On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 19:31, Andrew Lias wrote: > [Dragons and Devera sightings) > > > It was the best theory I could come up with. I do concede that it is not > >rational to see a dragon and say hey it's Devera all the time :) > >Also It's very possible she has only one appearance through the three books > >(which can be thought of as one) The latter theory was not mine, but my 2 > >cents is that it's just as good as mine given they are both theories. > > Does anyone know if Brust originally intended to have tVoA published as a > single novel but that it got split up, after the fact, due to its size (or > other considerations)? > > If it was written with the intent to have a single publication, then I think > that this theory is, indeed, quite credible. On the other hand if SKZB > intended, all along, to have it published in three segments, I can't imagin > that he wouldn't contrive to have a Devera sighting in each one. I remember hearing some years ago that it was intended to be split, and I believe that was his intention all along. However, I still think my theory that there may be only one Devera sighting for tVoA[1] is supported by the fact that the cast listing at the front of PotD is for all of tVoA, not just PotD.[2] As well as the fact that Paarfi repeatedly refers to the work as tVoA, and not PotD. [1] Ever since the dragon theory, as well as the Issola reference was explained, I no longer believe this theory, but I still think its a nice theory.[3] [2] Remember the interview in the end of FHYA where Brust indicates he asked Paarfi to put Devera in. Paarfi may only feel obligated to put her in at one point in the entire work. [3] This theory could still be true.. we'll have to see if there're sightings in the next to volumes, and I hope there are. Jag