(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)

[Thomas Bitterman]

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Dave Tallman <davetallman at msn.com> wrote:

> Craig Brewer wrote:
>
>> That's nice, but it doesn't really explain why anyone should trust Bax.
>>
>> Come on, nothing in the text?
>>
>> Maybe this wolf(e) is just too conning/cunning and your disbelief was suspended before even opening the book?
>>
>>
> Everyone who doubts Bax has to reckon with all the independent
> corroborations in the story:
>

I mentioned some of these before, but to recap.


> 1) The second letter of Doris, particularly the postscript confirms: the
> werewolf attack, the strange basement, the rapist dwarf, and locking up the
> vampire. Not to mention the appearance of ghost Ted in the main body of the
> letter.
>

The postscript would be the easiest part of the latter to forge.  The rest
of the letter does not mention Faerie.  Doris is not terribly stable at that
point in the narrative in any case.


> 2) The challenge note from George, confirming the existence of Faerie.
>

A letter that basically screams out "Hey, police!  I want to kill my brother
and am taking active steps to do so!".  Out of character, written at a point
when George is missing.  IMHO, obviously Bax's doing.  And now George is
dead with no way to contest it.


> 3) The letter from the psychic confirming and charging for the vampire
> lock-up incident.
>

A psychic who is in on the con, at least part way.


> 4) Evidence found by the Collator that Bax had an ancient samurai sword.
>

IIRC, the Collator never could find the sword.


> 5) The fact that a ex-con swindler somehow obtained valuable real estate in
> Medicine Man.
>

Bax is a con man.  It's what they do.


> The more I hear that all of this was forged by Bax somehow, and he was the
> Collator so he could change all the letters as much as he wished, the weaker
> the case appears to me. There has to be a core of events that "actually
> happened" that is confirmed by independent evidence.
>

Where do you plan on obtaining this independent evidence?  The Collator is
amazingly negligent when it comes to gathering evidence.  There should be
all sorts of records of things that went on - deeds, newspaper articles,
police reports, other witnesses - yet the Collator examines none of them.
It's like he doesn't want to know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100419/e094afe1/attachment-0004.htm>