Dragaera

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

Sun May 16 10:22:12 PDT 2004

On Fri, 14 May 2004, Philip Hart wrote:

@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> > doo dee doo
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @> >
@> > @> > @> > @>
@> > @> > @> >
@> > @> >
@>
@> > 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.

Of course we could. That could just as easily be interpreted as him being
angry because a friend was killed. (Although, of course, I doubt either of
us have taken this interpretation.) The very fact that this is the most
extreme reference Paarfi feels comfortable making to the matter tells us
all we really need to know.

@> > @> 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.

I'm assuming that Aerich is slightly better at blasting things with
sorcery than Paresh is, or else that he has a device which allows him to
do such blasting (which Tazendra might easily have prepared for him;
flashstones do still exist at this time), and possibly one to defend
himself against basic sorcery (even Vlad has a few of these
pre-Spellbreaker, apparently). In fact, devices are my new favorite
theory, since that lets Aerich's character and Paresh's account both
remain intact. I believe that Paresh can teleport because he says so and
Paarfi does not actually contradict it. (In fact, there's weak supporting
evidence in the fact that he just disappears at some point.)

@> > 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.

What he says is this:

"He keeps trying to refer to himself as a historian, which is okay, but it
seems to me that he is making up more than he is willing to let on, his
protests in the Preface notwithstanding...
Think of Paarfi, then, as a bit like Arthur Conan Doyle. He's isn't making
his living doing what he wants to do, but rather doing what he's good at:
telling stories."

Frankly, that seems pretty clear-cut to me. But let's have a few
supplementary refs, shall we? Gentlemen... behold!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=paarfi+author:steven+author:brust&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=RXM22.1998%24i63.6905077%40ptah.visi.com&rnum=3&filter=0
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=paarfi+author:steven+author:brust&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ENV22.2039%24i63.7175442%40ptah.visi.com&rnum=1&filter=0
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=paarfi+author:steven+author:brust&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=w_M22.2000%24i63.6906694%40ptah.visi.com&rnum=2&filter=0
http://dragaera.info/mailinglists/archive.cgi?1:map:4277:jmikhcjlblbeaehdleep

I would also like you to know that in the course of obtaining this
information, I was exposed to Paarfi/Morrolan slash. I may never recover.
Let that be on your head!

@> 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.

I believe this has been adequately responded to by KG.

@> 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.

And this.

@> > 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.

Paresh spent a good deal of time reading books meant for novices, and
could have understood her notes on that basis. Plus, he's capable of
experimentation if there are pieces missing, so it's entirely possible
that he figured out teleportation on his own (as many sorcerers during
this period seem to have).

@> Certainly she would likely have been more interested in offensive spells.
@> Recall that she learned to teleport at the nucleus of Castle Black.

Yes, and because of her personality, I strongly suspect that she would
immediately begin to experiment with that capability and record the
results.

@> > @> 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.

But that a Teckla had information? Of course not. The fact is, a person
has appeared in the place where his lov^H^H^Hfriend has apparently been
kidnapped by violence and is acting extremely strangely. It would be
unbelievably stupid not to find out what this person knows about the
matter, and Aerich is not stupid.

@> > 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.

This seems to rely on the teleportation question, so more on that in a
second.

@> > @> > 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.

I'm so allergic to being told I'm wrong that I got off my fat ass long
enough to ask my wife to find our copy of Teckla. I have the following
(page numbers from Ace paperback):

"This could be a real bloodbath. Of course, Paresh was a sorceror and so
was Cawti, but I didn't like the odds." -p. 116

"I was going to have to kill Kelly for certain, because if he survived I
wouldn't have accomplished anything. Then Paresh, because he was a
sorceror; then as many of the others as possible." -p. 137

"Paresh began looking around. I walked toward them and he saw me. He
straightened quickly and his hand went up as if he were about to do
something sorcerous and Spellbreaker came into my hand. But he did
nothing, and presently I was close enough to be recognized in the fading
orange-red light..." -p. 93

Looks like we're splitting the difference; it's that last incident I was
thinking of, and of course it's ambiguous. On the other hand, what is
entirely certain is that Vlad believes he's a sorcerer. I'll have to
re-read the whole book at some point in the near future, in case there's
something I missed. In any event, it just seems unlikely to me that Vlad
would be wrong about that.

@> > @> 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.

Sure, but he doesn't have to leave at that particular time unless there's
a strong motivating force (like being in a fight which he knows he will
lose).

@> > @> 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.

You mean, Tazendra is wandering the villages in her fiefdom, telling
stories about her adventures to random farmers? Observe my hollow
laughing. I could see some gossip and vague rumors circulating, but
there's no reason to suspect that he knows any of the names of the
participants. And now that I've re-read Paresh's account, I don't see
anything in there that proves that he doesn't know Aerich's name. He just
doesn't refer to him by it. And he wouldn't care who he was, anyway; it's
not material to his story.

@> > 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.

So, this isn't exactly how it happens. The first time Vlad and Paresh
actually talk, it goes like this:

1. Vlad shows up and asks to see Kelly.
2. Paresh says Kelly is not there.
3. Vlad implies that Paresh is lying.
4. Paresh reacts, but stifles it.
5. Vlad remarks on Paresh's apparent lack of fear, and they exchange a few
   words on this topic.
6. Paresh invites Vlad in and gives him some crappy wine.
7. Vlad remarks again on Paresh's unusual disposition.
8. Paresh tells his story, and he begins it by pointing out that Vlad has
   never bothered to visit the people that live in his dominion, and that
   he doesn't know who his Duke is.
9. Vlad (offstage) asks what he's getting at, and Paresh says that he's
   explaining the nature of titles and aristocracy. (The subtext here is
   that he's explaining why people in general and he particularly react
   badly to Vlad.)
10. He relates the events we've been discussing. (Fire, bury parents and
    sublings, travel to castle, bury dead, eat supplies and learn sorcery,
    defy and fight with Duke of Arylle, teleport away.)
11. He travels to the city, thinking he can make money as a sorcerer,
    except that nobody wants a Teckla sorcerer except Easterners.
12. He meets Franz and Kelly, and gets involved in the movement.
13. He says that Kelly and Franz are, together, one Vallista. (Tee hee.)
14. He says that they killed Franz because of all this, and because he
    laughed at threats. (They proved he was doing the right thing.)
15. Vlad says "What was that about threats?"
16. Paresh completely closes down, based on the inappropriateness of that
    question. Vlad doesn't understand this until about chapter 16 or so.
17. Vlad leaves without explaining himself, because Paresh is just a
    Teckla (whatever else he might be).

Another significant point arises here. The other people in the movement
believe he's a sorcerer - they use him as a guard and bodyguard
constantly. Given how they met, as described here, they would have to know
whether he was a sorcerer or not.

@> > 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.

The assassin who renounced assassination and her own role in the Jhereg.
What Paresh was doing was giving Vlad a chance to do something similar,
but he didn't. It was after that that Paresh began to be rude to him.

@> Anyway, _Teckla_ is a novel to be argued over -

Ain't it the truth.

@> for me, Kelly is leading his group into destruction because he refuses
@> to acknowledge the fact of the Cycle,

Facts that are constructs rather than natural laws can be altered. The
Cycle is not a natural law; it's a result of the actions of the gods. So,
it can be altered or destroyed. Does that mean that Kelly and his group
can alter or destroy it? Nobody knows. He's the sort of person who's
willing to try, though, even if it's not certain.

@> and we know (as Paresh ought to) how much Vlad has had to struggle to
@> make a place for himself in a hostile world.

Everyone in that group had to survive in that same world, and in fact many
of them seem to have pasts that match up to a greater or lesser extend
with Vlad's. So they can reasonably say "I made this choice... why can't
he?" Also, reference C.S. Lewis' behavior towards atheists after he
(re)converted to Christianity.

@> > @> 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...

Sure. But when someone's lifetime may be a millenium, a book written
during it might still be reasonably referred to as historical. In fact, a
book written about events that happened fifty years ago would be
considered historical today, even though many of the participants might
still be alive.

@> > 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

If Dragaeran society as a whole threw off the concept of the Cycle, it
would stop working. It's powered by the ambition of its participants.

@> (well, except that as a physicist I think "free will" is bunk.)

Tsk. Even Leibniz' version?

@> 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.

There are certain things which appear to differ, and certain things which
appear to be uniform. The Cycle is one of the latter, for instance.

@> > 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_).

And when I meet those simple people in real life, my first thought is
"Wow, is this person for real?" And, in fact, real life contains hookers
with hearts of gold, etc. Nevertheless, real people tend to have faults
and quirks that simply do not appear in, for instance, Aerich's character.

@> > 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.

Clari's already serving a noble master. And Lar was pretty close to it
when he applied. (I'm not saying 'quivering in fear', I'm saying
'quivering with desire to serve'.)

@> Neither of them are obsequious; and they are portrayed as clever,
@> worldly, and (in Clari's case) generally attractive.

They occasionally rise to the level of 'cheeky', if that's what you mean.

@> 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.

"You can eat four times a day. You know, the scraps from our meals. And
you can sleep on the floor outside of my room."

@> And I think you fail to understand that an author may, by selecting a
@> particular fact to present, indicate an implicit view.

I'm relying on that in the earlier Aerich/Tazendra situation, in fact.

@> 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.

If he were mentioning it to make some kind of point, it seems likely that
he wouldn't have made the scene humorous. "If you were a worse cook we
could eat more!"