On Sun, 16 May 2004, John Klein wrote: > 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. In my view, SKZB wanted to write a novel of broad strokes and delicate brushwork and hopes the reader will be attentive and flexible enough to interpret and appreciate both. > @> 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." You managed to elide the introduction to this point, where SKZB says, "It seems to me..." and goes on to say Paarfi is a good historian. Also note that _TEoDM_ is rather different from _TPG_ (which might work either way). > 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 Again, I tend to discount or ignore what SKZB says about his fiction. After all, he may be, like Vlad, "lying, and forgetful, doesn't know as much as he thinks he does." > 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 Here I see SKZB defending his improbable view that the Dragon-Jhereg war as described by Vlad makes any sort of sense. > 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 This supports your thesis. On the other hand, this point is subject to primary-source enquiries so who knows. > @> 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. You're referring to the egregious error. Well, fine, I'll wait for the Vlad boxed set where Paresh's egregious error is removed. > > @> 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. Rather to the advantage of my side of the argument I think, given that Paarfi frankly addresses the issue (I assume this is intended as a parallel to Thucydides's intro). > @> > 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). You're assuming there were books for novices in Tazendra's keep. My guess is that after hundreds of years of Interregnum, basic sorcery texts would be for the most part dust (explaining in part Morrolan's difficulty in gathering them.) And experimenting with teleportation is not recommended. I know of no evidence that "many sorcerers during this period" "figured out teleportation on [their] own." Consider yourself not knowing any calculus and walking into a disorganized string theorist's office, picking up his notes, and teaching yourself Maxwell's laws by reverse engineering and then the latest models... > > @> 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. Certainly she would likely have been more interested in offensive spells. > > @> > @> 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. I was going to grant you a bit of reason on this point, but on reconsideration I don't. Aerich meets an insane Teckla (who he knows likely isn't a retainer of T) who in fact knows nothing. If Grita et al wanted to leave him a message, they wouldn't have given it to Paresh. As it happens, A learns everything possible to learn without P. According to your scenario, A would have pursued P, unless you go to a lot of effort to fine-tune the parameters. And even so, Sorcerer A could have psionically called for backup to round up Important Intel Source P. > @> 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. I think this remains unresolved. > @> > 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 Note Cawti is, I think, barely a sorcerer - ditto for Vlad. At least during much of the Vladiad that's the case - perhaps by _Teckla_ I'm wrong. Even in the course of _T_ V can't manage simple cooling/heating spells for his coffee (though elsewhere he does chill some wine). > [good quotes snipped] > > 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. You're correct here, though I can see Vlad getting bluffed. He's not on his best game in certain ways during _T_. > @> 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). That fight's coming. And we don't actually know when he left. > 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. She drinks in taverns and boasts to travelling nobles and the waitstaff hears her. And do you think Mica fails to mention his master's accomplishments and associates to all and sundry? And do you think there's no intercourse between the Teckla of the nearby estates? > 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. I still don't understand how you explain Paresh's Young Duke of Arylle. I think if he had known who Aerich was, his account to Vlad would be slightly different. However, it's much too much to ask for V to relate the conversation in sufficient accuracy and detail. > So, this isn't exactly how it happens. The first time Vlad and Paresh > actually talk, it goes like this: I'll have to go reread _T_, apparently, which won't happen soon. > 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. Good point. Doesn't prove he's not a hedge-wizard, but certainly better than zip. On the other hand, he's pretty lousy with the protection spells. I've been wondering why Vlad is able to waltz into Kelly's without an alarm going off. And P was pretty useless come crunch time, though of course it's probably rather startling to see V appear and kill a bunch of guys in a few instants. > @> 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. I think Vlad says something that places Cawti doing work in the recent past. And I (somewhat vaguely) think she's still in Jhereg colors. > @> 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. I don't think so - the Cycle is above the gods as far as I can tell. Certainly it is more powerful than they, if it does what it seems to. > 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. I think (Cycle or no) he's incredibly wrong about the ability and willingness of for example StY to kill as many Easterners and Teckla as need be to crush his movement. Quite why this doesn't happen in _T_ or _Phoenix_ is actually a bit puzzling to me - I suspect it's because in many ways Dragaerans live at a slower tempo than humans, so didn't get around to it, or for metareasons I don't care to delve into. > @> 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. Sure, no one more fervent than a convert. I said "ought". > @> 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. Loosely calculated, it's 3k/100 or 30/1, so Paarfi's writing about events 10 years in the past. > @> > 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. That's possible, but the Cycle does exist and everyone who's likely to know about it seems to disagree with you. Frankly, I can't imagine such a complex system working for 200k years on the basis of superstition. > @> (well, except that as a physicist I think "free will" is bunk.) > > Tsk. Even Leibniz' version? I think he's full of crap. He thinks God predetermined everything, including all our actions, from the beginning (so far so good) but then he pretends he doesn't think that (to avoid the obvious consequences, far as I can tell). His basic argument is, We have free will because things could have gone differently, even if they didn't (except of course they couldn't.) I spit in the general direction of his grave. I probably agree with Daniel Dennett on this question, except I think he should choose a different term. > @> 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'.) I think many readers of this list would gladly serve Khaavren or Aerich or Tazendra if they woke up Teckla tomorrow. Consider Savn's description of peasant life in the next village... > @> 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. AFB, but I think I'm right on these points. Consider Lar's first interview with Piro, or any of Clari's acts. Consider how many nobles are killed by the Teckla. > @> 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." He's offered something like his fill four times a day vs one meal every other day, pleasant duties vs cleaning up after drunken revelers, life in a house (and eventually a castle) vs homelessness, clothes vs rags. Plus note that he makes enough money to take Srahi to dinner in some style. Plus we see him in _TEoDM_ shooting the breeze and drinking the stuff in the back of the cellar. And, since you like Dumas analogies, consider that the musketeers' lackeys do very well.