Possible Contradiction?

[Kaed]

Hey, I noticed something that doesn't quite match up, as far as I can tell. In one of the recent Book 0 entries, there is some discussion about casters, and that one cannot actually be sure what type of caster someone is just by looking at them (when Wanda and Tommy were drunk). Yet, back here http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F108.jpg we see that Jack has his discipline listed as a special. Is this an ability unique to Parson, or an error, or am I missing some point here? Doth retconjuration be required?

Also, slightly unrelated, I noticed the book 0 updates have been slowing down. I hope Rob doesn't have writer's block or some other trouble.

[MarbitChow]

That's probably a result of the glasses. Parson gets names, which other commanders don't get. It makes sense that he gets other information as well.

Rob posts status updates to the Facebook page pretty regularly; the next update should be coming today.

[ParsonIsOP]

There is no contradiction. The update where Wanda and Tommy are having a conversation specifically says that the speculation about Delphie is "absurd." It's a late-night drinking session where brother and sister bond over their common mistrust and hatred of Delphie. They're saying unkind things about her for fun. It's gossip.

And specifically, they're wondering if she's really just a Carnymancer or a Foolamancer. Carnymancy is the magic of "rigging the game" while we already know Foolamancy largely deals with illusions and concealment. Both disciplines are well-known for deception. The clear implication here is that Delphie is a liar with ulterior motives.

Given that Wanda isn't actually that knowledgeable about magic yet, it's not surprising for her to speculate about Casters being able to conceal their identity.

[ftl]

Even if casters typically cannot conceal their identity, Carnymancy and Foolamancy deal with deception, so it is plausible that Carnymancers or Foolamancers can find a way to lie about what they are. Maybe not plausible to us, given what we've seen in Books 1 and 2, but plausible to Wanda at least. Wanda's pretty new at this and Tommy of course doesn't know much about magic, so their speculation on this shouldn't be taken as true.

[Mrtyuh]

As the others said, this is mostly a mean-spirit gossip session. Still, there are bound to be contradictions in a work of fiction that is produced over an extended period of time, with it being released in bits and pieces. Probably the only thing we can do in such cases is try to come up with a somewhat plausible fanwank. On the other hand, Unaroyal's missing Thinkamancer still bugs me.

[drachefly]

Still, there are bound to be contradictions in a work of fiction that is produced over an extended period of time, with it being released in bits and pieces. Probably the only thing we can do in such cases is try to come up with a somewhat plausible fanwank.

I totally disagree on both counts, and moreover, that's not what 'fanwank' means. Speculation is not amateur retconning.

[Mrtyuh]

After reading your post, I looked up fanwank at the Urban Dictionary. I had never heard of the first definition, but the second is the one I've always used. I may be wrong, but at least 53% of people, based on votes, are as misinformed as I.

I don't think I've ever seen a long-running work of fiction that did not eventually have contradictions or continuity lapses. Of course, I'm the sort of OCD personality that tries to map all the cited cities and sides. YMMV.

As for the example of Unaroyal's Thinkamancer, I wouldn't call it a contradiction, but it is a continuity lapse. We know, at the end of the Battle of Gobwin Knob, Bunny contacted Unaroyal's Thinkamancer. We know Queen Bea ordered to the Magic Kingdom all her casters--Vanna, a Turnamancer, Jeftichew, a Carnymancer, Bowie, a Changemancer, and Spenser, a Findamancer. She did not mention a Thinkamancer. In fact, while she mentions sending countless messages via Magic Hat and abusing Bunny's services, she makes no mention of using her own Thinkamancer. We know that Wanda has yet to decrypt a caster, so there goes one possible fate of Unaroyal's Thinkamancer.

There are other possibilities of course. Ansom stated that a coalition as extensive as the one formed against Gobwin Knob was a hardship for all sides involved. It is possible Unaroyal was required to hire a Thinkamancer from the Magic Kingdom to help coordinate their efforts with those of their allies. After the coalition dissolved, Unaroyal released the Thinkamancer from service. This is probably the best explaination, since it would have the Thinkamancer be a temporary acquisition. The duties involved meant the Thinkamancer did not have any remaining juice after the turn for Bea to use on personal communications or that such communications fell outside the contract. The other explaination, which occurs to me, would be that Unaroyal's Thinkamancer was croaked during Gobwin Knob's offensive, and, for whatever reason, the body was not claimed so that Wanda could decrypt it, although that begs the question why. I doubt the Thinkamancer was disbanded, although it is a possibility. I'm sure there are other explainations that would avoid a retcon, but there are inconsistencies within the information provided. Fans may speculate as to the reasons behind it, but since speculation is necessary, I called it a fanwank. As I mentioned in the beginning, my definition may be wrong, but I stand by what I meant.

[drachefly]

After reading your post, I looked up fanwank at the Urban Dictionary. I had never heard of the first definition, but the second is the one I've always used. I may be wrong, but at least 53% of people, based on votes, are as misinformed as I.

It's not misinformation - it's a bad choice of term. Connecting the dots and drawing implications isn't an activity that resembles 'wanking'.

It becomes wanking when the insertions are far from parsimonious (involving the creation of fanon), and especially when the continuity errors are used to draw implications that the wanker wants to be true but can't support from the bulk of the evidence, e.g. concerning power levels of a (dis)favored work (star trek vs star wars), or implying (non)existence of a romantic connection (many shippers)...

Now, THAT resembles 'wanking', and so would make sense as a term. The example given on that page is a great example of a fan speculation that would be far from wanking. Known access to information + using it = very low added information, and it's unlikely to be something would really want to be true.

Great example of fanwank? Try one trekkie's conclusion that the portion of the battle of Endor taking place before the fleet showed up took 3 days, so he could slow down hyperspace speed calculations to make Star Trek seem better in comparison.

[Mrtyuh]

I had never really considered the connotations of the term. I have only occasionally heard wanker spoken by English characters on a few television shows. While I figured out what the term meant, it never had any impact for me. Having grown up around some Greek families, malakas has more weight. Anyway, thank you for pointing that out.