Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9110759" data-attributes="member: 18">The first two have a ton of allegory so that isn't really an issue. If the result of the allegory though is something like &quot;wealthy elites are actually the best people and we shouldn't be mean to them and should sympathize with their poorly-explained plight&quot;, then that is an issue, but on the other hand, that would be a total 180 from the first two, where they're literally getting people killed.The real issue I have is that I don't think it's really conscious and considered, she's like, fumbling around and revealing a basically very teenage Randian-Libertarian kind of &quot;philosophy&quot; which she's then putting in the mouths of a couple of specific dragons (including the protagonist dragon, who is supposed to exceptionally smart by dragon standards). It also doesn't fit really very well with what's actually going on in the books - she has to contrive situations to make it even relevant and not just more waffle the protagonist dragon is talking. I think she's entirely forgotten that dragons are an allegorical creature representing the most reprehensible greed. Which is unfortunate.Also really the Australia one is just extremely boring.(I should point out it starts out with the dragons just demanding to get paid, which is eminently reasonable, but it goes on from there into rather murkier waters.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9110759, member: 18"] The first two have a ton of allegory so that isn't really an issue. If the result of the allegory though is something like "wealthy elites are actually the best people and we shouldn't be mean to them and should sympathize with their poorly-explained plight", then that is an issue, but on the other hand, that would be a total 180 from the first two, where they're literally getting people killed. The real issue I have is that I don't think it's really conscious and considered, she's like, fumbling around and revealing a basically very teenage Randian-Libertarian kind of "philosophy" which she's then putting in the mouths of a couple of specific dragons (including the protagonist dragon, who is supposed to exceptionally smart by dragon standards). It also doesn't fit really very well with what's actually going on in the books - she has to contrive situations to make it even relevant and not just more waffle the protagonist dragon is talking. I think she's entirely forgotten that dragons are an allegorical creature representing the most reprehensible greed. Which is unfortunate. Also really the Australia one is just extremely boring. (I should point out it starts out with the dragons just demanding to get paid, which is eminently reasonable, but it goes on from there into rather murkier waters.) [/QUOTE]

Verification