originally posted by Firsfron of Ronchester:
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, Ylvs. Could you clarify? I missed something.

It's not as profound as it may have appeared to you. Just the obvious: First three chapters have animals in the title, second three places of confinement, next three forces of nature (although it is discussable if  a star is a force of nature).
I thought about this quite a while but could not make any real sense of it, and it does not work anyway for the following chapters.
When I found it yesterday (and posted it immediately) I thought might have found some access to a hidden meaning, a word puzzle, whatever. But it's probably just a funny coincidence, so just forget about it! ;-)

Otherwise I do not have much to add, just one thing that I did never notice before (or did I an just forget about it again???): End of third chapter, the confrontation between Elias and Josua. Does Elias know about the love between his brother and wife? The scarf Elias throws on the floor does strongly imply it I think.
To me the hate between the brothers always derived from Elias' blaming Josua for her death (which is quite sufficient of course). But if Elias knew about Josua and Ebekah (was that his wife's or their mother's name? Don't remember) why would Elias want to have her back? And isn't it that what he tries to achieve? Why all this madness for a woman who loves someone else?
So this scarf thing makes me a bit confused. Suggestions? Other interpretations? Help!

Sorry Olaf, my bad :-(

Firsfron of Ronchester wrote:

Hylissa was Elias' dead wife, who cheated with Josua. Ebekah was John's dead wife, who cheated with Camaris. Ah... another thread: the sins of the father, which become ingrained in the son.

It has been along time since I read these book, I've totally forgotten about this part!

Mark, I think, re: Tristan and Iseult. It's an interesting parallel and one I hadn't thought of. There does seem a certain Arthurian influence there, in many details. Simon, for example, being a boy of unknown royal parentage who grows up to be king.

Don't forget that the crest of Nabban is the "kingfisher" another Arthurian symbol.

Nabban is also very reminiscent of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Not to mention the languages. Nabbanai looks a lot like Latin, Hernystiri looks a lot like Irish or Welsh, ya de ya.  The gods, too - Udun One-Eye in the song that one of the Erkynlander guys on the quest north sings, to Sludig's horror.

All the cultures of Osten Ard are closely modelled on Earth cultures, just as the storyline is closely modelled (with a big fat twist) on the standard fantasy plot of orphan boy, good against evil, quest for magical object, stuffed crocodile hanging in the magician's workroom etc etc.

Works, though, like anything.

originally posted by chrissy:  or did they both love eachother and never act on it.

Yep. Did not check it but that is how I remember it as well.
So there IS a difference between the father and (well not really) son concerning that :)

crissy wrote:

  I love how Tad starts off Simons charecter as a self-piting teenager. That really sets the feel of the book, and even later when Simon is brave there is always that unsatisfied whinny kid beneath it all.  It just makes a book so much better, deeper, and enjoyable when the charecters are riddled with flaws.  There is no true hero, instead agroup of people work together toward a goal and they are all intermeshed.  I feel he does a good job setting us up for that in the beginning by bringing in so many charecters that aren't perfect, but are obviously important to the plot.

I strongly agree: making the protagonist of the book really young was a very good idea, because it allows Simon to ask many questions, which are then answered by various characters, and so the reader him/herself learns more about the world, and so there's an added layer of depth: the reader becomes involved in the learning process, not just the characters.

*nodnodnod* Understood. :)

Ok, I'm not going to go in depth on my observations as some of you have done (which is *very cool*), but this is what I've noted.

Pre-reading thoughts: The first time I read it I didn't pay attention to mythic elements mostly because I just wanted to read a fantastic fantasy series I had been dying to read for years. I kept meaning to reread it, but the first time I read it was during the coursework segment of my M.A. course, and then, time and other books ran away with me.

This second time around, I'm specifically looking for mythic undertones, especially since there *IS* a Fisher King in the M,S & T books. So subconsciously, elements of Parsifal and grail legends overall (whether proper or not on my part) are in my head. I'm going to enjoy digging in.

Caveat: Surprisingly, whilst reading, it wasn't the old Grail Legends that actually came to me, but Shakespeare. I see Shakespeare everywhere!

Second Caveat: This is all my subjective reading experience and what links my weird brain draws, and is not meant to influence or infer anything at all. I just love intertextual references :)

Upon reading:

1) I like Simon even more now. He kind of reminds me of me. Mooncalf!

2) I like the relationship between Simon and Rachel, a LOT. And Rachel is cool :)

3) The Hayholt, rocks! It feels like walking into a living, breathing Shakespearean castle. This is aided by the fact that we keep cutting away from Simon's experiences into these larger than life scenes (see #4). I've always liked the Hayholt, it stood out for me during my first reading of the books. And I think Tad Williams's language in these books is so beautiful. I like the other series, but really...this, and Caliban's Hour stands out for me in terms of language and imagery.

4) Those larger than life scenes: Elias with Josua, Prester John with Towse, are like, in the background. That makes it seem more real because here we have Simon moving through the castle and then he either witnesses something happening or it happens regardless. In some ways it reminds me of the dumb play in Hamlet, but that's just me. Also, for some weird reason I was thinking of King Lear throughout the Prester John scene. Dig it!

5)I like the way the scenes shift, it feels natural. It's like watching a dramatic production. Yes, that is what I wanted to say. The first 3 chapters have a very "theater" feel about it for me (or perhaps it is because I have been teaching a Drama component for the English Lit paper and am now Drama obsessed. Heh), and I enjoyed that.

I'll stop here. Won't say anything about Simon's heritage and hints of his greatness because I'll probably have much more to say about it as we progress.

[Edit to delete Chap 4 accidental digression]

[ April 23, 2005: Message edited by: Rovin' Hiraedd ]

Oops. Did I read ahead of myself?

I'll go doublecheck and delete extra stuff.

Neemo wrote:

...And is trying to justify all the good he has done as outweighing his "sin".

Second, John also mentions "the finger-bone of Saint Eahlstan, the dragon slain" in the hilt of Bright-Nail.

Curiously, in chapter 3, while Rachel daydreams, she remembers Simon's birth and his mother mentioning Simon's fathers name, Eahlferend, and how no one knew much about him but Morgenes. (Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Saint Eahlstan turn out to be Simon's grandfather?)

Probably not grandfather, and possibly not even great-grandfather. Great-great grandfather is not out of the question. Remember that John was a nonagenarian (in his 90's) when Simon was only 14. Fisher-folk living a rough life along the Gleniwent are likely to live harder lives than the High King, and thus likely to live for shorter generations, and Eahlstan possibly came to the throne around the age John came to the throne, which would make Eahlstan even older, as much as a full generation or more. John's grand-daughter is of age with Simon, but Eahlstan had reigned an unknown amount of time (but probably quite a while, judging by the "in lore most high" comment) before dying, AND an additional year passed before John came to Erkynland (according to Morganes' book). John was also considerably older than Ebekah, who bore him two sons when she was in her prime, so John was already old then.

I think it's pretty cool to have such an obvious hint to Simon's heritage so soon. And the closeness in spelling of grandfather's ([b]Eahlstan) and father's (Eahlferend) names makes me feel kinda dumb for not picking up on it before.

I don't think you should feel dumb, because I think Simon's 'crack-pawed' hands were an excellent diversionary tactic: "Oh, he CAN'T be a noble-man's orphan son: he's got dishwater hands: the narrator wouldn't lie to us!"