|
Post by joshua on Mar 26, 2009 18:02:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Mar 26, 2009 22:35:40 GMT -5
"your brave soul flies away on silvery wings to find a place where darkness is just a tale?"
I don't know... it sounds a bit Christian for my tastes. No offense to any Christians here. But I like that the LW books were distinctly rooted in their own religion.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Mar 27, 2009 2:11:20 GMT -5
The ending sounds too triumphant, and I think the mechanics of the gamebook dictate you feel that you have failed, and so much restart right away!
Much of LW is Lone Wolf's life serving a higher cause, and his life (and death) not quite being in his contrl. He cannot help those he wishes to at the cost of his life - Rhyhar in book 2 say, Sommerlund in bok 12 (he can't sabotage a dreadnought at the expense of his life). He serves a higher nobility, one where his death cannot be seen as anything but tragic and a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Samildanach on Mar 27, 2009 3:14:36 GMT -5
I can see where you're coming from about a dramatic and poetic death, but I also agree with Beowuuf and Zipp: there's something a little (or a lot) too redemptive about that particular example. It gives a feeling of everything being ok, even though Lone Wolf has died - whereas generally when Lone Wolf dies, the world dies with him. So not such a happy outcome.
|
|
|
Post by jan on Mar 27, 2009 5:08:32 GMT -5
Yeah. I see your point, Joshua, but, as the others pointed out, a death is, after all, an *unpleasant* thing in your life, and all the eagles and crimson in the world wouldn't make any difference.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 27, 2009 9:02:19 GMT -5
Well, the point is this:-There was a kind of message in there. When you died for a noble cause, you cannot fail at all. It´s not just a Christian case (although in Cristianity there is a resurrection) because in viking leyends and other cultures if you died bravely you go to a paradise. It´s not a secret that LW was not a high literature level, that´s the reason Joe Dever needs another writer to make the LW novels. And there is something i cannot agree with the philosophy of our dear writer, using the example you see in the Masterss of Darkness:
"With cruel glee (DarkLord Gnaag), he orders you to be cast into the Lake of Blood, where your endless suffering will feed its unholy flames for all eternity(...)"
This end is against the philosophy of all the warrior legends in history. Because you went to hell just in case you become a traitor (or a coward). Fail is in the order of things in every warrior legends. Only perfidy condemns you. Of course, you can prefer a punishment to LW soul just for dying. But it is unfair.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Mar 27, 2009 10:15:09 GMT -5
I think the Lake of Blood is an actual location, not a reference to the afterlife. My interpretation is that LW's torment is to be indefinitely sustained through evil magic so he will not be allowed to die. In fact, this could be another case of a non-lethal failure along with the one in Book 3. www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/12tmod/sect208.htm
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 27, 2009 10:28:24 GMT -5
Eternity is Eternity.The contrary of Eternity is the temporary life. In fact, if the difference between good guys and bad guys is just the power and victory, when poor LW fails we must assume he is a bad one. Therefore to the hell for ever.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Mar 27, 2009 10:57:36 GMT -5
Nope. You can't go to the afterlife without it being after your life. Unless your name is Orpheus, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Samildanach on Mar 27, 2009 12:21:38 GMT -5
Agreed. The Lake of Blood is a deeply magical and evil place, but it's not hell. It might feel like hell, but it isn't. And Lone Wolf is cast into it, not as a punishment for his failure, but because his enemy hates him. If the Lake of Blood can be considered a punishment in this case, it's only in the sense of Gnaag punishing an enemy for daring to oppose him. It's not a sentence passed by any higher authority or in accordance with any belief system; it's simply "I hate you and want you to suffer."
Plus, in this case I think we can take 'for all eternity' as poetic licence. If you want to be strictly accurate, it'd be 'for as long as the Lake exists, which the Darklords hope will be eternity, but in all likelihood will not be.' Accurate, yes; precise, yes; but lacking in poetry or emotion - a little ironic considering the theme of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 27, 2009 13:30:34 GMT -5
There is a contradiction in your words. Because all of you say this kind of ends need not any poetic figure of speech. But to justify a mistake you say "oh, it´s a poetic license".
Anyway, i think the books work fine like an entertainment. But if you like something you got the right to criticize it in a positive way.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Mar 27, 2009 13:46:42 GMT -5
In the (nearly) five years I've been posting on LW-related forums, I don't once recall trying to pass anything off as poetic license. In fact, I think I've been quite vocal on what I perceive as flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Mar 27, 2009 15:24:32 GMT -5
I don't know... it sounds a bit Christian for my tastes. No offense to any Christians here. But I like that the LW books were distinctly rooted in their own religion. To be fair to the point, nothing about that symbology is inherently unique to the Christian religion. Ones own biases can often play a greater part in the interpretations of any given symbolism than any objective quality about that symbolism itself.
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Mar 27, 2009 15:33:06 GMT -5
True, I saw no Christian symbolism either which is why I found alternative reasons to dispute the OP. However I'll fall silent again as I'm concerned that whatever I say could end up in either Ector or Owain suffering a sudden massive heart attack.
|
|
|
Post by Samildanach on Mar 27, 2009 17:02:04 GMT -5
There is a contradiction in your words. Because all of you say this kind of ends need not any poetic figure of speech. But to justify a mistake you say "oh, it´s a poetic license". Anyway, i think the books work fine like an entertainment. But if you like something you got the right to criticize it in a positive way. I'm not saying you can't criticise it, I'm just saying I don't agree with you. As for poetry versus poetic licence, I think you're just being deliberately obtuse and I can't be bothered to explain to someone who has no interest in understanding.
|
|