By far the weirdest thing I realized while rereading this book is how the Nac Mac Feegle aren't actually the focus of it at all: that would be Tiffany
Duh. I am deeply concerned you apparently never realized this before.
I guess it's very in-character for them to take up more space than they're actually allotted
Hee. Yes.
who hasn't wanted to tie their brother to a stake and use him for monster bait?
DAVE. WICKEDNESS.
Anyway, I have never really found Tiffany to be all that similar to Susan, despite their snarkiness, because although Tiffany is a Clever Young Female Protagonist and therefore somewhat removed from the world by her ability to examine it reflectively, she is still very much connected to her world. Her possessiveness is a kind of deeply rooted love and absolute commitment and it ties her to things as much as she ties them to herself: it's her brother and her land, but also therefore his sister and the land's . . . person. Whereas Susan has never had that kind of connection. She's Death's granddaughter, she can stalk the stalk and TALK THE TALK, and she is fundamentally set apart by that. She might be human, but she's not tied to the world the way Tiffany is. At some level, she is ALWAYS an observer.
Anyway, I have always loved Tiffany best because she is like a tiny Granny Weatherwax!
I think she forgoes a lot of comedic opportunities on that front to keep it srs
I think that this ties into the idea that we have discussed before, that wacky hijinks never seem as wacky when you're the one doing them. Because from your own point of view, they seem like the only sensible thing to do in the situation. And simply because I was just thinking about PTerry, I think that the reason for this is that Heyer isn't detached enough from her characters in order to convey BOTH the idea that the POV character sees themself as acting sensibly AND that their behavior is actually hilarious. Her narrative voice tends to identify so closely with the POV character that we see the sensibleness rather than the ridiculousness of their actions because that's what they see; she doesn't have the ironic detachment of a PTerry or a Jane Austen that would allow us to see both.
Even if there WERE no wacky impersonation hijinx
I thought the part where Evelyn's mistress' mom came to demand satisfaction and then he had to be rescued by his "fiancee" was pretty damn hilarious myself :D
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-06-05 02:50 am (UTC)By far the weirdest thing I realized while rereading this book is how the Nac Mac Feegle aren't actually the focus of it at all: that would be Tiffany
Duh. I am deeply concerned you apparently never realized this before.
I guess it's very in-character for them to take up more space than they're actually allotted
Hee. Yes.
who hasn't wanted to tie their brother to a stake and use him for monster bait?
DAVE. WICKEDNESS.
Anyway, I have never really found Tiffany to be all that similar to Susan, despite their snarkiness, because although Tiffany is a Clever Young Female Protagonist and therefore somewhat removed from the world by her ability to examine it reflectively, she is still very much connected to her world. Her possessiveness is a kind of deeply rooted love and absolute commitment and it ties her to things as much as she ties them to herself: it's her brother and her land, but also therefore his sister and the land's . . . person. Whereas Susan has never had that kind of connection. She's Death's granddaughter, she can stalk the stalk and TALK THE TALK, and she is fundamentally set apart by that. She might be human, but she's not tied to the world the way Tiffany is. At some level, she is ALWAYS an observer.
Anyway, I have always loved Tiffany best because she is like a tiny Granny Weatherwax!
I think she forgoes a lot of comedic opportunities on that front to keep it srs
I think that this ties into the idea that we have discussed before, that wacky hijinks never seem as wacky when you're the one doing them. Because from your own point of view, they seem like the only sensible thing to do in the situation. And simply because I was just thinking about PTerry, I think that the reason for this is that Heyer isn't detached enough from her characters in order to convey BOTH the idea that the POV character sees themself as acting sensibly AND that their behavior is actually hilarious. Her narrative voice tends to identify so closely with the POV character that we see the sensibleness rather than the ridiculousness of their actions because that's what they see; she doesn't have the ironic detachment of a PTerry or a Jane Austen that would allow us to see both.
Even if there WERE no wacky impersonation hijinx
I thought the part where Evelyn's mistress' mom came to demand satisfaction and then he had to be rescued by his "fiancee" was pretty damn hilarious myself :D