Re: King Moirades' Empire

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_morat.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:55:56 +0100


>Paul Andrew King:
>
>>I'll start by repeating that I have no problem with choosing an idea
>>that makes a juicy plot-point. My objection is limited to the claim
>>that support for this idea is to be found in KoS
>
>I never made such a claim and I've pointed out the examples of
>Fimbulwinter and the Battle of Iceland to demonstrate why I
>do not need explicit support in King of Sartar.

But you made explicit references to Phargentes and the Good Empire which are found only in KoS. Why rely on contentious readings of KoS when you don't need them ?

>
>>Lets go over what Argrath's Saga DOES say about the Good Empire
>
>I'm not interested in following closely to what Argrath's Saga
>says since I do not believe it to be an accurate version of
>events of the Hero Wars in Dragon Pass. Many of the
>statements that it makes are false (such as Argrath summoning
>Gryphons at Corflu) so it is best used as a source of
>ideas for what happens rather than a strict guide.

Then why bother to argue against other interpretations of it ?

>
>>As to your suggestion that the conquests of Tarsh at the end of Part
>>3 and part 4 are the same event, both are to be found in CHDP.
>
>No, they are not. There is no conquest of Tarsh after the
>battle of Dwernapple in the CHDP. The CHDP finishes
>with Argrath's victory at Dwernapple but leaves out any
>description of his domains after the event. Thus it
>conveys an impression that Argrath has recovered Tarsh
>but it does not actually say so.

Likewise Argrath's Saga makes no such explicit reference. In both cases we have a major victory at Dwernapple and a recapture of Tarsh must be inferred. The only difference is that Argrath's Saga continues and in Part 5 Argrath is in control of Tarsh again. But there is still no explicit reconquest.

>
>>Nor do we have two formations of the Good Empire. All
>>Part 5 says is that the name was in use in Tarsh at the
>>time - it does not say when the name was first applied.
>
>Why does the information have to be repeated in Part 5
>when it has already been described in Part 3?

It doesn't HAVE to be given the current structure. But even if I grant you everything you've said all you have is the "formation" of the Good Empire (as described simply a change of name) appearing in Part 4. Maybe that belongs somewhere else but there's still no "formation" in Part 5. All we can say is that the Good Empire exists prior to Argrath's defeat of Phargentes

> If the
>Saga was composed based upon a known history, then
>the repetition simply wouldn't occur. That it does
>shows that the ur-Saga compiler was taking known
>anecdotes (Argrath and the Giants, Argrath and the
>Good Empire etc) and weaving them into a coherent
>narrative. In doing so, he fails to recognize that some
>anecdotes refer to the same event and so his saga
>creates a false impression.

And perhaps the "Good Empire" is just a name used in some of those sources which the saga writer has mistaken for an official name.

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of 
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals 
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala 
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.


------------------------------

Powered by hypermail