Evergone
2017-07-17, 05:45 AM
Hello. Been reading for a while, decided that I'd register to chime in with some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for a while. Perhaps this has come up before (likely) and I missed it, in which case feel free to link to previous discussions.
Essentially, I've had the feeling that there are some interesting narrative twists to destroying the world, without it ending the story (in a satisfying way). I just haven't been able to figure out the details. The reason I think this is interesting is that it would subvert several reader assumptions and expectations, and offer interesting story-telling opportunities.
The first story-telling opportunity is for Hel's plan to blow up in her face. Now, I expect the Order to defeat the evil vampire in the nick of time (and most importantly, for Durkon's spirit to play some part in that), and then the Dwarven Council of Elders will cast their vote free of vampire Domination. But what if the dwarves, in full knowledge of what is at stake, decide that the risk of the Snarl is too great and therefore, yes, the world should be destroyed to be safe. If that condemns all of them to Hel, well... that's their duty. Thing is, that is a noble and honourable sacrifice, so by chosing to end the world, the dwarves free themselves from Hel.
Another interesting question is this: would the world ending without the story ending at the same time fulfill a technical interpretation of the Oracle's prophecy of Belkar's death? There probably is a way to manage that, but I'm not sure how. I guess I'm mainly basing this on the "not long for this world" turn of phrase, but of course the actual prophecy is worded differently.
I think the first of these would be very funny and very much in line with villains getting tripped up by their own schemes. The second one would also be funny if done in a satisfying way, otherwise it would just feel cheap. Or the prophecy gets technically fulfilled, with Belkar not out of the picture, followed by him dying anyway shortly afterwards.
Ok, so points against (aka, reasons why I don't think this will actually happen): the Oracle is set to be resurrected in three years time or so (I forgot the exact number, but I thought it was something like that; someone correct me if I'm wrong), which is after the destruction of the world (but clearly part of the same "continuity"). More importantly though, if the world gets to be destroyed, then even if the story does not end, the Snarl is no longer in the picture. That means the Plan isn't either, which means Redcloak and Xykon lose their purpose. Ok, so Xykon will probably figure out Redcloak has been deceiving him for his own ends at some point anyway (if he hasn't already done that), but it would be odd to shift them to a different plan for the final book.
Anyway, I was wondering if there has been some discussion along these lines that I may have missed?
Essentially, I've had the feeling that there are some interesting narrative twists to destroying the world, without it ending the story (in a satisfying way). I just haven't been able to figure out the details. The reason I think this is interesting is that it would subvert several reader assumptions and expectations, and offer interesting story-telling opportunities.
The first story-telling opportunity is for Hel's plan to blow up in her face. Now, I expect the Order to defeat the evil vampire in the nick of time (and most importantly, for Durkon's spirit to play some part in that), and then the Dwarven Council of Elders will cast their vote free of vampire Domination. But what if the dwarves, in full knowledge of what is at stake, decide that the risk of the Snarl is too great and therefore, yes, the world should be destroyed to be safe. If that condemns all of them to Hel, well... that's their duty. Thing is, that is a noble and honourable sacrifice, so by chosing to end the world, the dwarves free themselves from Hel.
Another interesting question is this: would the world ending without the story ending at the same time fulfill a technical interpretation of the Oracle's prophecy of Belkar's death? There probably is a way to manage that, but I'm not sure how. I guess I'm mainly basing this on the "not long for this world" turn of phrase, but of course the actual prophecy is worded differently.
I think the first of these would be very funny and very much in line with villains getting tripped up by their own schemes. The second one would also be funny if done in a satisfying way, otherwise it would just feel cheap. Or the prophecy gets technically fulfilled, with Belkar not out of the picture, followed by him dying anyway shortly afterwards.
Ok, so points against (aka, reasons why I don't think this will actually happen): the Oracle is set to be resurrected in three years time or so (I forgot the exact number, but I thought it was something like that; someone correct me if I'm wrong), which is after the destruction of the world (but clearly part of the same "continuity"). More importantly though, if the world gets to be destroyed, then even if the story does not end, the Snarl is no longer in the picture. That means the Plan isn't either, which means Redcloak and Xykon lose their purpose. Ok, so Xykon will probably figure out Redcloak has been deceiving him for his own ends at some point anyway (if he hasn't already done that), but it would be odd to shift them to a different plan for the final book.
Anyway, I was wondering if there has been some discussion along these lines that I may have missed?