think the reviewers are forgetting that the books are set in the
> (pseudo-) Middle Ages. Those were often pretty nasty times where the
> rule of law was only intermittently enforced. Setting a series in such
> a world where some of the characters were nobles, politicians,
> military leaders and so on and not have a high pro****tion of them
> acting in ways we might consider reprehensible would be unrealistic
> and trying to apply too much modern morality to condemn all their
> actions would be absurd.
This reminds me of University. I had to have a real good think about
this one for a while. Seriously though when comparing the actions of
Belgarath, Silk, Talen, Platime and so on to the actions of particular
Australian Politicans/Businessmen/Crooks whose behaviour should we
consider to be the most rephrehensible? on one hand we have the
characters from the novels, petty thieves, murders politicans etc
acting in the best interests of their particular home world on the
other hand, we have John Howard playing deputy in Iraq, new (very bad)
IR reforms, new laws taking away basic human rights, allowing an
Australian citizen to languish in Guntanomo Bay without a fair trial
and the list goes on and on and on. Basically what I am trying to say
is that while we are "called upon to root for a thief, a drunkard, and
a slew of happy-go-lucky warriors who enjoy killing their enemies" it
would appear in todays society we are called upon to vote for them
instead. it seems that morals wise we haven't moved very far away the
middle ages, often it seems that we have regressed rather than
progressed, our society seems to be just as opressive with power still
firmly skewed towards those in control of money, land and resources
REVOLUTION COMRADES (sorry I got a bit overexcited)
Was that long winded enough? sorry for the bad spelling and the
terrible grammar I'm actually writing this at work during a lull in
calls additionally I have gotten out of the habit of proof reading.
cheers all
bec
|
