Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message <news:0orvt11uq0eq1d4vie07q1u12gb81s0ket@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> William Marnoch <william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> enriched us with:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:31:17 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
> > <Troels@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
>
> [Eriondia books rated "Christian Morality: Harmless/Dangerous".
>
> > Perhaps it means it is largely harmless but has a few dangerous
> > elements.
>
> LOL! 'Mostly harmless' . . .
>
> >> tRoA, however, is given an unqualified "Dangerous" (I was also, as
> >> one of the defenders of that book, thrilled to see it score 4/5 in
> >> literary quality to opposee the 3/5 for the Eriondia books <G>).
> >
> > That makes no sense ;)
>
> Actually I think it does. Despite the plot-weaknesses (in particular
> with respect to the end) in tRoA, I think that it worked well to boil
> the plot down to one book. Literarily the tighter structure in tRoA is,
> IMO, an advantage.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The other point I'm referring to is the natures of the two
> >> prophecies -- they are not Good and Evil either, but rather
> >> represent change vs. stasis. There's a nice passage (IDHTBIFOM) in
> >> the Seeress of Kell as they're entering the cave where Belgarion
> >> says something along the lines of 'It will change' to
> >> Zandramas/the Dark Prophecy[*] where we get an exposition of this
> >> philosophy.
> [...]
> >
> > Unfortunately DE didn't really do the change vs. status argument
> > justice. The 'dark' side was too obviously evil for it to be
> > believable that it could possibly win.
>
> You are right. The side of 'dark' is very obviously evil, and that
> makes the moral 'message' (though I'm not sure it is a conscious
> message by the author) that as long as 'we' are 'better' than 'them',
> then everything's OK -- 'we' don't have to be 'good' on an absolute
> scale to justify our actions.
>
> I do think it's interesting, however, that DE doesn't invoke the usual
> good vs. evil language openly (though, as you say, he does do it
> implicitly -- half way, at least). I suppose that if one wishes, one
> can read any of half a dozen different 'messages' into that little fact
> :-)
>
Umm - no. the "Good v Evil" dark side thing *was* explained. Them and
us? remember? Just because you yourself reading the story associates
with the good side does not make the bad (for the sake of arguement)
side wrong or bad. It's your own experiences that define bad. DE is
just assuming that whatever side you are on you will associate with the
"good" (Light) side and therefore understand the reasoning. I think
Aik
|
