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.