From: darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: _Tigana_ question
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:15:43 GMT
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Aug18.224910.4242@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>>>Possible mild spoilers follow


>No, I think you're correct about all this--certainly Brandin had no love
>for Tigana. I meant to suggest something different--that Brandin's decision
>to make a new life for himself on the Palm was partly due to his coming to
>regard Dianora as someone he could share his life _with_. (The other half
>of the picture, of course, was the betrayal by his wife and son; this made
>it easier to turn his back on them and on his old home.) 

Oh.  Yes, I got that impression very much, that Brandin made his
new life in the Palm out of love of Dianora and the betrayal of
his wife and child.  However, ocnsider that in some ways, this is
a way of showing that Brandin hated the Tiganese more than he
loved his wife and his other son.  And we all know 'how much love
means to this man.'

I could accept the proposition that Brandin married his first
wife out of politics, although I doubt it.  I find it extremely
interesting, though, that Brandin forsook his other son.

>>I feel such sympathy with Brandin because he could have been, and
>>except for the Tigana episode, probably was a very good person.
>>I've said before, his conquest of the Palm probably would have
>>been a _good_ thing, taking an historical perspective.

>I don't know about "very good..."; doesn't a person have to have a good
>deal of evil in him to act like Brandin did? Sure, there was
>provocation--but his response was out of proportion, and showed something
>about the character of the man. Even his revenge against his son's killer
>was excessive. 

Still, except for that one episode of revenge (I'm speaking of
Tigana and Prince Valentin as one act of revenge) he did very
little that anyone could find objectionable.  True, there was the
episode with taking women for the Saishan, but there was never
any mention of reaction on the part of the Palmers.  This may
have been a culturally acceptable thing (it certainly seemed to
be from the Ysgrathan point of view.)

I don't regard the death of his son, especially given that his
son was leading a conquering and invading army, as sufficient
provocation for Brandin's actions, either.

>(Hmm. Do you get the impression that the extremity of Brandin's measures
>against Tigana was partly the result of guilt? Did he perhaps blame himself
>for getting his son killed?) 

Possibly.  Very possibly.

>I'm not sure I agree. Couldn't one argue that Alessan had the _right_ to
>ask for Erlein's service? Wasn't this more or less one of the things one
>implicitly agrees to in return for practicing wizardry in the Palm?

Hmm.  I disagree.  After all, some of the mages flatly
disbelieved the possibility of having their free will taken
away-- like Sandre.  Its hard to accept the consequences of a
responsibility in which you do not believe.

Also, Erlein was never one of Alessan's temporal subjects-- he
wasn't Tiganese, he was Senzian, I think.

I find myself wondering what I would have done in Alessan's
situation.  Also, I find it interesting that even though Tigana
was a 'grey' novel, as regards good and evil, eventually every
character of consequence, including Erlein (much to Erlein's
distress) was forced to choose a side in the end.

>Still, it was a repellent thing to do.

>> (Does it
>>ruin the sense of wonder if I ask whether Alessan could have
>>bound Alberico or Brandin to him in that fashion?)

>Good question; this hadn't occurred to me. I believe the answer is that
>this proviso applies only to wizards of the Palm; foreign wizards are not
>affected. (There seems to be something special about Palm wizards--remember
>that the cutting of the fingers is said to "bind" the wizard to the Palm.)

Yeah, but it is an interesting question.  A better answer might
be, 'It would _ruin_ the plot...!'  The same answer as you've
given occurred to me after I thought about it a bit.  Indeed,
there seems to be something special about _every_ type of magic;
Palmer magic differs from Ygrathen magic differs from Khardun
magic, and so forth.  I really liked that about the book, even
though the differences are never really explained.
--
"If you ask anyone else about this, you'll get really confused."
          -'Dr.' Robert Chapman, 09-18-91
John S. Novak, III		darknite@camelot.bradley.edu