Kreistor wrote:Maybe. But you also have to consider that Balder is on record stating that he wasn't sure if Book 2 was going to happen, due to the relatively low popularity of Erfworld. The Portal had two possible conclusions:
1) Stay in Erfworld and do Book 2
2) Leave Erfworld for the real world and end the story.
That let Rob leave the decision until the end of Book 1, and obviously he chose "1". Personally, I do not read much into Parson's character from that event, because it was a plot driven necessity that gave the author freedom to end or conclude the story. As such, it shouldn't be overused as evidence of someone's character.
Though all may be as you say in real life, we're reading a story. Let the story stand.
Be it Balzac or Gidget or General Hospital: It won't matter down the ages why the author's choices were made. The end product will be. If it fails to stand as a good plot in and of itself, well that's the way it goes. But it never helps to analyze the reasons for a serial's directions....
Well, I just realized I was making the mistake I thought Kreistor was making. Assuming the stories I knew came down to me "untarnish'd" by public commentary. They may well not have. Maybe General Hospital regularly drew inspiration from its fans. Maybe Balzac, the inventor of the soap opera himself, constantly sought input on where his story should go. Maybe Rob benefits from these discussions, occasionally.
Still, it seems to me wrong to make logical arguments based on facts about the writing of the story itself. It risks, I dunno, perversion, in its most literal sense.
Why should we consider the story in any other light than how it's presented to us?