Dragaera

Paarfi's account vs... (major spoilers for Sethra Lavode)

Fri May 14 11:41:46 PDT 2004


On Wed, 12 May 2004, John Klein wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2004, Philip Hart wrote:
>
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> > doo dee doo
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @> >
> @> > @>
> @> >
> @> > Whether he'd fire lightning bolts is a tricky question. Right now, we
> @> > don't think he's a sorceror, but that's only because Paarfi said he
> @> > wasn't,
> @>
> @> and would have no reason to lie about it
>
> To preserve the image of his character, rather than tainting him with
> hints of the modern? Sure he does. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if
> Aerich was a sorceror all along, and Paarfi just omitted that detail
> because he could create a purer character without it.

Paarfi _is_ willing to "taint" Aerich - consider the Tazendra connection.
And if A. is as much of a sorcerer as Paresh claims, he could teleport
to the cave.

Really I think this ends this part of the discussion.



> @> > and we know Paarfi is a liar.
> @>
> @> Do we?  There's one mix-up in _TPG_ which I blame on Someone Else, and
> @> some angry academics, but anything solid?
>
> Sure.
>
> 1) Paarfi =~ Dumas, and Dumas was a liar. (A good one!)

So you'll be arguing that Paarfi is of mixed House?


> 2) Brust has said ex cathedra, that Paarfi was writing fiction rather than
> history (although he'd rather write history), and in general was making
> things up to fill in the blanks.

That is a good point, but I try to stick with what SKZB writes not says.


> 3) Sethra Lavode said some things about the Dragon/Jhereg war, and Paarfi
> made a half-assed attempt to pretend he didn't make things up, which did
> nothing but underline the fact that he made things up.

Here I don't follow you at all.  We know Vlad's account is wrong from
internal evidence (beheading != permanently killing)...

> I'm sure there's more than that, and someday I might even shift the burden
> of laziness long enough to look some of it up.

Be sure to CC me.


> @> > That said, might Paresh have exaggerated a little bit or (more likely)
> @> > have been temporarily blinded by fear? Maybe. But I'm going to assume the
> @> > truth is a /lot/ closer to his version than Paarfi's, which just made
> @> > absolutely no sense at all.
> @>
> @> I don't see this.  Aerich shows up, Paresh is insolent but Aerich can't be
> @> bothered to thrash him.
>
> The Paarfi version is more like:
>
> 1) Aerich appears.
> 2) Paresh says a couple of rude things.
> 3) Aerich thinks about it, then decides to ignore him and wanders around
> the castle.
> 4) Paresh teleports away for no apparent reason.

Point 4) is incorrect.  Paarfi has Paresh walking away, then spying on A
during the investigation.

I rather doubt Tazendra would have texts describing how to teleport,
unless Dragaerans suddenly but briefly became hasty.



> A noble just lets a commoner be rude to him without any kind of response?

Aerich has more important matters to deal with.

> Paresh leaves the only place he's ever lived to head into a completely
> unknown area without any kind of motivation?

He realizes the gig is up - the owner(s) of the castle will be notified.

> And abandons his library, foodstores, etc? And doesn't go back later?
> Nah. Doesn't wash.

For all we know, Paresh is lying to Vlad about knowing sorcery.  And in
all likelihood the foodstores would be running out or rotting - A eats his
own food according to Paarfi.


> @> Paresh says the Duke is his age.  Just wrong.
>
> Which is another interesting detail. Whatever else you may be contending
> that Paresh lied about, it makes absolutely no sense for him to claim that
> Aerich is his age. If he's trying to make himself seem like a hardass,
> he's going to paint a picture of someone older, wiser, and stronger than
> he is. Not someone who's just his age. Honestly, I wonder if Paarfi heard
> the story and just drew the same connection that people on the list did
> (it's about the right time, it must have been Aerich!).

Perhaps Paresh wasn't actually there and got his info second-hand.  Much
simpler than Paarfi making up the entire plotline from whole cloth - a
plotline that would be read by people in the know.


> @> Plus he'd have to know who the Duke was.
>
> Why, exactly? He doesn't have any particular need to. Teckla are
> customarily parochial.

The Duke was his master's liege.


> Sure, he's knee-jerk about judging Vlad. (Although he is also
> substantially correct in his observations.) And I'm not claiming he's
> dispassionate, just more honest than Paarfi.

I disagree - Vlad is actually interested in learning about who murdered
what's-his-name, but Paresh just treats him with contempt.

> It may be that this reduces to the fact that, as characters, I like Paresh
> and I don't much like Paarfi.

Our situations are reversed.


> @> I don't think this is a good line of argument.  Paresh has a lot to gain
> @> by telling people he stood up to a noble.  He's got a high self-regard
> @> and had to scratch a living by his wits.
>
> And Paarfi has nothing to gain by rocking the boat, and everything to
> lose. More on this in a second.

Controversy sells (current affairs) books.  Sometimes I think little else
does.



> @> And I think there's a big difference between giving A a nice
> @> death scene and papering over an ambush, which would be of
> @> interest in making that chapter more exciting.
>
> Imagine the actual scene involved. Aerich appears, and a Teckla jumps on
> him and they have a pathetic slap-fight. Nobody reading the book is going
> to believe that the Teckla is any kind of serious threat to him, even if
> he actually was. It can't do anything but damage his dignity, and dignity
> /is/ Aerich's character in Paarfi's works. No actual person is going to be
> as simple as a character in a story, and no Brust character is going to be
> that simple, either. Was Aerich really as Paarfi portrayed him, for
> whatever value of 'really' applies in a metafictional work like this? The
> only evidence we have of that is what Paarfi himself has said.

We also have the evidence that Aerich strikes us as a real character - I
should say, a real person.  I find Athos too exagerrated - I think SKZB
improved on Dumas here.

A possible version - Paresh_0 sasses Aerich, Aerich blasts him, Paresh_0's
friend Paresh sees this from the next room and high-tails it away, then
lies to Vlad.  You can spin the events to make everybody look bad or
whatever; I'm sticking with what seems most reasonable to me based on the
Texts.


>
> @> > Which is one reason the Paarfi books aren't always going to match up with
> @> > the Vlad books, because they lack that counterbalancing viewpoint. And,
> @> > frankly, I trust Vlad more than Paarfi, too. Or, at least, I expect him to
> @> > lie about different things.
> @>
> @> As I averred elsewhere in this thread, Paarfi is not in sympathy with
> @> central ideas of the nobility - he's explicitly anti-House.
>
> See, here's another place where I disagree. Paarfi holds certain liberal
> points of view, from a Dragaera perspective, but he's still somewhere
> around the point where, metaphorically, he's wondering if maybe all those
> darkies ought to be paid for picking that cotton, or at least given the
> weekend off. He's also got to deal with the beliefs of his audience,
> because if he says something they believe to be false. It's OK for Teckla
> to be brave, as long as they're dying in defense of their noble masters,
> or in an army, etc. A Teckla doing things on his own? Having his own
> opinions? Aspiring to command? Preposterous. I won't read any more of this
> trash! Have that author beaten.


Paarfi's portrayals of Tecklas are uniformly and entirely positive.
Consider Clari, who's as pretty and smart and self-possessed as Roaana
and Ibronka. Consider Mica, who tracks down his wife's killers and
confronts them alone.

Well, life intrudes.