On Fri, 14 May 2004, John Klein wrote:
> 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?
He shows Aerich's composure break when Tazendra is killed. We could
hardly ask for more.
> @> 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.
You're supposing that Aerich has been studying sorcery for longer than
Paresh (with infinitely greater access to the best teachers imaginable),
that he's more skilled than Paresh, that Paresh can teleport.
> @> > 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.
Aren't you referring to the About The Author of _TPG_? There SKZB is much
more nuanced about Paarfi's possible inaccuracy than you describe.
> @> > 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.
Vlad is passing on a conversation by Aliera about a history he has little
interest in or context to understand. A description of events which, as I
have argued elsewhere, makes little sense in the devastation it describes.
And containing at least one egregious error.
> 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.
Who knows. People may well make allowances for Vlad's short lifespan;
they are an unusual crowd anyway - Morrolan in particular ought naturally
to speak like an Easterner.
>
> @> > 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.
Aerich's inclination is to ignore Tecklas; in this case he has the best of
reasons to ignore Paresh.
> @> 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.)
I suspect T would have left no notes - or few useful for a novice.
Certainly she would likely have been more interested in offensive spells.
Recall that she learned to teleport at the nucleus of Castle Black.
>
> @> > 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.
He would tend to dismiss the possibility that a Teckla was important.
> @> > 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.
I meant T's heirs, or the Empire. People he knows would have greater
firepower than him. And, of course, it's a subject of debate whether he
can teleport.
>
> @> > 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...
Pretty sure you're wrong on the first count, and I don't remember any
indication on the second count.
> @> 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.
The point is, that he has to go eventually anyway.
> @> 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).
Paarfi can't lie about Aerich's lack of sorcery skills without being
called on it. The timing of confrontation with Grita depends on this.
> @> > @> 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.
Loraan isn't a good example. I can't conceive that someone living a few
miles from the legendary, open, talkative Tazendra's legendary friend and
liege Aerich wouldn't know him or his story.
>
> @> > 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.
At the point in the novel at which they meet, Vlad has no particular
opinion about Kelly's group (though he's admittedly unhappy about
Gregory's impoliteness and Cawti's failure to mention she's done a 180.)
He shows up, asks if he can be of service by tracing the murder weapon,
and in exchange gets a few pages of attitude from Paresh, who's notably
bitter about not getting much respect in the Easterner's quarter.
> 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 minor mob boss is the husband of the assassin who's joined the group.
You'd think he'd cut Vlad some slack. Anyway, _Teckla_ is a novel to be
argued over - for me, Kelly is leading his group into destruction because
he refuses to acknowledge the fact of the Cycle, and we know (as Paresh
ought to) how much Vlad has had to struggle to make a place for himself in
a hostile world.
> @> > 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.
It is explicitly written in Khaavren's lifetime, and that of Piro. It's
definitely written in Sethra's lifetime...
> 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.
I don't see the Cycle as an obsession so much as a (tyrannical, free-will-
crushing) fact (well, except that as a physicist I think "free will" is
bunk.) In fact, opinion in (non-Teckla) Dragaera is probably rather more
heterogeneous than in our society, given the genetic segregation - though
it's difficult to know from the Texts. Certainly much of _FHYA_ is an
argument about a basic fact of existence, an argument which leads to many
deaths.
> @> 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.
There are simple people in life. And Aerich has sophisticated views and a
deep knowledge of life (see his early scenes in _FHYA_).
> @> 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...
Clari doesn't quiver, or Lar. Neither of them are obsequious; and they
are portrayed as clever, worldly, and (in Clari's case) generally
attractive. And I don't see Mica's salary as "ludicrous" - to be a
retainer for room and lavish board is a fine fate for someone destitute.
And I think you fail to understand that an author may, by selecting a
particular fact to present, indicate an implicit view. That's why I was
able to quote the incident in question instead of pointing to the author's
failure to mention this sort of detail. (In fact this noting of this
detail probably owes something to Dumas - in _Les Trois Mousquetaires_
a minor plot point rests on a similar detail.) Aerich's refusal to drink
wine with bandits is highlighted for a similar reason.