I never saw that as the book's definition of honour - I thought it was presented as the (wrongheaded) Dalemark aristocrats' idea of honour.
This is such a cold, cold book! The children have been brought up in the belief that their parents' romantic elopement was the beginning of a happy-go-lucky life as nomadic bards. Then they find out that their father was a ruthless manipulator who coerced their mother into it, while their mother has been lying by omission when she backs him up out of her barren sense of duty. So their father did some really despicable things, while their mother's silence means they never really knew her. It's no wonder they feel like orphans.
It always struck me as a fairly savage look at quite how much damage a "let's stay together for the sake of the children" attitude can do if the children end up being fed a diet of lies.
On top of that is the emphasis on the way that idealistic freedom fighters can hurt so many innocent bystanders, which is also a theme in a couple of the other Dalemark books. So I always found it very uncomfortable reading.
no subject
This is such a cold, cold book! The children have been brought up in the belief that their parents' romantic elopement was the beginning of a happy-go-lucky life as nomadic bards. Then they find out that their father was a ruthless manipulator who coerced their mother into it, while their mother has been lying by omission when she backs him up out of her barren sense of duty. So their father did some really despicable things, while their mother's silence means they never really knew her. It's no wonder they feel like orphans.
It always struck me as a fairly savage look at quite how much damage a "let's stay together for the sake of the children" attitude can do if the children end up being fed a diet of lies.
On top of that is the emphasis on the way that idealistic freedom fighters can hurt so many innocent bystanders, which is also a theme in a couple of the other Dalemark books. So I always found it very uncomfortable reading.