupid to be irritated by.

            Second. The Vampire Queen bemoans the long centuries she will have to rule alone. Then straight after she states that time has no relevance to her. Well, clearly it does. If maybe time had no relevance for her until she had to rule long centuries alone, then this would have been great. But these two statements weren’t linked, directly or in the subtext.

Third. I found Medea’s hatred to be unrealistic. The excuse of ‘she was a hormonal teenager’ just doesn’t justify the scale of her feelings. It seemed more like a caricature than an actual personality. And whilst she was in the realm of evil, it didn’t appear to inflate any emotion (bar insanity, which wasn’t what Medea displayed) of any other individual, so why her?

And the fact that she, an injured 15 year-old, survived the evil realm when adults didn’t is farfetched. Yes, she managed to cloud the senses of the most powerful warlock ever (Oskan) in the last book, but this very same warlock injured her. Perhaps she was strong enough to survive but the injury and young age gave her the side-effect of inflated hatred? This still doesn’t persuade me, though.

Now I want to talk religion.

            The Icemark connection to nature and magic validates a Pagan comparison. The faith of the Mekhmet’s Desert Kingdom is monotheistic and seems, in form, content and context, to be inspired by Islam. Finally you have the mythology of the Icemark (which is portrayed as historical events) in which Valkyrie-like figures take dead warriors to Valhalla (Nordic beliefs, anyone?) and there is an on-going battle between good and evil after a cosmic war between angels and demons (Christian/general Abrahamic influences). The leader of good is the Goddess who the good witches/warlocks in particular worship (tying it back in with Paganism).

The book opens with the celebration of Samhain, mentioning that older people called it Halloween. On the one hand, Halloween was the Christian name for the Pagan festival of Samhain, so it would make sense if the older people called the festival Samhain and the newer Halloween. On the other hand, this could be a nod to the real world, reflecting that people have called the festival Halloween for so many years now and it’s only relevantly recently that witches have called the festival Samhain. So either the author is ignorant or well-aware of the history of the festival’s name.

After the cosmic battle, the Goddess offered her loving forgiveness to those who opposed her. But then why did the Goddess throw these ones out? The book made clear that they were thrown out as much on purpose as those that scorned it. Why offer forgiveness if you won’t grant it. The book never dealt with this issue and left me wondering.

Overall, this book (and the trilogy) was great fun. The blend of religions into a harmonious whole was well done. The plots and characters were interesting. There was a good amount of description. It was fantastic to have magic and animals talking. Werewolves that weren’t evil and didn’t lose control or transform was done well, characterising a well-loved myth in a different light as a nation of rational people. Yet whilst I have found a lot to criticise, it didn’t take away from me enjoying a fantasy world positively.

Reviews: The Icemark (Stuart Hill)

The Cry of the Icemark (Book One)

 https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-cry-of-icemark-by-stuart-hill.html

Blade of Fire (Book Two)

https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2017/06/blade-of-fire-by-stuart-hill.html

Critique: Blade of Fire (Stuart Hill)

***SPOILERS***

Set twenty years on from the last book, Thirrin and Oskan have five children: Cressida (the Crown Princess), the twins, Medea (a powerful weather witch) and Sharley (disabled due to childhood illness). Bellorum comes to invade the Icemark once more. And once more, I had a very good read. There were, however, issues with consistency in both the series together as well as within this book itself.

Before I critique the finer details, I want to praise the idea of principle character Sharley. He was a brat, wanted to be a warrior, had a disability and was, in my opinion, clearly not heterosexual. The fact of the latter two in the principle character was truly fantastic. Diversity always is.

I shared similarities with Sharley in that we both became disabled due to childhood illnesses and our family and friends thought that meant we couldn’t achieve what we wanted to. Sharley’s a moody chode about it, though, blaming everyone and complaining about the injustice of it all rather than just accepting what happened and working towards his goals in spite of his difficulties. By the end of the book, he had proved everyone wrong and ironed out all his issues, so Sharley’s character development was well-executed.

            It also really excited me that Sharley and Mekhmet were clearly in the makings of a romantic relationship. Whilst this is only hinted at, and that they had a fast friendship to begin with, I don’t doubt the romance. I think Sharley is bi/pan (his reaction to the beauty of the Blessed Ones is one of desire rather than appreciation), but as there were no real non-family female interactions with these two characters, there is no way to be sure. Admittedly their sexual identity is not essential to the plot, but it made me happy to imagine the wedding that the liberal(ish) country of the Icemark would bring.

Character inconsistency was a major problem for me in this book. Thirrin was the only character carried through from the previous novel who changed in a realistic manner. Instantly this seems okay: if the main character is consistent then the others shouldn’t be so consequential, right? Wrong, because Thirrin is no longer the main character.

Oskan, my favourite human character in the previous novel, no longer made any funny comments, the very things that made him my favourite. A whole part of his personality had just disappeared. Yes, people change as they grow, but something so central to one’s personality doesn’t just stand up and leave. For this to happen, Oskan would have had to suffer something quite serious: something this significant would have needed some explanation or even just a suggestion, but there was not a whiff of it in this book or the next. So this was a consistency error.

            Another surprising change in character was that of Maggie. He was really nasty to Sharley. That’s an aspect of his personality that had never been seen or hinted towards before or after. In the situation that they were in, i.e. educating an Oakenshield who just wants to do military exercises, he despairs at his luck. Despair could have escalated to an angry outburst but there was no such build up. Further, Maggie didn’t react angrily to anything else in the rest of the series. So this behaviour just didn’t suite Maggie.

Yet the change the Bellorum underwent was mostly convincing: he’d become obsessive with the idea of killing Thirrin and enslaving the Icemark. This makes sense: Bellorum’s first ever defeat was at the hands and paws of the Icemark alliance. That would have affected his deeply. But the insanity that came along with it was… odd. An all-encompassing obsession is neurotic, yes (#TeamOCD), but not insane.

As before, I disliked the battle march and battle cry of the Icemark. They got repetitive and boring to the point where I would just skip over it. If you have to skip some pages, that’s a problem. Plus the rallying effect it had simply wasn’t a proportional reaction.

Due to Sharley’s disabilities, he was a liability during a war so his parents wanted him to leave the country. Conveniently, the Queen and Consort also needed someone they trusted to lead those not able to fight elsewhere, so Sharley was given the task of leading them.

            This group of people was referred in-story as ‘exiles’, a word that is traditionally used for someone who has been forced to leave the country forever. Seeing as the intention (and the resultant reality) was for them to return, them being referred to as ‘exiles’ by their own monarch just wasn’t apt. A refugee, however, is someone who leaves until conditions get better (i.e. the war is won), which is why I believe ‘refugee’ would have been a better choice of terminology.

            Another issue with this situation was why no one questioned why Medea wasn’t sent away with Sharley. Medea was as much a liability as her brother, considering that she was unwilling to help with the war at all. If Medea died whilst in the warzone, it would be for nothing. She could be far away, doing her nothing in safety! So why would Thirrin and Oskan keep her in the Icemark? Her parents had a reason, surely?

No? Oh. In fact, no one, not even Medea, ever mentions her staying until the end, when it’s revealed Medea used magic to stop people questioning this. So it makes sense why no one else engaged. But it never quite made sense that Medea wouldn’t: Medea is a main character and the reader witnesses her intricate, well-rationaled thoughts about many issues over and over again. So why didn’t we see Medea think about performing this magic, or doing it, or revelling over the effects like she does over other magic she performs?

Clearly it was intended as a mystery for suspense until the reveal… but this can’t be achieved if the mystery is allowed to die. There needs to be clues and allusions, not forgetting to mention it until the end. Even Medea feeling successful when Sharley leaves and not her would have sufficed at keeping the mystery alive. A story thread that isn’t threaded into its story is a pointless thread that should be pulled out. And considering as this was so essential to the plot, it should have been weaved in tightly.

Whilst this was disappointing enough, the fact that this happened over an event so essential to the plot shows lazy writing. Medea staying was essential for the plot: without Medea’s storm to destroy the ships, Sharley wouldn’t have made contacts leading him to Mekhmet and thus become the warrior hero of the story (and Medea couldn’t attempt to kill Sharley with a storm if she herself was on one of the ships). Medea staying in the Icemark was an essential driving force for the plot but it wasn’t justified in story sufficiently. Thus this plot point was messily dealt with.

So the author seemed to struggle with balancing the change of a character whilst keeping the change consistent with who the characters actually were. There was also the issue of terminological inaccuracies. The main issue was, of course, the reader being aware of everything Medea did/thought, and yet not how she managed to escape going abroad. It was still enjoyable and fun, though, so these negatives were things that could have been tidied up easily in the editorial stages. If nothing else, the gayness of Sharley and Mekhmet (shipname: Sharmet?) was refreshing to see, as was having a disabled character as the lead.

Reviews: The Icemark (Stuart Hill)

The Cry of the Icemark (Book One)

 https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-cry-of-icemark-by-stuart-hill.html

Last Battle of the Icemark (Book Three)

https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2017/06/last-battle-of-icemark-by-stuart-hill.html