Jun-26-2010, 04:43 PM (UTC)
(This post was last modified: Jun-28-2010, 09:02 AM (UTC) by Syrocko.)
(Jun-26-2010, 01:16 PM (UTC))Farseer Wrote:(Jun-14-2010, 12:36 PM (UTC))Syrocko Wrote: In FF, we learn that Realder's dragon is the dragon part of Girl-on-a-dragon. However, in AQ, the Fool pointed out Realder's dragon as a different one, and Fitz spends some time trying to wake it by calling it's name... okay so I'm being a bit nit-picky with this one.
I am so GLAD you picked up on this too, Syrocko! Of all of the riddles etc in all of the RotE books so far, it is Realder's dragon and the Rooster Crown events which have driven me almost MAD trying to get everything to fit. I have to admit to spending three sleepless days and nights in a row once, going over and noting down everything related to these things in the Farseer, LST and Tawny man books, and I have more pieces of paper and diagrams all over the place on this than anything else!!!!!
I know you said it wasn't a vital point in a later, more recent post than this one that I have quoted, but I believe it is truly vital...particularly to a significant theory I have regarding Fool and Fitz! With Realder being a different dragon, it's all blown to pieces!!! Let me find all of my 'bits' and I'll be back!
ps In case I haven't said it already, welcome to thePlenty!!!
Hiya,
Yeah, it's just a bit confusing. Actually, if I'm honest, I think that most of the issues I've raised, especially this one, have come about because the author needed to change one or two specifics throughout the story in order to create the plot she wished. I think she must have had a fair idea of where it was all going, but some unforseen problems can always occur. One of the many things I love about the work of Robin Hobb is just how few plot holes there are. With most fantasy books I just wince slightly as they come up, and then try to forget about them. With the Farseer and Tawny Man trilogies, I could find so few plot holes that I wanted to see if they couldn't also be explained.
The Realder's Dragon issue, in AQ it was probably just there to give the reader a hint at what the dragons were and how they were created, and with a potential link to a future sub-plot. 3 books later, she probably decided that the new explanation was much more appropriate, and just hoped that the reader wouldn't recall such a minor discrepancy.
Killing with the Skill, well I think that she probably only in AQ decided that draining someone to death wasn't possible, and that killing someone you have a connection to will burn you out, to fit the plot points I described in a previous post. I think the explanation offered in the book almost works, but still seems a little odd in light of previous events and what else we know of the Skill magic.
Another example of such an issue has to do with communication between Witted ones. In the Farseer trilogy, it seems as though Witted ones can hear each other's thoughts, and Witted ones can communicate easily with any animal who will speak to them. Fitz is spoken to by a bear and a ferret. Burrich can hear his dogs, and talk to Nighteyes well enough to explain that he needs to let Fitz' soul share his body, and Black Rolf can hear exactly what Fitz and Nighteyes are saying to each other. However, the logical conclusion to this is that Witted ones can communicate with each other just as Skilled ones do, and in the Tawny Man trilogy Robin Hobb clearly realises this and takes steps to put it right. She does this well, although it takes the next 3 books to explain away all the plot holes that were created!
As for the repelling issue, I guess that besides the reasons discussed above, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting if battles consisted of "I replled at him, then stabbed him. Then I did the same with the next person..."