I do have a question, though: I must have missed the bit where Novik explains why children are so at risk: are the maleficaria just more attracted to kids, or are they just less able to defend themselves? And how is the mundane world not aware of any of this?

OK, I had these questions in mind as I was rereading the first one and then reading the second and while she goes into a little more detail in the second one I don't think it's spoilery to say they are more attractive because they are less able to defend themselves? I think? I have the feelig, although I cannot justify this with textual evidence, that newly blossomed power may be extra fresh and tasty to mals. But also having no power means not being an attractive morsel, so really young kids are safe. The mundane world is apparently quite the magic damper, it's apparently hard to even demonstrate magic in front of someone who doesn't know magic is a thing the way we know gravity is a thing - being open-minded or credulous or whatever is not enough - and even if you can the mundane brain will paper that experience over with some alternate explanation. I find that first part hard to wrap my mind around, like, historically how did that happen? Because surely everyone intrinsically believed in magic 5,000 years ago if not much more recently, why would that have changed so dramatically? Maybe it has something to do with enclaves splitting themselves off from reality for security reasons.

I really enjoy the Lord John mysteries.

DG is almost at Anne Rice levels of I Don't Want To Edit And You Can't Make Me.

I appreciate this comment so much. I was wondering.

The new T. Kingfisher book arrived on my e-reader Saturday, I started reading (in between bouts of serious cleaning) and I stayed up late last night (into this morning) reading. It's good. I may like it the best of the three (so far) Saint of Steel books.

Toddson. Agreed. And I really like how the end sets up another book without being a cliffhanger. As well as more info about gnoles.

I was trying to decide if that qualifies as a cliffhanger or not. I guess not. But I would like the next book now, please!

Love getting to know more about gnole society.

I don't know if I like this one better than the others but I do feel like now I like the series as a series whereas the other two I liked as individual books, which I am probably explaining badly but seemed significant.

I think there have to be more books - there are still four paladins who haven't found love (and adventures) yet. As well as filling us in on the non-cliffhanger.

I decided it's not a cliffhanger for this particular book, but it might be that for the series. Kinda depends on where she goes with the next one. And there better be a next one. And soon, thank you kindly.

Yes, I'm expecting 4 more. I was thinking Marcus next but then I got to the end and now I don't have any idea what is going to happen but I really want to. This is one of the things I was reflecting on that made me appreciate the series: how each book focuses on a paladin and a love interest but the little things we learn about the other paladins (and other supporting characters) set up their own books so well and when, say, Stephen pops up as a supporting character in this one it doesn't feel like a cameo appearance, they are all more integrated, I guess, even though most of the book is just Galen and Piper and Earstripe doing a dungeon crawl. And if that's not what a dungeon crawl is, I probably don't want to be corrected

I see the distinction you are drawing there, bennett, and it makes sense. I was thinking it wasn't a cliffhanger because it's not really anyone in peril (or is it? But that's not the primary impact even if it is)

I did like reading about characters from earlier books - the paladins plus Jorge and Brindle and his ox and Zane. I didn't remember Piper from the previous book, but I guess he was there (obviously I need to re-read).