|
silly posted:Well yeah I read Heroes and recall that sequence. And I do agree there has to be some larger reason for him including it since it bore really no relevance on the immediate plot of the book. But going from early cannons to what they were using in the West is 700 years of history. Not that that means it can't be done, but it's a rather stark leap. I agree that it's a huge technological leap for such a short time period, but at the same time Bayaz had a lot of ties to the Master Maker and seduced the guy's daughter, and practically had free reign of his tower. Given that the MM was a demigodlike being who all but forged souls capable of cutting through reality and creating magical nukes, I don't think that guns would be all that far off. Maybe not firearms as we know them, but who knows that the old magi smuggled out of the tower and has been keeping in secret. If nothing else, it could be a last resort kind of weapon that people only use under dire circumstances for fear of blowing their own limbs off, ala D&D blunderbusses. Would add a lot of tension to gunfight scenes if Abercrombie could randomly blow characters up with their own weapons on authorial whim.
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
onefish posted:Well, I don't know, it's new-ish. Particularly, the idea that a wizard is fundamentally different than a human, and will not have human interests at heart seemed *relatively* new, or newly employed, with Abercrombie. I have no idea if Merlin in that series has that feel to him as well, but it sounds like not quite. Though "good" wizards aren't usually short-tempered/manipulative/ruthless either. I don't know, in Tolkien's books the wizards are straight up angels given human shells to wear during their time in Middle-Earth and under a binding agreement not to utilize the full extent of their heavenly power except in direct conflict with other angelic/demonic beings (with some exceptions made). Gandalf is also the only one who keeps mortal interests at heart throughout the course of the series; Saruman starts out with his heart in the right place but falls prey to pride and thinks he can do better than his maker given the right tools, Radagast becomes more interested in the preservation of nature than in civilization, so on and so forth. I think that Abercrombie's genius lies in taking the idea of such a wizard to its logical conclusion: accumulating several lifetimes of wisdom and power and believing that this makes him better suited to lead his "people" to prosperity, having enough time to actually plan for this and get the better of his kindred, and seeing the state of the world believing that he can surpass his creators/teachers and do a better job of running things. What we're seeing is practically the story of Saruman told if he had managed to vanquish Gandalf and continue rallying forces, completely dehumanizing the enemy with deep-rooted propaganda, solidifying a power base through cunning politics with the "civilized" folk of the Union and through threats or bribery with the "savages" as need be. I'm really interested to see where he goes with the Prophet and any books set primarily in the south now. Bayaz has been firmly identified as not evil, but incredibly ruthless, sociopathic and with a burning need to maintain and advance civilization at any price. I can't even begin to guess how the Prophet and company are going to be portrayed; we know they absolutely are religious fanatic cannibals who allow slave trading, but I hope we get to see them either just as bad as Bayaz, or as a viable alternative to his rule. They must have been pretty backed into a corner by Bayaz to turn to breaking the second law on such a regular basis. Following the Middle-Earth subversion from earlier, it would be interesting to see him as a benevolent Gandalf-esque figure who has only pushed his people to acts of evil to protect the greater world from Bayaz's machinations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2011 05:43
|
|