[Dragaera] Tiassa -- Chapter the Sixth vs Epilogue -- spoiler (fwd)

[Philip Hart]

oops

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Scott Schultz wrote:

>>> s
>>> p
>>> o
>>> i
>>> l
>>> e
>>> r
>>> 
>>> s
>>> p
>>> a
>>> c
>>> e
>>> 
> 
>> Acknowledged by who?  [Paarfi is]  popular, certainly.
> 
> Er, well, that popularity doesn't count as acknowledgement? Color me
> puzzled.

You've inconveniently snipped what I was responding to - which was the claim 
that Paarfi is considered a master.  As far as I can tell the academy and 
critics think he's more Danielle Steele than Stephen King, not to mention say 
David McCullough.


> 
>> It provides a simple solution to a difficult problem - how does Paarfi know
> what
>> he writes about?  It's acute wrt Vlad, who's likely dead at the time
> Paarfi's writing (in the simplest scenario).
> 
> Consulting a magic oracle

Straw.

> is a simpler solution than interviewing the
> eyewitnesses? Even if Khaavren declined to be interviewed, Lady Saruchan is
> available (barring mishap in the intervening years) and she would have  a
> vested interest in the matter. Savn would even be available if Paarfi is not
> too elitist to interview a Tekla.

There are questions throughout all of Paarfi's works about sourcing.
In this Text alone there are plenty of conversations involving Khaavren that 
are hard to explain Paarfi knowing about.  He knows (and publishes) what one 
would expect to be state secrets, so either he makes a lot of stuff up (which 
makes it hard for us to understand his world) or he's a genius at reportage or 
he has an in like Sethra or something.


>>> In fact, there's this - Thanks to Devera, the Silver Tiassa is not
>>> pursuing a strictly linear path through time. Since Paarfi has
>>> stewardship  of the Tiassa before Vlad becomes its steward
> 
>> I think this is wrong.
> 
> How can it be wrong without Devera being a bold-faced liar to her sweet old
> Uncle Vlad? Note that she avoided bringing Aliera into the matter because
> she didn't want to have to explain or, presumably, lie about her possession
> of the tiassa. What reason would she have to lie to Vlad about it when she
> just told him the entire history of the dingus? (Sam Spade could have used a
> Devera.)

I can think of half a dozen reasonable ways it could be wrong without working 
up a sweat - have you even tried?

We suspect Paarfi's Texts (those we've read, since his monographs and _Three 
Broken Strings_ haven't come to us) are published after Vlad's lifetime, 
because they say they postdate Zerika's reign.  Per the intro to _TPG_, Paarfi 
had been working on pre-Interregnum history beforehand, and at the time of its 
publishing hasn't traced Khaavren & Cie's influence as far as _FHYA_.


>>> Paarfi could NOT have used any
>>> stored knowledge in the Tiassa to describe the events in Special Tasks.
> 
>> A chunk of a god wouldn't, presumably, be so constrained, if there were a
> constraint.
> 
> Can you explain why you believe that a "chunk of a god" would be so
> unconstrained? The eye and the hand ARE symbolic, just like everything in
> the Paths and the Halls are symbolic.

I think it's well-established that the gods perceive and act out of the 
standard flow of time.  Presumably a god's eye and hand do the same. Unless 
you're arguing that since Verra is symbolic she can't actually do anything.

And of course since we don't know when ST was written or if the tiassa is 
moving strictly forward in time with Devera  we don't even have to worry about 
this if we don't want to.