Dragaera

Morollan's Memories (Was RE: City of Heroes and us)

Tue Mar 22 08:31:32 PST 2005

>Morrolan does not actually mention that the descent was during the
>Interregnum.  Morrolan says speaking of brigands, "There are fewer now 
>than during the Interregnum, Vlad.  I wouldn't worry.  Those were 
>wilder times." Book of Taltos, Taltos, Chapter 9, page 96.  He is 
>talking about brigands then and not necessarily about Zerika's descent.

This is going rather far afield I'd say. EVERYONE knows about Zerika's trip
to the Paths. For Morrolan to say that he helped Zerika descend, the natural
assumption would be that he was talking about the Famous trip. For there to
be a "second trip" he'd have to qualify it somehow. 

Also, Morollan doesn't just mention it to Vlad. When Aliera is revived in
Taltos, they spend some time catching her up on things like the vaporization
of Drageara City and what-not. Morrolan tells her about Zerika's trip to the
Paths and says "I helped." There really isn't any doubt that he's talking
about the Famous trip rather than some hypothetical second trip that she
took for personal reasons. Vlad might never have a reason to fact-check
Morollan's claims but Aliera could be counted on to do so, just in the
course of catching herself up on 500 years of history. Lying to Aliera would
be a rather foolish thing to do.

In any case, Zerika certainly wouldn't risk going back. The orb allowed her
to leave but the Lords of Judgement could have stopped her if they'd wished
it. In _Viscount_ the gods argue about whether re-instating the Empire is
worth breaking the rules and very nearly decide in favor of enforcing the
rules. In Taltos, when Morollan says "There was Zerika" Kelchor answers "I
told them it was a dangerous precedent." and the rest of the Gods he tries
that on answer similarly. 

Basically, Zerika would be no more welcome in the Paths than any other
living Dragaeran. Orb or no orb, if she came back they'd force her to stay.
Whatever the explanation for Morollan's lies/mental lapses I don't think
that conjuring up a second "secret" trip is the answer. 

It's entirely possible that PAARFI is the one who's lying. (Note theories
that Paarfi is actually Sethra incognito, deliberately obfuscating things
for one reason or another.) In my opinion, the "preface" is the most
entertaining part of _Viscount_ and it pretty clearly shows that the image
of Paarfi that one gains by reading his books is not neccesarily an accurate
depiction of the true Paarfi. Paarfi strikes me as one of those authors who
passes himself off as something other than he is because it sells books,
rather like a man writing Harlequin romance novels under a female pseudonym
and a false biography. Paarfi plays the "erudite scholar" bit to his readers
and his patrons because that's what they want to believe about the author of
an historical romance. The "true" Paarfi is rather more concerned with
satisfying his appetites and exploiting his fame than with ensuring that the
accuracy of his reporting is able to stand up to scholarly criticism.

It's funny. I keep getting this image of a drinking game where each round
involves completing the phrase "When I first met Paarfi of Roundwood..." and
the loser is the person who actually manages to meet him. *heh*