[Dragaera] Dragaera Casting

[Ken Koester]

Alexx Kay wrote:

>In the early days of the Timeline creation, I was much sloppier about
>citing textev and explaining where I was making assumptions, so I can't
>trivially reconstruct how I arrived at a birth date of 222 PI.  It's quite
>possible that my logic (or math) contained some weak links.  [I am working
>on a major revision to the Timeline, in which I hope, among other things,
>to clear up such issues.]  That said, SKZB never corrected me, and has
>been using the Timeline as a resource, so it seems unlikely that I was
>*too* far out of his conception.
>
>  
>
I don't have any textev with me (& am too busy/lazy to sort it out at 
home), but distinctly remember there being 4 years between meeting 
Morollan & =Jhereg=; how old Vlad is at the first point I never thought 
about too much, nor do I have a firm idea on how much time elapses 
between =Jhereg= & =Teckla=.  I always figured Vlad for mid- to 
late-20's by the time he goes on the run. . . but he always sounds more 
mature than any mid-20 I've run across, no matter how 
precocious/experienced.  Dragaera might do that to one (-:

Don't think I would worry too much about how this affects casting, 
though.  You could do it HP style & just let the actor age naturally, 
assuming you were making multiple films & did them in rough 
chronological order.  Alternately, makeup covers a multitude of sins & 
CGI even more.  Besides, I've been watching a boatload of anime 
recently; I'm used to improbable age vs. actions scenarios by this time 
(-:  (Japanese high schools must be exceedingly strange places, if anime 
were to be taken literally (-; )

>>So not, is this wrong, but how does this all fit -
>>what do I read as intent.
>>    
>>
>
>Unless the author weighs in himself (which Steve is usually too prudent to
>do :-), authorial intent remains unknown.  As it should be.  I've always
>firmly been of the school that the text should support itself.  Secondary
>materials (such as my Timeline!) are mere lagniappe :-)
>
>  
>
Huzzah, someone else who understands the Intentionalist Fallacy!!!  Just 
to be pedantic, I'd point out that even if the Author weighs in you may 
not understand intent; I wouldn't trust Faulkner's explanations any 
further than I could throw a diesel locomotive with my bare hands, for 
example.

Snarkhunter