On Fri, 14 May 2004, Philip Hart wrote:
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > doo dee doo
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @>
@> > @> >
@> >
@> > 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.
You mean the one he never, ever makes explicit, or even admits is
actually happening in any kind of physical way, to avoid offending his
readers? This is actually another point I meant to bring up. Plus, it's an
area where I wanted Vlad to be around to make snide comments about them
doing the nasty. In fact, I'd be interested to see a Vlad-like character's
take on those events, just to be able to compare the two. Ah, well.
@> And if A. is as much of a sorcerer as Paresh claims, he could teleport
@> to the cave.
We can't really say that the level of skill necessary to blast someone is
greater than the level of skill necessary to teleport. In fact, we can
pretty much assume that it's not, since blasting people was possible
pre-interregnum, and teleportation was not.
@> Really I think this ends this part of the discussion.
Well, do feel free to stop replying whenever you like.
@> > 1) Paarfi =~ Dumas, and Dumas was a liar. (A good one!)
@>
@> So you'll be arguing that Paarfi is of mixed House?
He appears to be a Hawk, but there isn't any independent confirmation...
And it might explain his comments about how artists aren't of any one
house. Heh.
Plus, I didn't claim that Paarfi was French, etc. There's a reason the
fiddly twiddly bit is there. The important attribute is the sort of book
he was writing, because theoretically Brust is writing Paarfi as writing a
similar book.
@> > 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.
He did write it. Just not in a novel. I tend to regard things he says
outside of novels as being more accurate, since the novels are filtered
through particular narrators, whereas Brust's comments are just filtered
through his own sense of coolness.
@> > 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)...
Bull. If Vlad says "Sethra Lavode says X and Y", I believe him. The
beheading thing is almost certainly a problem with the book's pre-series
squirreliness... err.. I mean, a typo. Or a pronoun gender problem. Yeah,
that's it.
Also, in the "Paarfi is a big liar" vein, there's the speech patterns.
There is absolutely no way that everyone goes from talking like that to
speaking in the way that Vlad relates their speech in only a
handful of years (a comparitive eyeblink!). Can you imagine Sethra Lavode
taking four paragraphs to say something when three words would do? Of
course not.
@> > 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.
No, he's not spying, really. The novel says that Paresh made a point of
staying out of his way. And even if you were right, it's irrelevant; I
also didn't describe what Aerich did in the castle, etc. This is just a
nitpick. My central point is: Paresh leaves for no reason and Aerich does
nothing to him, and I don't buy either.
@> I rather doubt Tazendra would have texts describing how to teleport,
@> unless Dragaerans suddenly but briefly became hasty.
Her personal notes. We know she keeps some (I believe they're mentioned
somewhere, although I don't have a ref). And hastiness is pretty much her
primary character attribute. (Well, OK, bravery, hastiness, and a
certain.. ah.. simplicity of mind.)
@> > A noble just lets a commoner be rude to him without any kind of response?
@>
@> Aerich has more important matters to deal with.
And assumes that Paresh had nothing to do with them and doesn't know
anything about what happened? That's even less likely than him casually
absorbing an insult.
@> > 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.
He's pretty sure she's dead at this point, unless he's an idiot. And he
isn't, and she is (well, shortly becomes so). Plus, since he can teleport,
he can always just leave when the cavalry shows up to reclaim the place.
@> > 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.
As I recall, he actually does some sorcerous things in Vlad's presence
(when they first meet?), so no. Vlad is totally convinced, anyway, and his
life relies on not making mistakes like that. We don't know exactly how
good a sorceror Paresh is, of course.
@> And in all likelihood the foodstores would be running out or rotting -
@> A eats his own food according to Paarfi.
In Paresh's account, he's been eating them and they aren't running out (at
least, not immediately running out at the time he gets chased out). He has
no reason to lie about that, specifically, and anyway it's difficult to
imagine what else Paresh might have been living on.
@> > 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.
Well, again, nobody is in the know except Paresh and the people who've
talked to him. Aerich left, died. Tazendra was taken before Paresh showed
up, and also died. Mica showed up later and might have interacted with
Paresh, but he died too. Paarfi can lie about this with virtually no
chance of being caught (and he can always claim that the Teckla was lying
if Paresh calls him out, assuming Paresh bothers to read historical
romances anyway, which seems unlikely).
@> > @> 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.
So? Feudal peasants do not need information like that; cf. Athyra.
@> > 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.
Yes. Paresh detects that Vlad is a criminal who makes his living on pain,
suffering, and hopelessness, that he's a person willing to kill other
people for money, that he hates the movement that he, Paresh, is a part
of despite what it's trying to do for Easterners. Frankly, the only reason
we forgive Vlad these things is that we see into his head; Paresh doesn't
have that advantage, so he reacts to Vlad pretty much the way we'd react
to meeting a minor mob boss (assuming we had enough courage to stand up to
him, that is). Paresh doesn't /want/ the help of someone like that.
This is one of the things that makes Teckla so difficult for me to read;
we see how wrong Vlad is about so many things, and we see him reflected in
the eyes of people who probably see him a bit more clearly than we are
used to seeing him. I don't want to see Vlad like that, because I like him.
It's also one of the things that makes me like Paresh. He knows damn well
that Vlad could not only have him killed, but actually kill him
personally, and yet he's still willing to stand up to him. It's easy for
Aerich to be noble; he has the correct house, the breeding, the warrior
training, the conditioning of the nobility from birth. Paresh had to build
his nobility out of the spare bits that were lying around, and he has to
live in a world that despises and abhors that nobility, rather than one
that honors him for it.
Jesus. Maybe Paresh is a reincarnation of Kieron the Conqueror. That would
be a hoot.
@> > 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.
Well, I had suspected as much.
I do enjoy reading Paarfi's books, I just have the feeling that I'd want
to shoot him after five or six minutes of conversation.
@> > 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.
It seems to be considered a historical work, even given the lifespans of
the people involved ("Historical Romance"). And, in fact, I don't think
there's any date information in this latest book; we have no idea how many
centuries after Vlad's time it gets written.
Plus, this is super-conservative, stability-obsessed Dragaera. It's OK for
individuals to be flamboyant and wierd, but not for them to say things
which challenge the basic assumptions on which their culture is based
(the Cycle, etc.). Controversy is relatively safe here in modern-day
America because we don't have dueling laws.
@> > 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.
The times when he most struck me as a real person were the times when he
was least himself. His death scene, for instance. He was too simple to be
a real person.
@> 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.
That doesn't sound like an entirely unreasonable version of events,
actually, although I don't buy it.
@> 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, of course, also what I'm doing.
@> > 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.
This is why I remarked that Teckla are allowed to have certain /types/ of
bravery. It is ok for them to have noble deaths, but not noble lives
(except in sense of nobility by quiet servitude, since that is meant to be
a Teckla's lot). Note also that in the 'unPiroic' moment mentioned
earlier, the author does not censure the offending characters in even the
slightest way. Ditto when Tazendra is describing Mica's ludicrous salary
to him when they first meet. And you'll note that the Teckla are always
practically /quivering/ to serve some noble master...