Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Brandark's future

Fans of Bahzell and Tomenack come on in! Let's talk about David's fantasy series and our favorite hradani!
Re: Brandark's future
Post by Louis R   » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:51 pm

Louis R
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1185
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:25 pm

quite certainly not. not straws, and not Semkirk. or, rather, not _just_ Semkirk.

Vince is correct that the original statement is in the plural, and intended to be read that way, and significant.

the interesting part is that if he checks the original MMPB of OOS, he'll find "brother's". but, it was confirmed years ago on the Bar that _that_ was the typo, introduced by the copy-editor assuming that the singular was intended, which slipped past Himself during his review of the edits. entirely understandable, since it is a very subtle difference. the TPB and current e-books both contain the corrected text that Vince is citing. [BTW, the ancientness of that discussion is an indication of just how long this debate has been going on :)]

what i can't say, because i've never seen it mentioned anywhere, is whether the the version in WGO is a second typo, propagating the first one in the interest of continuity, or if, as Vince suggests, it shows that Brandark himself didn't understand it correctly at first. it's an interesting thought, and entirely plausible. unfortunately, since i read WGO first, and the two then matched, it never occurred to me to ask either Richard or Himself for clarification when the error was first brought to light.

fallsfromtrees wrote:I didn't bother copying the previous post, in order to save electrons. I still think you are grasping at straws - and from some of the other posts, I am now inclined to believe that his God will turn out to be Semkirk.
Top
Re: Brandark's future
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:34 pm

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

fallsfromtrees wrote:I didn't bother copying the previous post, in order to save electrons. I still think you are grasping at straws - and from some of the other posts, I am now inclined to believe that his God will turn out to be Semkirk.
Louis R wrote:quite certainly not. not straws, and not Semkirk. or, rather, not _just_ Semkirk.

Vince is correct that the original statement is in the plural, and intended to be read that way, and significant.

the interesting part is that if he checks the original MMPB of OOS, he'll find "brother's". but, it was confirmed years ago on the Bar that _that_ was the typo, introduced by the copy-editor assuming that the singular was intended, which slipped past Himself during his review of the edits. entirely understandable, since it is a very subtle difference. the TPB and current e-books both contain the corrected text that Vince is citing. [BTW, the ancientness of that discussion is an indication of just how long this debate has been going on :)]

what i can't say, because i've never seen it mentioned anywhere, is whether the the version in WGO is a second typo, propagating the first one in the interest of continuity, or if, as Vince suggests, it shows that Brandark himself didn't understand it correctly at first. it's an interesting thought, and entirely plausible. unfortunately, since i read WGO first, and the two then matched, it never occurred to me to ask either Richard or Himself for clarification when the error was first brought to light.


Interesting. I was unaware of the copy editing error. Okay, who else other than Semkirk?
========================

The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: Brandark's future
Post by Eagleeye   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:27 am

Eagleeye
Captain of the List

Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:41 am
Location: Halle/Saale, Germany

fallsfromtrees wrote:
fallsfromtrees wrote:I didn't bother copying the previous post, in order to save electrons. I still think you are grasping at straws - and from some of the other posts, I am now inclined to believe that his God will turn out to be Semkirk.
Louis R wrote:quite certainly not. not straws, and not Semkirk. or, rather, not _just_ Semkirk.

Vince is correct that the original statement is in the plural, and intended to be read that way, and significant.

the interesting part is that if he checks the original MMPB of OOS, he'll find "brother's". but, it was confirmed years ago on the Bar that _that_ was the typo, introduced by the copy-editor assuming that the singular was intended, which slipped past Himself during his review of the edits. entirely understandable, since it is a very subtle difference. the TPB and current e-books both contain the corrected text that Vince is citing. [BTW, the ancientness of that discussion is an indication of just how long this debate has been going on :)]

what i can't say, because i've never seen it mentioned anywhere, is whether the the version in WGO is a second typo, propagating the first one in the interest of continuity, or if, as Vince suggests, it shows that Brandark himself didn't understand it correctly at first. it's an interesting thought, and entirely plausible. unfortunately, since i read WGO first, and the two then matched, it never occurred to me to ask either Richard or Himself for clarification when the error was first brought to light.


Interesting. I was unaware of the copy editing error. Okay, who else other than Semkirk?

Hirahim? After all, Brandark is a really funny guy, and I imagine (even if there isn't any textev) that Chesmirsa goes along well enough with him, so she could regard (and also name) him as one of her brothers ...
Top
Re: Brandark's future
Post by looksbeforeheleaps   » Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:46 am

looksbeforeheleaps
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:50 am

I know rfc sometimes takes the story in unexpected directions, but he doesn't seem to ever set out to deliberately mislead the reader and there are way too many different hints about Brandark's interest in the sea to ignore. When Brandark was talking to Bahzell's sister in the Hurgrum chapterhouse of the Order. he mentions Chesmirsa's comment that he is,"too much my brothers'." He says that he assumed she meant Tomanak and that this is part of the answer, but that there is something more. Personally, I think it is clear that Korthrala will eventually become the rest of the answer.

That said, we also learn in Wind Rider's Oath that Brandark has the potential to be very important for reasons unrelated to or at least in addition to his role as Bahzell's sidekick. At that time, the dark god's were working through their followers to destroy the Sothoii Kingdom by bringing back the Time of Troubles. Baron Tellian's death is probably not essential to their plan and is certainly not sufficient in and of itself, but is clearly an important step forward toward their goals. Nevertheless, Brandark's death is decribed as being more important than Tellian's while Bahzell's is "more important than the destruction of the entire Sothoii kingdom."

The conspirators don't understand why the death of two hradani could be so important. I think by this time we have a lot more information than they did about Bahzell's importance, but Brandark's value has still not been explained.

My personal theory is that he will not only become a sailor, but will recruit a great many Wild Wash and/or Broken Bone hradani to that lifestyle. In the process, he could well bring about the kind of alliance between those two groups and the Marfang Island halflings as the northern hradani are in the process of building with the Sothoii.

This would obviously be a very important step in re-uniting ALL of the Hradani with the other races of man.
Top

Return to War God