Ditto wrote:'I know he's a Carnymancer, and he does Thinkamancy so I guess he's also a Thinkamancer, but that's confusing so I'll not use the word 'Carnymancy' in this sentence even though that makes an equal amount of sense when talking about trying to ruin love' strains belief.
make an equal amount of sense when talking about trying to ruin love. Carnymancy has nothing
to do with love that I can see. Consider the rest of the text update where the quote is from: Book 2, Text 28
. Jillian is saying that love is Natural Thinkamancy. Charlie is trying to remove distractions, and distraction is a mental concept. Maybe Thinkamancy doesn't have much to do with what Jillian is trying to say, but using Carnymancy instead would be simply bizarre.
Ditto wrote:I agree this passage is not proof positive that the whole Faq cohort has somehow forgotten certain details of Book 0 for whatever reason, but it certainly suggests that.
I'm still considering the possibility that Charlie gets involved again to save what remains of Faq and in return they sign a deal which forces them to stay quiet about everything they learned about Charlie. It seems like the sort of thing Charlie might do.
Ditto wrote:It's absurd that 4 major characters (and 3 allies of Parson at that) all neglected to mention this major fact about the main adversary of this entire story due to neglect.
They famously sometimes fail to tell Parson things because it's not important in their own judgement. I'm thinking of Wanda's collection of scrolls. Parson scolded them for doing it, but that doesn't mean they've stopped entirely, and I can't see how sharing any of these Book 0 revelations about Charlie would help Parson now. Would anything really change if Parson discovered that Charlie is a Carnymancer? Maybe Wanda and Jack both consider it useless information.