(This may involve spoiler material) I know I wrote you earlier saying I don’t like over-analyzing books, however I have a question concerning the writing of “Runes” and the inherent problems of writing about time travel. I have noticed that any books or movies involving time travel run into problems with the paradox of time travel (It really can’t be avoided by its nature). OK, first an example, then my question. I am about two thirds of the way through “Runes” and I recently read the part where Linden is talking about going back through one of the caesures. She explains the Staff was missing in the current time when Anele tried to find it because she believed she had most likely succeeded in retrieving it in the past, so now it was missing in the present. I am guessing this actually may or may not turn out to be true in the end, however the statement whether it turns out to be true within the story or not, is a paradox in its self (but then again so is white gold, right?). This implies the reason the Staff is lost, is because she went back to get it? So lets put it this way, if she hadn’t gone back to get it, then she wouldn’t have to go back to get it, because it wouldn’t have been missing? Huh? It’s like the old time travel dilemma, for example: You travel back in time and kill your grandfather, now your grandfather is dead, so you are never born, so how could you have traveled back in time to kill your grandfather? (That’s not my question<chuckle>) So here is my question, since writing about time travel inevitably has continuity problems and the unavoidable time travel paradox issues, did you find yourself re-writing parts of the story? or getting a ways down a story line and then saying “That won’t work!”? Like I said it isn’t possible to avoid all the time travel paradox issues but I was curious if it was a major problem that you had while writing “Runes” or if it just worked its self out as you went? Oh, and by the way how do you pronounce caesures? Thanks, Kyle |
|||
|
