That ending with Richard and Lymond together!! It was absolutely perfect and the book built up so much to that point! I had a series of misgivings about Lymond because the evidence against him was so strong and he barely refuted it at all during the book. I was so relieved especially with the reveal that it was Andrew Harper who tried to murder Richard with the arrow, and was sending the jewels to Mariotta. The arrow, especially, seemed unforgivable, and I was trying to put it off as authorial license with Lymond’s abilities (like he was such an expert shot that he wouldn't kill him, but it seemed a stretch). So that was wiped clean by Sybilla’s confrontation with Andrew.
I never thought Lymond intentionally killed his sister. All the stuff in the past seemed like a lie, but the things of violence and vice we (readers) witnessed were the hardest against him, and I was delighted that in the end most of it turned out to be false too.
Here’s a question, though. Sybilla seemed to be aware of Lymond’s innocence (in the murder attempt, and how her house wasn’t actually burned, her silver stolen), but why did she let Richard believe such awful things when Richard was clearly ready to murder Lymond? Richard was gearing up for it the entire book so that their duel was completely believable, until their fateful interlude in the woods when Richard had a change of heart. But was there a good political reason why Richard had to hate Lymond, or was it all just a complicated family situation?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/5/17 04:25 pm (UTC)That ending with Richard and Lymond together!! It was absolutely perfect and the book built up so much to that point! I had a series of misgivings about Lymond because the evidence against him was so strong and he barely refuted it at all during the book. I was so relieved especially with the reveal that it was Andrew Harper who tried to murder Richard with the arrow, and was sending the jewels to Mariotta. The arrow, especially, seemed unforgivable, and I was trying to put it off as authorial license with Lymond’s abilities (like he was such an expert shot that he wouldn't kill him, but it seemed a stretch). So that was wiped clean by Sybilla’s confrontation with Andrew.
I never thought Lymond intentionally killed his sister. All the stuff in the past seemed like a lie, but the things of violence and vice we (readers) witnessed were the hardest against him, and I was delighted that in the end most of it turned out to be false too.
Here’s a question, though. Sybilla seemed to be aware of Lymond’s innocence (in the murder attempt, and how her house wasn’t actually burned, her silver stolen), but why did she let Richard believe such awful things when Richard was clearly ready to murder Lymond? Richard was gearing up for it the entire book so that their duel was completely believable, until their fateful interlude in the woods when Richard had a change of heart. But was there a good political reason why Richard had to hate Lymond, or was it all just a complicated family situation?