Comments on: The Wayfarer Redemption, by Sara Douglass http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/1299 This and that, now and then. Mostly book reviews, with the occasional descent into whimsy Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:05:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.6 by: Will Duquette http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/1299#comment-1282 Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:13:43 +0000 http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/1299#comment-1282 Yeah. I kept asking myself, "If Faraday were put in a metal cage just big enough to holder her, what would its capacitance be?" To be fair, the "Seneschal" isn't transparently evil in the book, any more than the Acharite civilization is obviously evil. In fact, the Acharites have a lot more going for them, in terms of civilization, than any of the Forbidden do. On the surface, everything is copacetic. It's only when you look under the covers that you see the rot going on. The hypocrisy; the lies; the violence; the abuse. That, of course, just feeds my theory. Of course, the society wouldn't work at all if the entire organization was rotten--but it remains true that all of the brothers of the Seneschal that Douglass shows us are right bastards. Yeah. I kept asking myself, “If Faraday were put in a metal cage just big enough to holder her, what would its capacitance be?”

To be fair, the “Seneschal” isn’t transparently evil in the book, any more than the Acharite civilization is obviously evil. In fact, the Acharites have a lot more going for them, in terms of civilization, than any of the Forbidden do. On the surface, everything is copacetic. It’s only when you look under the covers that you see the rot going on. The hypocrisy; the lies; the violence; the abuse.

That, of course, just feeds my theory. Of course, the society wouldn’t work at all if the entire organization was rotten–but it remains true that all of the brothers of the Seneschal that Douglass shows us are right bastards.

]]> by: karrde http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/1299#comment-1281 Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:24:48 +0000 http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/1299#comment-1281 My first random thought is: why did he name the love-interest in the story after an accomplished (but not terribly-well-known) 19th Century scientist? Assuming that Douglass is aware of that scientist... I suppose I could get used to the mental jar, if the story was worth the effort. But it would rise every time I saw her name, for about the first quarter of the book. And this assumes that there might be some hidden reason behind the construction of the naming-scheme. I haven't read the book...but if the story-structure assumes such monotonically evil things about the Church used as a model for the mythical religious system, I too will avoid it. My first random thought is: why did he name the love-interest in the story after an accomplished (but not terribly-well-known) 19th Century scientist?

Assuming that Douglass is aware of that scientist…

I suppose I could get used to the mental jar, if the story was worth the effort. But it would rise every time I saw her name, for about the first quarter of the book.

And this assumes that there might be some hidden reason behind the construction of the naming-scheme.

I haven’t read the book…but if the story-structure assumes such monotonically evil things about the Church used as a model for the mythical religious system, I too will avoid it.

]]>