I need to talk about the way NK Jemisin plays with our expectations regarding morality throughout The Inheritance Trilogy.
The first book introduces us to the divine pantheon via Arameri propaganda—essentially, the god of light and order = good while the god of darkness and chaos = bad and the goddess of twilight and life and death was also bad but she’s dead now. And (predictably to anyone with a basic knowledge of genre conventions) this turns out to be BS. The god currently on top actually turns out to have started the whole war and killed his sister and enslaved his brother for no reason, and the god who essentially is introduced as the bogeyman is really the victim in this whole scenario. This parallels the ongoing revelations that the Arameri are evil cutthroat tyrants actually. So the story ends with the gods we’ve learned to like escaping the control of the Arameri and turning the tables on the evil head honcho god. Readers learn a valuable—if well-trodden in media—lesson about not making assumptions and how order and light =/= good and darkness and chaos =/= evil.
And if that were all there was, that’d still be playing with genre narratives regarding light vs. darkness and order vs. chaos and thus would be moderately interesting. But probably not interesting enough to inspire this long-as-hell post.
HOWEVER.
The next book does something even more interesting—it flips the script. We follow a close confidant of the evil god who did all the bad shit and we learn that he, also, is more complex than he seems! We learn that he felt abandoned by his siblings and was manipulated by someone and while this does not excuse any of the bad shit he did, it does give us more context. And on the flip side, we see more vengeful sides of the “good” deities we know and love. Even the few human characters who seemed purely good in book one are revealed to be not so—for example, the kindly man who was appointed the new ruler pulls out someone’s tongue with tongs. Meanwhile we also learn that as terrible as the Arameri are their absence could potentially have even worse results.
And THEN book three takes it further, where we see that even the goddess who up until now has been portrayed as the Best One did some really fucked up things before she died. Like, oh, child abuse. And she basically caused the problem that exists now. Meanwhile we get further reminders of how the war wasn’t as unnuanced as it seemed earlier.
So what we’re left with is a situation where you realize that no character is pure good or pure evil, that circumstances shape people, that change is possible if often hard, and that a single individual can be capable of great good and great evil. I find this a very refreshing take on morality.











