Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1 BrianC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    suburban hell

    A daring conception (Here be Spoilers!)

    Okay, now having finished The Shards (and just when is Revenge of the Elves coming out??) I want to highlight what I believe to be the most daring concept of the Gemquest series: dissolution. The ideas of Good and Evil, or the Problem of Evil if you wish, are staples of the fantasy genre, particularly high or quest fantasy. Good fights Evil; Evil appears to be invincible; Good fights the good fight and wins against all odds; and then the surviving characters go home to accolades and rewards, et cetera.

    But Gary posits another moral orientation for this type of fantasy: not good versus evil, but rather life versus dissolution. The Big Bad Guy (tm) does not seek power as a means to dominate all others, but rather as a means to undo creation, to end all life.


    There is something similar in my own writing, the darkness that is the end of all things. But whereas my Dark exercizes only a vague influence on events, Gary's dissolution has a corporeal agent, a being whose existence, for very self-centered reasons, is entirely focused on ending all existence.

    It's a very interesting concept, one that I'm not sure I have fully thought through, but I am very much looking forward to seeing how it is treated in the final two books.

    Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

  2. #2
    looking for coffee redhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    i noticed this too, and have thought on it quite a bit. here's where i went with it.

    spoilers ahead. you were warned.

    ok, so uber-bad guy Colton seeks destruction of all, everything, forever, the end. we can easily make a moral judgement call on him, and say without hesitation "he's an uber bad guy". However, the Lalas are also doing certain things (or allowing other things to happen) to work towards some type of dissolution. they can't possibly have the same goal as Colton (can they???), and we have a much harder time making a judgement call on them. because they are friends with the good guys, right?

    What Wassner is really doing, is putting his reader in the uncomfortable and enlightening position of possibly having to deem a deified supposedly good character as "bad". or maybe not "bad", just "is". do you see what i mean? We get comfort out of being able to define things, and lots of comfort out of putting everything somewhere on the good/bad spectrum.

    but what if something isn't good, or bad? what if it just is? depending on what you believe, it can be uncomfortable, enlightening, or both.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts