Re: Why not kill the bat

From: Nick Brooke <Nick_at_...>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:32:12 -0000


Jane is insufficiently cynical:

> He always makes Argrath look good: but he wasn't there.
> He plays down Kallyr: no mention of her.

Yeah, but he *knows* that Kallyr was present when Heroic Deeds Were Done at Whitewall; and that Argrath wasn't. So, by downplaying what happened at Whitewall, and by not mentioning that Kallyr was there, he scores a double whammy on my cynicometer.

> Looks to me as if when he said the Bat was "repelled",
> he meant exactly that. If it had in fact been killed,
> I don't see that he had any reason to down-play the
> fact.

If he's writing CHDP in the late 1630s, the Bat has been back in circulation for a decade or more (using that "3-7 years" figure people have been bandying about). So he may well see the "death" as less permanent or significant than it looks to us at the time. *And* he wants to downplay it.

Besides, does he even mention that *Orlanth* was Dead, albeit briefly? With omissions like that, who'll notice the Bat?

Cheers, Nick

Powered by hypermail