MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 968 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Vanyel/Burning Water by "Hth." 2) re: We are the music makers (no misty) by dbackhau-+AT+-isou10.estec.esa.nl 3) ADMIN: listmistress away for a couple of days by Melanie Dymond Harper 4) Re: Van's final strike by jc-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) 5) Re: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah by Korendil 6) Re: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah by chenchen-+AT+-rgs.edu.sg 7) Hurry!! by Sandra K Haas 8) Moreta/Bards as Heralds/saying "No thank you"/Doon by dbackhau-+AT+-isou10.estec.esa.nl 9) Re: Hurry!! by infodyn-+AT+-distrinet.com.uy (Eleonora Scoseria) 10) Re: Van's death/ yet another oops!/Enchanted caffine & vari by "JAIME HATHAWAY" 11) Re: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah by "JAIME HATHAWAY" 12) Sarcasm by Wyrick D TSgt CS/SCBC 13) Re: Van by "Linda Malcor, Ph.D" 14) Reply to: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah by Rozanna McNeer 15) Burning Water by Jaguar 16) Re: Van's final strike by "Linda Malcor, Ph.D" 17) Re: Vanyel by "Linda Malcor, Ph.D" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 03:13:31 CST From: "Hth." To: Subject: Vanyel/Burning Water Message-ID: <20NOV96.03483516.0043.MUSIC-+AT+-ACADEMIC.TRUMAN.EDU> Now my head is getting all fuzzy, because there are at least two separate arguments about Vanyel's death being mashed all together here. Let me try to jimmy them apart, okay? First, there is the question of whether or not it made sense within the framework of Misty's story for Vanyel to have been reduced to the Final Strike Option (Plan 9 from Valdemar) at the pass. This is the one we are probably going to keep disagreeing on. Danya insists he had the powerto do other things. Cen, Kory, Kerry (hey! maybe they're all aspects of the same-- no, maybe not.) and I, among others, don't appear to feel that he had as many options as all that. Danya has gallantly been backing up all her claims, but IMHO, the evidence doesn't stack up. So be it, we will all just continue to subscribe to our pet theories: A) Misty knew what she was talking about when she said that Vanyel had no other choice, or B) Misty has no clue what she's talking about and forced her character to conform to her arbitrary plotline. Okay. But then there is the question of *whether or not Misty should have written a story that ended in Vanyel's death.* This one has cropped up more recently, and invoves subjective ideas of what makes a good story, not the nitty-gritty technicalities of whose batteries are how charged and what those cliffs were made of. There are those of us who, dysfunctional as it may seem, like to see our main characters work hard and even suffer for a goal. Oh, maybe not *like* as in we are happy the second we're reading about the pain and suffering, but like as in we put the book down and say, "What a &*$!$! good book!" We do not have to have every character die -- Danya points out that there are books (Dune, Lord of the Rings, Arrow's Fall) where the protagonists do survive, and it's still a &*$!$! good book, and she's quite right. That's one way to write a story, and some stories ought to be written that way. But it doesn't follow that all stories have to be written that way. I could offer up examples of stories that do end in the protagonist's tragic death. The cycle of legends and stories associated with King Arthur come immediately to mind. As an Arthurian scholar, Danya is certainly aware that part of the power of the legends and part of the reason it endures is the element of doom and sacrifice. You cannot just rewrite the ending to make it happy and call it six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the story ended happily, it would be a radically different story. That's how I feel about Last Herald-Mage. Misty sure could have written a story where Vanyel escapes and finds sixty years of peace and comfort with his lifebonded. But that would be a different story, and one she chose not to write. It's one thing to say "I would have written it differently." It is another thing to say "She wrote it all wrong." There seems to be some concern that Vanyel sends out the wrong "message." That he is not a good role model, in that he is a good person, but still gets reamed by life. All I can say is that I like that about LHM. If it had been a corny moral piece, showing that if you live a good and upright life, you will be rewarded with an easy death at the age of 121 with your lifebonded at your side, it would have been kind of a stock pulp fantasy series. Hero faces difficulty. Hero remains true to his morals and leads a clean life. Hero defeats evil. Hero lives happily ever after. Also a fine story, in as far as it goes. Not the story Misty wanted to write. And not a story that would have stayed very long in my memory. Did Vanyel "deserve" a happy ending? Sure, I guess so. Did Stefen "deserve" years of loneliness? No, I don't think he did. Does that mean Misty is morally obligated to provide them with the lives they *earned*? No. You don't earn a long life. You rolls your dice and you takes your chances. We lose people we love. We face insurmountable odds. It isn't right and it isn't fair, and it is hard. Some books provide us with an imaginary world where that isn't the case, where good people get good things in the end and bad people get bad things. Some books have the courage to say, "Life can be this way, and it's not my job to soften it for you." What person in their right mind would want to be heroic if they believed that they could end up like Vanyel? Would you have been happier if Misty had lied to her audience, promising that if they were good like Vanyel, they would always triumph and receive blessings from on high? LHM encompasses a difficult, adult idea, to wit, that the height of human virtue is to be heroic and upright, even at a cost. That the goal of our lives may not be to win the prize, but to live well and nobly. There's a level of moral thought that goes past "So what will I get?" and goes to "What is right?" That's kind of a dark idea, but it's the idea Vanyel had to face up to, and I admire Misty a lot for not backing off. She could have. That wouldn't have made it a bad story. But it wouldn't have been LHM. It would have been simpler, prettier, and more comforting. Some of us would have liked it more. Some of us, less. But it isn't really fair to attack Misty for choosing the story she chose to tell. That's what authors do. *Bad* authors sometimes tell only the story they think people will want to hear. Authors with integrity tell the story they love, and hope to God that someone wants to pay $5.95 three times to read it. I have cast aspersions on Misty's authorial integrity in the past, but she had it that time around. Danya, I can't believe that you don't understand this, deep down. You're a writer; haven't you ever had a character that you *wanted* to live happily ever after, but his or her death was an integral part of the story you wanted to tell? You have the power to let them live if you want to; no one's stopping you. But you don't always, right? Because it would change the story too profoundly, and you chose to let a loved character die instead of telling a different story? It's not sensible to say, "I wanted Vanyel to live, and so she had no right to tell a story where he dies." She had every right, and if that ruins the story for you, so be it. It wasn't the story you wanted to read. But that's not Misty's fault, and she didn't do it wrong. You might as well say that it's your fault for not being smart enough to like the story. Equally silly. MPrice is not an easy story, and it doesn't let you walk away feeling comfortable and sure that the universe is a friendly place. If you need to have good characters get rewarded for their goodness, it's not the book for you. But please don't blame the book for your irreconcilable differences, or the writer of the book. Sigh. More Heather Essays. Wish I wrote this energetically for class. Cennydd, I think Kerry was aware that Burning Water was not a person. It's just plain easier to type than Tezcatlipoca -- or whatever. Aztec names are a pain in the ass to spell, that's all. And I would disagree with your suggestion that if you believe T. is a god, his actions are by definition moral. Not all cultures percieve their gods as morally infallible. Take the Greeks, for example. They can't *all* have been morally infallible, because they were all supporting different people in the Trojan War. Had they all been "good," they would all have sided with the "good guys," and their would have been no need for the gods to be at each other's throats 24:7. Even in Judaic tradition, God is not necessarily always right. In the later, Priestly scriptures, a lot is made of God's perfection, but in the legends retold in the earlier books of the Pentateuch (argh, more spelling nightmares), God frequently changed God's mind. For example, during the journey of the Israelites to the Promised Land, God was always getting ticked off about something and announcing that the entire tribe was dead meat, God was sick of their whining, game over. Moses had to talk God down, cajoling and bribing until God finally relented and gave them another chance. So even God didn't always originally make the best choice, and was at least open to suggestion. Gods of many mythos are always violating cultural laws: killing off relatives, kidnapping other gods, stealing their stuff. The people didn't say, "Well, if Loki did it, it must be all right." They often just shrugged and said, "That's Loki. He's like that sometimes." Gods are above human law, but that doesn't mean their actions are necessarily always "good." Not that I'm specifically arguing with this case. It seems fair to me to say that T. wasn't evil, because he was operating under a set of assumptions that permitted him to ethically and rightfully sacrifice humans to his greater glory. (Though I find it interesting that this comes from the same man who ranted about how evil Tylendel was because it's just plain always wrong to kill innocent people, no matter why you do it or what you believe is the right thing to do.) HTH Wand-Sworn Champion to the Ladies of the Pink Wand Grand Dame of the Order of Amber and Marigold r618-+AT+-academic.truman.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 10:46:53 +0100 From: dbackhau-+AT+-isou10.estec.esa.nl To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: re: We are the music makers (no misty) Message-ID: <9611200946.AA04947-+AT+-isou10.estec.esa.nl> Ele, Priestess of Karma wrote last week sometime: >I asked for help with this quote: >We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams >wandering by lone sea breakers and sitting by desolate streams >world losers and world forsakers on whom the pale moon gleams, >yet we are the movers and shakers of the world, forever, it seems. > >And Dyana replied: >>I don't know who wrote it, but it was quoted in the movie "Charlie and >>the Chocolate Factory" problably not of any help, but I try. Well, according to my Oxford Dictionary of Verse, it's by Arthur O'Shaughnessy, 1844 - 1881. It's the only piece the book has by him. Your quote of it above is almost correct, and, 'cos I feel like it, here it is, as given in my Dictionary of Verse: We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams, Wandering by lone sea breakers, And sitting by desolate streams; World losers and world forsakers, On whom the pale moon gleams; We are the movers and shakers Of the world forever, it seems. It grows on you, I think. I like it, so it shall be added to my "book", something I started when I was 15 or so, to hold the pomes and quotes that appealed to me. What's the one by Carl Sandberg, about fog coming in soft footed, like a cat - or somesuch - I shall return to my Dictionary - a wonderful book if you like poetry, or get bugged by things like "Who the hell was Gunga din?", or "What was the line about the Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady?" or "What starts "There's a grand seaside place called Blackpool, That's famous for fresh air and fun, And Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom, Went there with young Albert their son."" (Albert and the Lion, a truely *wonderful* piece, of 20 or more verses, and I nearly know it all!) Deary me, no Misty content - ah well, I've all the mails from yesterday and overnight to go through yet, so maybe later! ciao ciao, Esmeralda ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:39:39 GMT From: Melanie Dymond Harper To: mercedes-lackey Subject: ADMIN: listmistress away for a couple of days Message-ID: <199611201039.KAA02030-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk> Okay, here's your warning; I leave this office about 1645 tomorrow (Thurs) to go to the airport and catch a plane to Amsterdam. I'll be back Sunday evening. As usual I should be able to check in occasionally to sort out dire emergencies, but I probably won't be responding to email and I definitely won't be fixing list-related problems; they'll have to wait until I return to the office on Monday. (Note: no point mailing me at the second address in the FAQ, either; I won't be there) Mel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:37:05 +0000 (GMT) From: jc-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Van's final strike Message-ID: <9611201037.AA13489-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk> > > At 11:04 AM 11/19/96 GMT, Jerry Cullingford wrote: > >Danya said: > >> I prefer to > >> think that he could have won and lived if Misty had decided to let him do > >> it. That she didn't, I consider to be a serious flaw in the plot. > > > >Hmm. I think we need to distinguish between liking the character, and good > >plotting - and Van's heroic death makes a good climax to the trilogy. It > >also fixes the herald/herald-mage problems and sets things up for the > >_Arrows_ books which were written earlier. Yes, it's sad that Van gets > >killed - but it's not as though he's *gone*, and more heroic than lingering > >on into lesser challenges or obscurity... > > Ah, see, that's where we differ. Fair enough :-) I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer here, just different preferences... I do not think his death is a good climax. > I think Misty broke a classic story pattern ("David and Goliath") Hmm. I can see where you're coming from :-) but I don't go for it myself - I just can't see Van as David; This is someone capable of flattening an entire city if he's woken up wrong, one of the strongest Mages ever, who's beaten everything he's ever taken on (even though he's pushing his limits a lot of the time). > and gave > me a "completely-piss-me-off" ending when she could just as easily have > written a happy (or at least happier) one. Possibly - I still regard it as a sad-but-happy ending, and I think it's a good one - I like the foreshadowed doom, the fact Van goes ahead as a herald anyway, the willing heroic sacrifice, the price paid for power - It gives the story a mythic resonance and sense of closure. Without the final sacrifice, it just wouldn't work as well... Think of _Dune_. I don't think > Herbert hurt the work in any way by making the decision to have the blinded > Paul Atriedes actually survive his "final" walk into the desert. Hmm. I think Herbert overdid the sequels heavily; most of the later ones went downhill as far as I remember - it's years since I read them :-). Besides, > whatever gave you the idea that making the decision to "lingering on into > lesser challenges or obscurity" is less heroic than committing suicide? Who > was it that said "Dying's easy. It's living that's tough."? s/heroic/dramatic, then :-). From a dramatic point of view, big sacrifice, big climax, tidy ending; otherwise, assuming no other major challenges (probably reasonable - big mage taken out, Karse not likely to do anything) any problems are likely to be quantity, not quality. Yes, you could probably make an interesting story out of it, but it doesn't really need someone like Van who should be able to toast them with few problems as long as he paced himself. > > > >And if he *had* won, and survived intact, *that* would have ruined the plot; > >What do you do with an invulnerable superhero? where's the challenge if the > >hero can wipe the floor with anything that shows up? > > I disagree. I don't think _The Lord of the Rings_ was "ruined" because the > hero lived. Not really similar - Frodo survives, but the ring (and the power) doesn't. > And I never said anything at all about making Van an > "invulnerable superhero." If you cut him, he bleeds. He doesn't just "wipe > the floor with anything that shows up." Actually, most of the time, he does - he gets pretty badly mauled in the process sometimes, but that only seems to be against mages - otherwise, he should win fairly easily unless he's out of power. Remove the mages - and there can't be that many left - and he should have a much easier time of it. [snipped: could Van have won?] possibly; Misty was obviously aiming at a no-win situation, and it worked OK for me... maybe different tactics would have avoided the situation. >Living is tough, and Van and > Stef couldn't very well have settled down in a cozy cottage with a white > picket fence and never have anything worse than an occasional nightmare > again. But I do think there was an alternative that would not have involved > forcing the characters into another sixty years of complete separation after > they had just gone through twenty years of complete separation (which makes > Van thirty-six, btw) and had a few months (maybe a year?) together, with > only a handful of happy days since most of the time was spent with Van > recovering from being raped. Good point - skimming over it between paragraphs is a lot easier than living through it would have been - On the other hand, Lendel/Stef has some bad karma to pay off for the wyrsa attack, and Van's a spirit during that period, so who knows what it's like for him; maybe there's no need for him to be aware/run at a normal time rate while he's waiting. I would have been just as irritated if Dirk > had Fetched Talia out of Hardorn only to have her die in his arms. That > would have been a powerful, heart-wrenching scene, but I'm very glad Misty > did not write that plot that way! I'd have to agree with that :-). -Jerry -- _|_ Jerry Cullingford jc-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk (Work) / | Hemel Hempstead, UK jc-+AT+-selune.demon.co.uk (Home) \_|_ jerry-+AT+-shell.portal.com (alternate) \__/ www.selune.demon.co.uk (soon) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 06:39:57 -0500 From: Korendil To: Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah Message-ID: <9611201145.AA09882-+AT+-raptor.icubed.net> >The book Talia is reading in AotQ is absolutely not correct. THe book talia has is NOT the only thing I'm talking about. And there was NOT another herald with them. No. Don't. Start.Day.Dream.Thread.Be.Strong. Whew. Remember the books ELspeth read in Fate? Those were written by STef--close enough to the source for you? gotta go..school -+AT+-LIDNEROK___________/ KORENDIL-+AT+-ICUBED.NET \_____________KORENDIL-+AT+- I|Korendil, Knight of Elfhame Sun-Descending, Squire of the High|I C|Court, Magus Minor, One In Black, Firstborn Child of Danaan, |C U|God of Night and All Things Nocturnal, Champion of the Ladies |U B|of the Pink Wand, Acting Master of Dreams, and Ailurophile. |B E|______________________________________________________________|E D|God did not create the world in 7 days; he screwed around for |D .|6 days and then pulled an all-nighter. |. N|--------------------------------------------------------------|N E|When I was in school,I cheated on my metaphysics exam:I looked|E T|into the soul of the boy sitting next to me. --Woody Allen |T -+AT+-__________________/ KORENDIL-+AT+-ICUBED.NET \_____________________-+AT+- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:15:33 -0800 From: chenchen-+AT+-rgs.edu.sg To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah Message-ID: <199611210315.TAA06120-+AT+-rgs.rgs.edu.sg> >THe book talia has is NOT the only thing I'm talking about. And there was >NOT another herald with them. No. Don't. >Start.Day.Dream.Thread.Be.Strong. Whew. I don't think she was reading, she was day-dreaming and that other herald was Talia herself &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& All those who need the abrev. list, please private e-mail me. Stormwind *&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& Learning is a treasure which accompanies its owner everywhere. --Anonymous ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Visit my homepage at "http://members.tripod.com/~eladi/index.html" *&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:54:17 -0500 (EST) From: Sandra K Haas To: Misty Mail-list Lackey Subject: Hurry!! Message-ID: While at my local used bookshop yesterday, I noticed *TWO* copies of Sword & Sorceress I's, and a copy of II and IV. I seem to recall someone wanting one of these. If you let me know, I will go back today and get them if they are still there. (They cost 2.50) Unfortunately, no III, or I would have bought it immediately!! Anyway...if they are still there, I will get them!! Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 13:58:55 +0100 From: dbackhau-+AT+-isou10.estec.esa.nl To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Moreta/Bards as Heralds/saying "No thank you"/Doon Message-ID: <9611201258.AA05067-+AT+-isou10.estec.esa.nl> Greetings, Gotta braid for you! Kerry asked Cennydd > it's years since I've read _Moreta_, can you refresh my memory as to why > it was so bad? As far as I remember, McCaffrey -did- kill off major > characters as the ballad of Moreta's Ride recorded things happening. The only major differenc I can recall is that the ballad has her on her own dragon, whereas the book has her on Doodit's - Jeri?? I don't remember it as a brilliant book, altho' the end is fairly touching. Cennydd also reckoned `Moreta' to be "one of the worst McCaffrey books I have ever had the misfortune of reading" - c'mon - worse that Dolphins?????? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dayna wrote: > I think Stef was not a Herald simply because he had the Bardic Gift. > Remember, Healers and Bards aren't Chosen because their talents are too > valuable? But wasn't Jadus (??) a Bard before he was chosen? There's some thing about how he was trying to compose something and his companion arrived and proceeded to turn his life upside down. (I'm thinking of the one legged herald who befriended Talia is AoTQ - it was Jadus wasn't it???) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Arielle wrote: > I can't imagine a companion trying > to choose someone unwilling for whatever reason and saying something > like "Sorry you feel you can't do this, bud, but you have no choice in the > matter. I've chosen you and you will climb on my back and fight and die > for Valdemar wether you like it or not; get it?" But Talia was given the option of backing out when she arrived in Haven. Selenay had her little chat, and wasn't there something about Rolan just going back out to look again?? It's a while since I read this trilogy - I find Book 1 a bit twee, and the endless Dirk/Talia/Kris saga in Book 3 gets mighty tedious - never did like Dirk that much anyway ;> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Appropos Van's dying or not, someone wrote: > Think of _Dune_. I don't think > Herbert hurt the work in any way by making the decision to have the blinded > Paul Atriedes actually survive his "final" walk into the desert. to which Jerry replied: > Hmm. I think Herbert overdid the sequels heavily; most of the later ones > went downhill as far as I remember - it's years since I read them :-). I felt seriously cheated when Paul re-appeared in Dune 3 (I think) - I'd accepted his death at the end of Dune 2, with the kiddie-winks set for the future, and I was angry that Herbert had, as I saw it, copped out of handling the 3rd book without the hero of the first 2. That said, I still think Dune, the original book, is totally brilliant. I don't know when it was written, but I read it when I was early teens, and the Fremen struck me as wonderful. I think Robin McKinley was paying her own tribute in the Blue Sword, her desert race seemed very Fremen like, apart from the blue sclera. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= For the older Brits - having been trying to locate the poem "We are the music makers", I suddenly realised this morning that I was humming the tune of "We are the Ovaltinies"! 'kay, that's me up to date, ciao ciao, Esmeralda Evensbane Astrofizzizist ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 10:00 EST From: infodyn-+AT+-distrinet.com.uy (Eleonora Scoseria) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Hurry!! Message-ID: Please, please, please, can you buy the copy of S&S IV for me? In your debt foreevr, Ele Priestess of Karma LotPW Dame of OAM >While at my local used bookshop yesterday, I noticed *TWO* copies of Sword >& Sorceress I's, and a copy of II and IV. I seem to recall someone >wanting one of these. If you let me know, I will go back today and get >them if they are still there. (They cost 2.50) Unfortunately, no III, or >I would have bought it immediately!! > >Anyway...if they are still there, I will get them!! > >Sandy > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:20:35 CST From: "JAIME HATHAWAY" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Van's death/ yet another oops!/Enchanted caffine & vari Message-ID: <24D9377779-+AT+-future.judson.edu> Hmmmmm....I see Danya's points, however, I think if Vanyel were alive and living in Sorrows, he would be too tempted to continue to help wherever, whenever he could. that's the way he is. And then what would happen? If he ever appeared in public, everyone would say, "Vanyel? where have you been? Why did you leave us? We needed you! What were you doing up in Sorrows--taking a vacation (for that is how they would probably see it)?" It would seem to them very selfish of him. I still have to hold to the opinion that if he wasn't dead, he would, because of his nature, have to be in the thick of things. I don't think he could just sit up in the Forest and protect it...besides, he does a better job, and for a longer period of time, protecting the area as a dead person than as a living one. Furthermore...have we considered what VANYEL wanted? Maybe he wanted to die. He certainly wasn't upset when he met the SL before, and didn't he tell Medren that he'd gladly accept the SL embrace if it was offered to him? I really can't blame him for choosing Final Strike (let's not debate his options here). He was tired. He had lost virtually everyone that he cared for, and all of his fellow Herald-Mages. The entire country depended on him for years (textevd in MPromise/Price? He was doing the work of x number of mages, Randale was always finding something for him to do, he was basically King's Own in all but Companion, he created the Web, tying himself into it, etc.). he deserved a rest, and the only way that he could really rest was if he was dead. He never seemed upset that he was dead either. he was joking when he encountered Stef. If he were alive, he'd never be able to rest b/c his sense of Heraldry or whatever would always be calling him back where the situations were most grave, simply because he'd probably be the only one who could fix them. Besides, he's only dead in the physical sense. That sounds pretty stupid, but he's there, "alive" in a sense, and for once, HAPPY! He can now spend all those nights watching the stars with Fandes that he hadn't been able to do forever. And I'm sure he was watching over Stef, which probably made him happy, too, even if they couldn't physically be together. Their bond wasn't based on sex, anyways, which, I mean to say that the lack of sex in their lives wouldn't affect the love they had for each other, which is what is really important to them. Yes, I cried when Vanyel died, but read the last sentence of MPrice, where he and stef are together, laughing with music in the background. No where else do I remember them ever being so happy together. AND NO ONE CAN EVER TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM AGAIN. No one can call Van to the border, or send him here or there, or make him deal with his parents, or anything. I don't think he was unhappy when he chose Final strike. Wasn't he even smiling when Fandes came back and he decided what to do? I'd even dare to say that he preferred the way it turned out. If I were Van, I know that by that time, I'd be so tired, I'd want to rest, too. Well, i could go on, but I think I make my point. And I do understand Danya's points, too..this isn't really a reply to them even, i suppose. jacquelle Ex astris, scientia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:18:40 CST From: "JAIME HATHAWAY" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah Message-ID: <30D18D42C9-+AT+-future.judson.edu> > The book Talia is reading in AotQ is absolutely not correct. For one, > there is another Herald with them, and another Companion who carries > Stefan away, and they go to Haven, not the Guard post. So, while > they've got well-documented histories, this version has obviously become > romanticized up the wazoo. or did the Valdmarens *forget* it, like they forgot everything > currently pertaining to magic? Perhaps that could account for the > discrepancy in the tale? Ok, I know we've been here before, but I ahve to return...Talia was DAYDREAMING. If you look up Evalie in the Arrow's Concordance, it will tell you that she is Talia's imaginary Companion when she was daydreaming herself into the otherwise perfectly historical tale. And isn't the Concordance considered canon? Jacquelle Ex astris, scientia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 08:00:00 PST From: Wyrick D TSgt CS/SCBC To: mercedes-lackey Subject: Sarcasm Message-ID: <32932A1B-+AT+-smtpgw.beale.af.mil> Korendil wrote in reference to my question: >>>> OBMisty: Does anyone know of any current or planned stories about Iftel >>>>(? I think that's the country, the one that the deity doesn't allow >>>>intrusion beyond the boarder)? I think the place would be fascinating! >>>Read more. Why thank you! I truly appreciate your assistance in this matter. The fact is that I read a book per day now, not all of which is Misty's work. If you don't wish to help then please desist with the sarcasm! Thank you, Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:40:55 -0800 From: "Linda Malcor, Ph.D" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Van Message-ID: <199611201640.IAA05586-+AT+-latimes.com> At 09:19 AM 11/20/96 GMT, Michelle N Reis wrote: >No, I didn't mean as an eternal punishment. Look at their reward in the >end- Van and Stef/Tylendel got to spend over 600 years together. That >seems a fair compensation. But this would make Stef/'Lyndel earn his >Eternal Reward and not tag along on Vanyel's coattails. And I think Stef could still earn it without the enforced 60+ year separation. 'Lendel screwed up, but Stef did absolutely nothing to deserve that. > >And,Danya, I know you've been harassed over and over for your stances, >but its o.k. We still love you. < Matya the Squirrel pounces joyfully >onto your unprotected shoulder and prances around your neck, rubbing it >softly with his little fluffy >tail.>I'll-make-you-feel-all-better-Danya-lady!! So, don't get down. >next week it'll be something new and someone else getting the brunt of >the protect-so-and-so leagues. I actually find it rather amusing that so many people sworn to defend Van seem to prefer the thought of him committing suicide and being alone for another 60+ years to the thought of him living and being happy during at least part of that time. "Hey, look! Here's a way your favorite character could have got the happiness he deserved!" "Oh, no! I'm here to be his champion! He has to be dead, dead dead! Alone, alone, alone! That's the only possible way!" If I were Van, I think I'd be a tad dubious about such champions ;->. (Thanks for the nuzzle! I needed that!) Danya ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:35:27 -0500 From: Rozanna McNeer To: "mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk" Subject: Reply to: blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah blah Message-ID: <199611201135_MC1-C24-5BFB-+AT+-compuserve.com> >The book Talia is reading in AotQ is absolutely not correct. For one, >there is another Herald with them, and another Companion who carries >Stefan away, and they go to Haven, not the Guard post. as kory said "Must... Resist ... Talia daydream vs. actual book-content ...." I tried. It was a heroic effort, but too much for me. a few things 1) we had this discussion about a month ago 2) get out your Daw version and turn to page 9, paragraph 1, line 2 " she had been lost in the DAYDREAM her tale had conjured for her [implication - she was the 2nd herald in the tale. this is supported by ...] Keldar couldn't have picked a worse time; Herald Vanyel was ALONE surrounded by Servants of Darkness, and NO ONE KNEW HIS PERIL but his companion and Bard Stefan." caps mine, inserted for emphasis. So, I'm sorry, but the book is true in that regard - Talia daydreamed a role for herself (and her dream-Companion Evalie) in the story. Firemist ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:30:52 -0500 (EST) From: Jaguar To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Burning Water Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Ken Hyde wrote: > Er, I haven't read that book in a long time (I can't stand it, frankly), > but "Burning Water" was the title of the God Tezcatlipocha, not of a > person. At least, in real life. There are several translations of the > acclamation-style name of Tezcatlipocha which all refer to the same image, > the sun-disk. Burning Water and Smoking Mirror are the two translations > that are most commonly used, AFAIK. > I've seen Smoking Mirror (I think the most accurate translation found is Mirror's Smoke), but I've never seen Burning Water before in my life. For a random fact, other names are the Capricious One and He Whose Slaves We Are. (Gee, who's been doing beaucoup reports, etc on this? ) > Actually, ironically, some of the sacrifices had nothing to do with > Tezcatlipocha. The drowning of the children, for example, was a sacrifice > to a moon goddess(?) whose name escapes me at the moment. But, as far as > the sacrifice of a variety of people goes, remember that Tezcatlipocha's > religion was centered around human-sacrifice. The sacrifices were not > made just out of revenge, but because that was the way he had always been > worshiped. This pattern of constant human sacrifice was what fueled the > "imperialism" of the Colhua Mexica (the "Aztecs"): they were always in > need of fresh sources of sacrificial prisoners. So, Burning Water was not I don't really think that was what fueled the sacrifices... I do know that they believed that the sun would not rise (well, most of them) for the new year if they didn't feed their gods with their blood. They didn't necessarily have to expand, either...what they did was they had "Flower Wars", which were peacefully arranged wars between states, and the prisoners of war got sacrificed. As for whether or not what He did was evil.. well, my view is that it wasn't a nice thing to do, but I can understand why He did it, even though I can't really condone it. Kerry wrote: > Just a comment on what you said above, even if you think he was a God, > that doesn't necessarily mean that he defines 'good', especially given > that he does not appear to be the sole god. (I was going to say it was > a pantheastic culture, but I don't know that the Aztecs really > worshipped Feathered-Serpent or White-Feathered-Serpent or whatever his > name was). Point being, if you have more than one God about, all of a > sudden 'good' becomes something more than that defined by a single god. He wasn't the only god. Two offhand that I know the names of: Quetzalcoatl (Feathered Serpent) and Coatlicue (She Of The Serpent Skirt). There were others... a duo of Mother/Father types, ... Chac, the rain god, is Aztec I think.. Tloq Nahque - Flayed One (I think). lots of others. Can't remember the Aztec names off the top of my head. At any rate, Tezcatlipoca was one of the more warlike gods, so I guess you could say that he didn't really 'define' 'good'. Quetzalcoatl was certainly more benevolent. Blessed be, Jaguar Leader of the Cat People "HI! I haven't seen you this entire incartation! Goddess of Large Hunter Cats Where have you been keeping yourself?" Chronicler of the Mage Wars -- Ram Dass, spiritualist Lady in Green ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:35:21 -0800 From: "Linda Malcor, Ph.D" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Van's final strike Message-ID: <199611201835.KAA08597-+AT+-latimes.com> At 11:03 AM 11/20/96 GMT, Jerry Cullingford wrote: > I do not think his death is a good climax. >> I think Misty broke a classic story pattern ("David and Goliath") > >Hmm. I can see where you're coming from :-) but I don't go for it myself - >I just can't see Van as David; This is someone capable of flattening an >entire city if he's woken up wrong, one of the strongest Mages ever, who's >beaten everything he's ever taken on (even though he's pushing his limits >a lot of the time). True. Until Misty threw Learth at him. By doing that, by making Leareth so much more powerful than Van and giving Leareth all this back-up that Van did not have, she thrust Van onto the level of David in opposition to Goliath by comparison. Only if Van had been mortally wounded and dying anyway does suiciding to take his opponent with him become the logical option. Otherwise the message is "Oh, oops. I'm up against something I don't think I can handle. I'm not even going to try to handle it. I'm just going to kill myself and take the problem with me." That is a very different message from "Oops, I'm dying anyway, but I'll do one last good thing for my people before I go" (Arthur kills Mordred, Hamlet kills Claudas). > Yes, you could probably make an >interesting story out of it, but it doesn't really need someone like Van >who should be able to toast them with few problems as long as he paced himself. Ah, but apparently Van was the precise person that was needed: "Valdemar needs a guardian on this Border, a magical one." Danya ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:35:06 -0800 From: "Linda Malcor, Ph.D" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Vanyel Message-ID: <199611201835.KAA08588-+AT+-latimes.com> At 09:54 AM 11/20/96 GMT, Hth. wrote: > There are those of us who, dysfunctional as it may seem, like to see >our main characters work hard and even suffer for a goal. I don't mind that at all. In fact, that's how it should be. If the main character doesn't have to work hard, the story is boring. > As an Arthurian scholar, Danya is >certainly aware that part of the power of the legends and part of the >reason it endures is the element of doom and sacrifice. You cannot just >rewrite the ending to make it happy and call it six of one, half a dozen >of the other. If the story ended happily, it would be a radically >different story. That's how I feel about Last Herald-Mage. Um, actually, the vast majority of the Arthurian stories do have a happy ending before Arthur gets killed. Arthur reconciles with Lancelot and reclaims Guinevere and everything was going to be fine and dandy (In the earliest legends it stays that way--There's no Mordred, and Lancelot, who never had an affair with Guinevere, got married, had four kids, and died of old age in one quite popular version). Gawain insisting on fighting Lancelot to the death, a misplaced snake bite, and the prevailing winds blowing against Lancelot's ships result in Mordred and Arthur killing each other. But even in those versions Arthur keeps fighting to live until the very end, and it is only when he is mortally wounded himself that he takes the villain with him. And, at that point, the vast majority of the stories go on to say, "No, wait! Arthur didn't die! He was saved by three queens and taken to the Isle of Avalon where he was healed and is living in peace and happiness until we need him to come save us again." It's this last version of the legend that has survive the ages, not the version where Arthur lies suffering from his wounds for all eternity or any of the other tragic alternatives that were floating around in the Middle Ages. It's the message of hope that has endured. > There seems to be some concern that Vanyel sends out the wrong >"message." That he is not a good role model, in that he is a good >person, but still gets reamed by life. All I can say is that I like >that about LHM. If it had been a corny moral piece, showing that if you >live a good and upright life, you will be rewarded with an easy death at >the age of 121 with your lifebonded at your side, it would have been >kind of a stock pulp fantasy series. Hero faces difficulty. Hero >remains true to his morals and leads a clean life. Hero defeats evil. >Hero lives happily ever after. Also a fine story, in as far as it goes. >Not the story Misty wanted to write. And not a story that would have >stayed very long in my memory. Well, maybe I just like "corny moral pieces," then, but most of the classics I can think of that live in my memory fall into your definition: Asimov's Foundation and Robot series, Tolkien's _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_, C.S. Lewis's _Chronicles of Narnia_ and _The Screwtape Letters_, Herbert's Dune series, and the list goes on. It's the inspirational quality to the tales that _makes_ them stay in my memory as wonderful works whereas LHM lives in my memory as a work that still makes me cry in disappointment and anger every time I read the ending scenes. > Did Vanyel "deserve" a happy ending? Sure, I guess so. Did Stefen >"deserve" years of loneliness? No, I don't think he did. Does that >mean Misty is morally obligated to provide them with the lives they >*earned*? No. You don't earn a long life. You rolls your dice and you >takes your chances. We lose people we love. We face insurmountable >odds. It isn't right and it isn't fair, and it is hard. Some books >provide us with an imaginary world where that isn't the case, where good >people get good things in the end and bad people get bad things. Some >books have the courage to say, "Life can be this way, and it's not my >job to soften it for you." I wouldn't mind that if there really hadn't been such an easy alternative to what she did with the plot and if there was a way to have Vanyel die without it being suicide for no good reason. I mourn Kris every time I read the sequence where he dies and again when I read about Talia's wedding. But _Arrows_ I remember as a wonderful work in the same category with the others I mentioned above instead of as a series that might have classed as the greatest fantasy series I'd ever read except the ending pissed me off. > What person in their right mind would want to be heroic if they >believed that they could end up like Vanyel? Would you have been >happier if Misty had lied to her audience, promising that if they were >good like Vanyel, they would always triumph and receive blessings from >on high? Firstly, I don't consider that a lie. Especially since triumph is bought at a price and the blessings come at an ongoing cost. Secondly, what would have made me happier, regardless of what ending she chose, is that if she had remained true to Vanyel as a character, the way she proved she could do with Kris. >LHM encompasses a difficult, adult idea, to wit, that the >height of human virtue is to be heroic and upright, even at a cost. >That the goal of our lives may not be to win the prize, but to live well >and nobly. There's a level of moral thought that goes past "So what >will I get?" and goes to "What is right?" That's kind of a dark idea, >but it's the idea Vanyel had to face up to, and I admire Misty a lot for >not backing off. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that she could have made the same point without betraying her character for the sake of a plot outline. Especially when she herself says that characters take precedence over plot, that plot should come from characters and that characters should not be forced to fit the plot, regardless of what story the author wants to tell. > But it isn't really fair to attack Misty for choosing the story she >chose to tell. Ah, but you see? Misty did not tell the story she chose to tell. She chose a well-known story pattern that has been popular for centuries and stuck a different ending on it at the price of having to screw over her characters and to make her hero look stupid. >That's what authors do. *Bad* authors sometimes tell >only the story they think people will want to hear. But good authors do this, too. Sometimes they *are* good authors because they do this. >Danya, I can't believe that you don't understand this, deep down. >You're a writer; haven't you ever had a character that you *wanted* to >live happily ever after, but his or her death was an integral part of >the story you wanted to tell? You have the power to let them live if >you want to; no one's stopping you. But you don't always, right? Actually, in my own fantasy world there's reincarnation, ressurrection, and multiple possibilities for an afterlife, so death is a condition that the characters pass through to go on to another state. When I'm writing for a world like Pern, where there is no afterlife/your dead/that's it, I do let the characters die, BUT only if in doing so I remain true to the character. Dragonriders die in Threadfall, people fall to their deaths from cliffs, and so forth. Misty created a character who was the greatest Herald-Mage of all time, a brilliant tactician, almost twenty years of combat experience, a truly amazing will to live, and a terrific reason to do so (moments before Van encounters the army he realizes that Stef is 'Lendel come back to him). Then she throws this super-villain at him, and suddenly Van doesn't seem to be anywhere in the competition as a mage, can't even consider the classical tactic that would have worked (although he can think of another one just fine), freezes up like someone who's never seen things like demons before let alone slain them, and doesn't even try to figure out a way he could come through the mess and live. To me, that's character sabotage of the first order. >Because it would change the story too profoundly, and you chose to let a >loved character die instead of telling a different story? If the character needs to die for me to stay true to him, he dies. But if killing him for the sake of a plot outline means that I have to betray the character, no way. > It's not sensible to say, "I wanted Vanyel to live, and so she had no >right to tell a story where he dies." That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that given the character that she had developed over the course of three books, given the setting, and given the plot point, the scene would not have resolved the way it did without her forcing it to. Van does nothing more to Leareth than talk to him before calling the Final Strike. Van never tries to hurt him magically. And Van never even considers trying to hurt him physically--the tactic that we know from _Winds_ would have worked. The rule of thumb for plotting in terms of audience reaction is that, given a choice, go for the happy ending. To make the character believeable and not tick off at least some members of your audience, if you do not go for a happy ending make sure that your character had absolutely no other option and that you stayed true to him in the bargain. And if you are telling a traditional plot, always, always, always follow the pattern that the audience expects. Misty got herself into trouble on two points: she should never have started "David and Goliath" if she wasn't going to finish it, and she left Vanyel with a glaring option that he did not consider but that his character would have. If Vanyel had created the avalanche and had been killed by it, then that's the roll of the die. But suicide had not been an option for him since 'Lendel died, and, knowing that 'Lendel was once again alive, I just don't see how suicide would become the only option Vanyel would consider when facing Leareth. As you say, we will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue. But Misty broke some very basic rules of writing and storytelling by forcing this scene to go the way it did, and that, for me, is the tragedy of _The Last Herald Mage_. Danya ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 968 *********************************