Absolutely enchanting when works in a connected universe do not undercut each other, but rather enrich each other’s themes. As a well known example, the Knives Out movies exist in concert, each exploring a different form of financial and cultural power that controls our lives. I’ve seen a lot of people talking about the way that each movie supports the others’ theses. BUT. I ESPECIALLY want to talk about the opposite case, where one narrative contradicts or at least *complicates* the other without rendering it worthless. My best example of this is in Alexandra Rowland’s books. Power structures that pass completely unexamined in A Taste of Gold and Iron form the thematic underpinning of Running Close to the Wind. And this is done with clear intention. I could spend a long time unpacking the precise reasons for this, but we’ll stick with two big ones for now. First, there is simply not room in one book to talk about every problem in the world, and second, the issues that the characters wrestle with in their respective novels are informed by their positions and experiences.
A Taste of Gold and Iron is about the prince of an expansive mercantile empire. Within its pages, the world building is so rich and immersive that you, the reader, necessarily *participate* in empire. Stabilizing the empire is the characters’ core motive, and the reader accepts this as a worthy goal. Meanwhile, Running Close to the Wind is about outcasts, runaways, and revolutionaries—people at the fringes of the social hierarchy—and through their eyes, the empire is a vehicle of control. It’s so obvious, from the outside, that the rules and traditions that the characters live by in a Taste of Gold and Iron are only constructs. By the end of Running Close to the Wind, the clear path forward for our characters is to destabilize the empire. This is *also* framed as a good and worthy goal. I read Running Close to the Wind first, and when I read A Taste of Gold and Iron, the opposite courses of these narratives—unfolding not only concurrently, but with the exact same inciting incident!—left me with a distinct sense of cognitive dissonance. And that’s awesome! In this universe, we read from the perspectives of people with almost every permutation of privilege. It’s possible as a reader to live all these realities. Where else can you get this experience? What could be a more succinct exercise in unpacking your own biases? The friction between these books mimics the real experience of trying to dissemble your cultural conditioning and engage in your culture at the same time.
It’s significant to me that this is not the focus of either book, but still such an inescapable facet of the storytelling. The very fact that these stories work subtly against each other forces the reader to confront the fact that no single story can be correct or even complete.
tldr: In the Knives Out universe, the protagonists could likely commiserate. By contrast, there’s a non-zero chance that, given the right quirk of circumstance, Rowland’s protagonists would hand each other over for execution in the town square. And that is a really valuable meta commentary.