Hans Schweitzer said:
>>Issola (paperback) pg. 230
>
>>Sethra is speaking of the "person" in question:
>
>>"Not now," said Sethra. She frowned, and finally said, "Very well.
>> Leave _her_ alone, we'll adjust."
>
>>Key word there: HER
>
>>Daemian "Spayde" DuMonde
>
>
> You will all know that I am stubborn, but I guess you would figure that
> out eventually. I finally got time/energy/motivation to recheck this.
> The part you are quoting doesn't necessarily refer to the dragon. While
> Vlad is reacting to this comment he makes this statement. "Watching
> Sethra, I got the impression that she was in psychic contact with
> someone or other, maybe all the gods at once, so she could direct the
> battle. I don't know” From this I assume that when Sethra says "Very
> well. Leave her alone, we'll adjust." She is no longer referring to the
> dragon. It certainly would make more sense that that was her reply to a
> psychic conversation that then a response to Aliera. I thought the
> "her" was the necromancer because she appears a page later. It could be
> anyone though as it is separates from the discussion of the dragon.
>
> You could of course question why Sethra said it out loud, but that’s
> easily explained. She is alone a lot and people develop a habit of
> speaking thoughts out loud when alone. It might have been easier to say
> it out loud because she was linked with all of the gods at once. Or
> maybe she didn't say it at all but was broadcasting her brainwaves
> strongly and Vlad caught them so well he thought she was speaking.
> (Aliera catches Vlad's brainwaves in one of the books.)
>
> I've also checked the rest of the battle and the dragon is always
> referred to as it.
>
> That said, I will acknowledge that the dragon might be Devera and now
> that I think about it makes more since even if I don't like the theory
> as much. I hadn't even considered her because I immediately decided it
> was K. If I really wanted to I'm sure I could "find" Devera somewhere
> else because I'm good at putting things in literature that the author
> doesn't.
>
> Hans refuses to trade his theory in for a better one.
Next you'll be debating the meaning of the word *is*. Feh.
Accept that the esteemed author intended it that way, and
quit pushing your boulder up the hill. Tenacity is a good thing,
but if you must elocute masturbatively, must we be witnesses?
-Rick