[Dragaera] it's late and i'm a little punchy

[Scott Schultz via Dragaera]

> From: Dragaera [mailto:dragaera-bounces at lists.dragaera.info] On Behalf Of
> Philip Hart via Dragaera
> 
> I made some arguments on this topic here a while ago, e.g.
> http://dragaera.info/mailinglists/dragaera/archive/2003q2/007511.html
> 
> Basically I doubt there there can be two emperors in a turn under normal
> circumstances. I think there's a latency issue in communication between
the
> Orb and the Cycle such that Adron was the Emperor according to the Orb and
> in the normal course of events would have been the Emperor according to
> the Cycle, except that in a great Cycle the Phoenix do get two Emperors.
This
> would be a feature then, not a bug.

Yeah, we've had some discussions about the Cycle in the past. One of the
conclusions by the number crunchers was that it is *possible* for a House's
reign to last beyond the ordinary lifespan of a dragaeran. (Note that we do
not have any text examples of such a thing to say whether it ever actually
happens.) The possibility implies that the Orb must have a way of handling
the eventuality.

There is a latency, yes, though it is typically in the other direction. That
is, the Cycle turns but the Orb does not automatically move. It takes a
"ritual" exchange from one House to another, with the successful movement of
the Orb being the normal indicator that the Cycle *has* turned. If it had
not, the coup (assuming it was a coup) would fail.

This is where we get into grey areas. Paarfi tells us that the Orb decided
on its own that it must go to the  Dragon Heir. Why would it do that? Was it
programmed to believe that if the Emperor was killed, that a coup had
succeeded and it reacted accordingly? Certainly, that would also explain why
Adron thought that the simple act of moving the Orb would cause the Cycle to
turn in response. (Figuratively putting his hand on the Cycle and turning it
rather than doing it literally.) The implication is that the Orb itself
*does not know* the phase of the Cycle, which seems a bit difficult to
swallow.

But... one of the big themes in the Vladiad and the Paarfiad  is the
unreliable narrator and Paarfi is particularly unreliable. He is a historian
who dresses up his history to be entertaining instead of rigorous. His
reputation amongst his peers is questionable. He writes authoritatively
about things (like discussions amongst the Lords of Judgement) about which
he could not possibly have first-hand knowledge. Even his Khaavren romances
are based upon third-hand information.

Who do we believe? Paarfi, writing quasi-fiction hundreds of years after the
fact, based upon hearsay, or Aliera, waking up only a few moments  after the
destruction of Dragaera City (from her own perspective) with a first-hand
experience of the event?

The one thing we can know for certain is that Paarfi's account is not the
whole story. It just happens to be the only account of the matter that we
have.