?

Log in

No account? Create an account
curiosity

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
curiosity

Second Thoughts on "The Lady in the Water"

Here be Spoilers

Story refers to the Scrunt as the "J.G. Scrunt". Why?

Story does not know she is a "Madam Narf". Nobody knows she is the Madam Narf except the Scrunt. Why? How does he know?

The whole sub plot about the Madam Narf and there being "laws" to protect narfs from scrunts is not necessary. The action of the story can be sustained with just scrunts wanting to kill narfs and the narf needing her companions and Protector to... well... protect her.

The Tartutic are unnecessary as well. The Protector could have just held off the scrunt until the narf was gone or he could have killed the scrunt himself. And what was that about nobody who sees the Tartutic lives to tell about it? The protector saw the Tartutic and he lived.

The critic gets a bad rap. He is blamed for being "arrogant" for claiming to know what other people's purposes are in life. But that isn't what he was asked. Clifford just asked him how you identify the characters in a story not real people. The person who was arrogant enough to think he knew was Clifford.

And if the moral of the story was that people are never told their true purpose why do Story and Victor get told their purpose?

Comments