Because his absence was most deeply felt by me (for the good guys), and because it's been clear that he has a really big role. Thom and Lan were always people who, for me, could wander in and out of the story at will. I just figure that because we have so many heroes, those absences are less important. We have only a few faces of evil, though, so they have to work harder to present their side. That's why I find the villains' in-and-out-and-gone-for-a-while unsatisfying.
You're probably quite right in saying that this is a coming of age story, and less about the "evil" side of the Good vs. Evil conflict. Also about the editing.
You're probably quite right in saying that this is a coming of age story, and less about the "evil" side of the Good vs. Evil conflict. Also about the editing.
Stupid Question Time again: have long-standing absences made some villains feel irrelevant?
14/11/2010 04:28:56 PM
- 870 Views
Re: Stupid Question Time again: have long-standing absences made some villains feel irrelevant?
14/11/2010 05:42:51 PM
- 589 Views
I definitely agree about Loial
15/11/2010 11:21:35 PM
- 458 Views
I thought this was going to be all about Demandred, and he gets a sentence. Phaw. *NM*
14/11/2010 06:07:36 PM
- 204 Views
Re: Stupid Question Time again: have long-standing absences made some villains feel irrelevant?
15/11/2010 02:08:53 AM
- 481 Views
Yes. But I think the villains in general didn't get that many moments of awesomeness.
15/11/2010 04:20:07 PM
- 587 Views
It's less about awesomeness, and more about being really invested in them
15/11/2010 11:15:35 PM
- 421 Views