PDA

View Full Version : The children...



Letti
02-25-2008, 01:15 PM
Okay, I have one bog question here and some little ones and of course I am interested in your thoughts.
Why did the wolves or whoever else send back the roont children? What was the point? To make the Calla folks even more fragile?

I have never met such an unlucky and suffered village as the Calla. To lose their children all the time and get them back that way... Not just once but time to time. I respect them that they didn't get insane and they could contiue their lives and they tried to look after their brothers and sisters or children as much as possible.

TerribleT
02-25-2008, 02:21 PM
Someone needed a sister to plow.

jayson
02-25-2008, 02:30 PM
:lol: good one T!

it is a good question Letti. i would think they [the forces of the King] sent the roont ones back bc it was even more cruel than simply killing them. to have their children back in such a way had to be heartbreaking for the parents who always had the other twin to remind them of the potential both had, and then to watch the roont ones live in such pain until they passed away. if they just kidnapped and killed them the hurt all comes at once. the way they did it, the hurt continues. i think it was just more cruelty on the part of the CK.

ManOfWesternesse
02-25-2008, 03:31 PM
Yes, can only have been the added cruelty.
They only wanted one thing from the kids, and that was extracted using the weird contraption Susannah/Mia used later. After that the kids were no use alive or dead to them.

Bethany
02-25-2008, 04:28 PM
:lol: good one T!

it is a good question Letti. i would think they [the forces of the King] sent the roont ones back bc it was even more cruel than simply killing them. to have their children back in such a way had to be heartbreaking for the parents who always had the other twin to remind them of the potential both had, and then to watch the roont ones live in such pain until they passed away. if they just kidnapped and killed them the hurt all comes at once. the way they did it, the hurt continues. i think it was just more cruelty on the part of the CK.

building on this, i think the roonts were also sent to remind the calla who was in control and what they were capable of doing to the people.

jayson
02-25-2008, 05:18 PM
i think the roonts were also sent to remind the calla who was in control and what they were capable of doing to the people.

definitely. living reminders of just what was possible from their enemies.

Storyslinger
02-26-2008, 10:04 AM
Cruelty are my only thoughts.

It strikes me as a bit weird though :orely:

jayson
02-26-2008, 10:11 AM
excellent points made Jean. i see the logic of the "we're not as bad as they say, see we returned the children, didn't we?" propaganda strategy.

Wuducynn
02-26-2008, 10:19 AM
I don't buy that reasoning. I don't think they care about spreading the idea that there is good behind what they're doing. I think its the idea about fostering fear of them that they're concerned with. The children are sent back with the implied message of.."See whats happened to them?" as part of generations of fear, keeping the Callas in line.

Letti
02-26-2008, 10:26 AM
I am with AllHail with that one. For me it's unbelievable that they sent back children to show how good and warm-hearted they were... ahhh. If that was the reason it was just a very cruel joke they laughed their asses off.

MonteGss
02-26-2008, 05:54 PM
I don't buy that reasoning. I don't think they care about spreading the idea that there is good behind what they're doing. I think its the idea about fostering fear of them that they're concerned with. The children are sent back with the implied message of.."See whats happened to them?" as part of generations of fear, keeping the Callas in line.

Spot on. This was the impression I had. They were being intentionally malicious. "Rub it in their faces."

HanzouNorak
02-26-2008, 07:13 PM
makes perfect sense to me, the wolves aren't going to waste their time killing them, so send them back an accomplish;
a threat to the Callas,
disposing of them.

Letti
02-26-2008, 10:18 PM
makes perfect sense to me, the wolves aren't going to waste their time killing them, so send them back an accomplish;
a threat to the Callas,
disposing of them.

If you ask me sending them back takes more time than killing them.
Just imagine those crying stupid kids... it can't be easy to put them on a train. I am sure it would have been much easier to kill them.

Letti
02-26-2008, 11:35 PM
A new question came to my mind...

Did the Wolves and their lords need only Calla twins? I mean were Calla twins different from any other twins or the Wolves could have used twins for example from our world, too?

ManOfWesternesse
02-27-2008, 01:24 AM
You're full of questions Letti! :wub:

A good one though.
I think the only requirement was for twins, and the special mental bond they share. So any twins would serve.
The beauty of the Callas for them was in the fact that twins (as opposed to singletons) were the norm there, as opposed to the exception they are in our world. Hence a big ready-supply for the Wolves.

Letti
02-27-2008, 01:38 AM
Okay. Let's imagine twin sisters. One of them dies at a very young age (when she is just some weeks old) and the other one stays alone and grows up alone.
10 years later would that single child do any use for the Wolves? What do you think?
I don't know if it makes any sense right now to you but I think even if you are a twin, if you don't have your twin sister to share your khef with - sooner or later you will lose your abilities or they will not develope at all.
The wolves didn't take children around the age of 1... and they didn't take too old ones, either.
Complex, isn't it?

ManOfWesternesse
02-27-2008, 02:02 AM
Complex indeed.

True they did not take them too young or too old.
Was this because they could not be 'used' -or because they would be too much trouble to manage?

The question of a surviving sibling, where one twin had died, was raised in the Book of course. Benny Slightman the younger was a surviving Twin was'nt he? Did we ever get a straight answer as to whether the Wolves would take him or leave him? (Damn my ever-faulty memory!)

jayson
02-27-2008, 04:13 AM
Complex indeed.

True they did not take them too young or too old.
Was this because they could not be 'used' -or because they would be too much trouble to manage?

The question of a surviving sibling, where one twin had died, was raised in the Book of course. Benny Slightman the younger was a surviving Twin was'nt he? Did we ever get a straight answer as to whether the Wolves would take him or leave him? (Damn my ever-faulty memory!)

i think it is at least strongly implied that benny is still useful to the wolves bc he was a twin, and that's why andy can get slightman the elder to help. if he knew the wolves couldn't take his son, he'd be less likely to sell out his friends' children.

ManOfWesternesse
02-27-2008, 04:17 AM
^^ that was exactly my recollection too. Benny was the lever used to recruit his father.

Woofer
02-27-2008, 04:50 AM
They're main concern is to ensure a steady supply of twins. To that end, I think that returning the roont twin is serves a dual purpose:

To make them more fragile.
To ensure they continue to reproduce - after all, they haven't lost both, right?A twin whose twin died at a young age would still be useful. The surviving twin serves as leverage over the parents.

Wuducynn
02-27-2008, 05:58 AM
They're main concern is to ensure a steady supply of twins. To that end, I think that returning the roont twin is serves a dual purpose:

To make them more fragile.
To ensure they continue to reproduce - after all, they haven't lost both, right?A twin whose twin died at a young age would still be useful. The surviving twin serves as leverage over the parents.

The twins weren't fertile so they couldn't reproduce. The steady supply of twins was something I think comes from some kind of spell or science of the Red. The Callas were the Crimson King's farms afterall for his breakers.

Woofer
02-27-2008, 06:21 AM
Oops, confusion! I was unclear. I didn't mean the roont twin would reproduce, but that the parents would continue to reproduce. If you rob someone of everything, then they lose hope. Hence, the roont twin is return to allow just enough hope to keep the Calla folk in place and breeding.

Have to run to work. Hope that was clearer.

Wuducynn
02-27-2008, 06:25 AM
Oops, confusion! I was unclear. I didn't mean the roont twin would reproduce, but that the parents would continue to reproduce. If you rob someone of everything, then they lose hope. Hence, the roont twin is return to allow just enough hope to keep the Calla folk in place and breeding.

Have to run to work. Hope that was clearer.

I got you now. I still say returning the children had nothing to do with anything beyond instilling generations of fear in the Callas. The high twin reproduction was just something that they were given by some kind of magic.

ManOfWesternesse
02-27-2008, 06:27 AM
.....The steady supply of twins was something I think comes from some kind of spell or science of the Red. The Callas were the Crimson King's farms afterall for his breakers.

You reckon?
I was wondering about this, and assumed it was just something inherent in the population of that area.
Had'nt occured to me that they were being ......genetically manipulated in some way by the Red to ensure the outcome.

Wuducynn
02-27-2008, 06:31 AM
.....The steady supply of twins was something I think comes from some kind of spell or science of the Red. The Callas were the Crimson King's farms afterall for his breakers.

You reckon?
I was wondering about this, and assumed it was just something inherent in the population of that area.
Had'nt occured to me that they were being ......genetically manipulated in some way by the Red to ensure the outcome.

I do. It makes sense if you think about it...the Callas are convenient, bordering on Thunderclap afterall. At some point in relatively distant past but not time out of mind, the Crimson King cast some kind of spell on them. Or had his scientists do some kind of genetic engineering on their population.

Wuducynn
02-27-2008, 06:40 AM
I guess I'm the only one who thought along those lines about why the Calla's had so many twins..

ManOfWesternesse
02-27-2008, 06:45 AM
Well, maybe.
But now that I see it in black & white, I think you could well have a point.

HanzouNorak
02-27-2008, 07:57 AM
If you ask me sending them back takes more time than killing them.
Just imagine those crying stupid kids... it can't be easy to put them on a train. I am sure it would have been much easier to kill them.

they're robots, lets not forget there the possiblilty the machines leave the kids unconsious or drainned of energy. the wolves seem to have limited resources, useing the resources on the kids when theres another (abit less easier) way for them to dispose of them and accomplish the threat level at the same time.

Woofer
02-27-2008, 05:42 PM
There were people who ran the robots. Why did these people send the children back? Surely it would use less energy (resources) to snap a neck (kill them) than to put them on a train. There must be a reason.

Re: why they had twins: I always thought it was a breeding mutation from whatever it was the Old Ones did.

LadyHitchhiker
02-29-2008, 03:41 PM
But the cruelty also serves a purpose. It makes the folken of the Calla's morale low so they are less likely to fight back to try and save their children. It makes them more morose...

Brainslinger
03-10-2008, 09:16 PM
... and having to look after them makes them vulnerable.

I wondered if the common occurence of twins was due to genetic manipulation by the Crimson King's followers too. After all they're not a common occurence in that world either. Only that arc.

Jean
03-11-2008, 12:28 AM
I don't buy that reasoning. I don't think they care about spreading the idea that there is good behind what they're doing. I think its the idea about fostering fear of them that they're concerned with. The children are sent back with the implied message of.."See whats happened to them?" as part of generations of fear, keeping the Callas in line.
Matthew: I know I didn't make myself clear enough in that post, I tried to expand here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showpost.php?p=118493&postcount=25).

Whitey Appleseed
01-11-2009, 08:25 AM
I think the answer lies in the subtext...and I say that so you have an opportunity to ask, what in the blue fuck are you doing to me!...please note that I'm quoting from the text here...dadda-chum, ah, Chapter I, The Pavilion, section 6, p 281 in my paperback...but we probably don't have the same copy...when Eddie is asked to speak...

...subtext...been thinking about the Oz connection...heard it said that ole Frank, the guy who wrote about Dorothy Gale, intended his other caricatures to be taken as symbols for other things...the tin man as something, industry maybe...the scarecrow as I dunno maybe dumb farmers...etc...but if the kids were taken and not returned, maybe that'd be a different kind of subtext, but if the roont ones are a stand-in, symbol, for some other form of our life, what would it be? Where else are children sent to have their brains sucked dry and then returned to the world at large, help or hindrance?

I guess the beauty of symbols is they can be anything we want them to be and if nothing else, you could say, quoting the text again, "pissheads always hung around: it was almost a law of nature." Ma used to tell me I'm full of piss and vinegar, don't I know it, and now ya'll ka-no it too! A vibe. Maybe I'm wrong. (the quote is from the same chapter, section 7, Eddie and Telford)

Darkthoughts
01-11-2009, 04:09 PM
Where else are children sent to have their brains sucked dry and then returned to the world at large, help or hindrance?
School?

:lol:

jayson
01-11-2009, 06:29 PM
Lisa ftw!

Darkthoughts
01-12-2009, 05:00 AM
ftw?

jayson
01-12-2009, 05:04 AM
for the win. it's a reference to Hollywood Squares, an iconic American tv gameshow.

Darkthoughts
01-12-2009, 05:06 AM
:lol: In that case...cool!

Whitey Appleseed
01-12-2009, 12:45 PM
Where else are children sent to have their brains sucked dry and then returned to the world at large, help or hindrance?
School?

:lol:

Could be, but aren't we supposed to phrase in the form of a complete question?
What is school? Could be...who knows? Military? The assembly line? Tryouts for American Idol?

Darkthoughts
01-13-2009, 02:59 PM
Where are you going with this exactly? Are you viewing WotC as some kind of social commentary?

Whitey Appleseed
01-13-2009, 04:04 PM
Could be read that way, Darkthoughts, dontcha think? I'm not going to bother arguing it is one way or another. I don't, as they say, have a dog in that race. One could take a number of approaches to the Books. One could be right or one could be wrong and in the end the story still stands as it is. It'd be interesting to hear others' thoughts on the idea, i.e. The Wizard of Oz and the implied metaphors there...tin-man/industry...straw-man//farming...heard or read something along those lines, somewhere, sometime.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the analogy, but it'd be interesting to apply the same argument to the Books, 1-7, not only Wolves of the Calla. I tried doing a search for a thread like that and came up empty...been breathing drywall dust, so the brain is a bit foggy...a wise-acre way of saying I don't have a clue when it comes to message boards and computers. Thank you for the question.

Since you're from England?...the flag, and all...suppose we look at the Books as Gulliver's Travels...and perhaps there is an argument, like is and was made about Swift's commentary...that could be applied her, as well. Don't have a clue if anyone has made that argument, either professionally in a journal, thesis, dissertation, whatever, but the Books certainly seem open to one, no?

Whitey Appleseed
01-14-2009, 04:33 AM
Like could one argue that the Breakers are part of the Academy? The big enchilada. I didn't go to Morehouse or no house...the finer post war Negro education...

Darkthoughts
01-14-2009, 04:57 AM
Yes, I am UK - but I'm not overly familiar with Swift's works I'm afraid :)

Personally, while I don't doubt that there are reflections of one sort or another on our modern times and the direction we're (possibly) heading, in the DT series, I really don't see a lot of symbolism in things in life or literature. That's not to say I take everything at face value...but I quite often reach the same conclusion someone guided to a certain point by symbolism might, just through different channels. That's why I find it hard to grasp your meaning in a lot of your posts...I'm similarly no good at the cryptic clues in crossword puzzles and you have a tendancy (in my eyes) to read like one big cryptic clue :lol: :couple:

Jean
01-14-2009, 05:13 AM
Lisa: I would strongly recommend Gulliver's Travels... maybe not in connection with the Dark Tower, though, but rather for its own merits. Of course, anything can be read into anything; sometimes this way leads to revelations, more often to dead end or utter confusion - I am afraid it's only common sense and personal experience (both in life, literature, and thought) of the reader that can serve as a guide here.

Darkthoughts
01-14-2009, 05:16 AM
I am familiar with Gulliver's Travels but I read it back in my childhood and don't remember enough of it to appreciate Whitey's comparisons :)

jayson
01-14-2009, 05:38 AM
I think a lot of it has to go to the writer's intentions. Some things are meant to be read allegorically, some are free to interpretation but they do not specifically refer to anything. I think with DT it is the latter. Symbolism like this is always going to be subjective. If the artist doesn't in the "real" world ever confirm or deny any specific interpretation, than all readings are valid.

Whitey Appleseed
01-14-2009, 09:04 AM
I've read Gulliver's Travels more recently, Darkthought, and I still don't have a clue. Milton, Shakespeare, all these literary allusions to other things. I enjoy that part of stories as much as other parts including the story as a whole. That some first, I guess. Just as nursery rhymes were supposed to be about what the kings and queens of their day were doing--couldn't very call the king an ass to his face w/o suffering consequences--the poets and artists and very likely, the common man, used words and symbols to convey a point, to help them suffer while evils were sufferable.

Maybe during their day--of the nursery rhymes--four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie....rub a dub dub three men in a tub...forgot what I was going to say...maybe it'll come to me...

I don't think it matters if you are familiar with Swift, the point I was trying to make, and you obviously got it, is that one could take TDT and make a fairly persuasive argument that like Swift, like Baum (?) in Oz, like the nursery rhymes, there's a message there, accept it or not. Like the simplicity of the nursery rhymes, reading it as such gives me a greater joy, (delight and instruct, as one of the major statements on art said)...

...and it's really unfortunate when I've come across great wits on the net who insist otherwise, who look down their long and narrow nose at anyone who gives a shit about wit, the boys I mean are not refined, as cummings wrote, before crumbling the page and tossing it in the garbage.

Darkthoughts
01-15-2009, 03:24 AM
I don't think it matters if you are familiar with Swift, the point I was trying to make, and you obviously got it, is that one could take TDT and make a fairly persuasive argument that like Swift, like Baum (?) in Oz, like the nursery rhymes, there's a message there, accept it or not.
You obviously got was I was trying to say, but to clarify more - I do agree that there is symbolism in DT and obviously other literature, what I was saying in my other post is that - I don't always see it. I'm a very literal person and anything too subtle often goes straight over my head :lol: Not because I can't appreciate it, or comprehend it, but because thats not the line my logic follows :D

Conversely though, I do think that people sometimes read too much into certain works. I hated having to analyse paintings when I studied art...or poetry when I was likewise studying English Lit, because it detracted something from it for me. As an artist myself, I often paint on the whim of a particular emotion, so there is meaning to me to what I've painted - and someone else might try and read a whole lot more into it - but I would personally feel that they were trying to turn something simple, and enjoyable because of it's simplicity, into something complicated that made it crass or conceited somehow.

Whitey Appleseed
01-15-2009, 03:47 AM
Must be cold in the UK, too, huh Darkthoughts...been below zero here for a time, Fahrenheit...I'll have to look at the Credit Union clock to see what Celsius says. Isn't that some Greek god? Keeper of the Thermostat, maybe?

I've never had a problem with people reading. Let's have more of it. If someone appears to be reading too much into something, give 'em points for trying and showing an interest. If someone seems to be reading too much into something, and it seems that way because you simply disagree with the reading, then reading imitates life I guess.
As Donnie Russert discovered, "some things people just won't believe, not even when you can prove em." 'The column of truth has a hole in it'...really into the Greeks this morning.

Darkthoughts
01-15-2009, 03:54 AM
I dunno, sometimes I enjoy it and I find it clarifies matters (Tower Connections section for example) sometimes I think it's just obsolete.

I mean, what you're trying to say is - you can read something extra into everything. And what I'm saying is - that may be, but there isn't always any need to do so.

For example, I might say to you - "Isn't the blue sky beautiful!" And you could reply, "The sky isn't actually blue, it's just clouds absorbing the colour blue from the sunlight, which is infact made up of many colours. Funny also that you should find blue beautiful, did you know that it is naturally calming to the mind despite being traditionally associated with masculinity..." etc etc...

Do you see my point? You're suggesting that I'm shallow or near sighted for not wanting to read meaning into every little detail, but I'm saying that somethings can quite rightfully be appreciated for simply being/appearing to be what they are, even though I am fully aware of the details.

jayson
01-15-2009, 04:41 AM
Conversely though, I do think that people sometimes read too much into certain works. I hated having to analyse paintings when I studied art...or poetry when I was likewise studying English Lit, because it detracted something from it for me. As an artist myself, I often paint on the whim of a particular emotion, so there is meaning to me to what I've painted - and someone else might try and read a whole lot more into it - but I would personally feel that they were trying to turn something simple, and enjoyable because of it's simplicity, into something complicated that made it crass or conceited somehow.

That was pretty much where I was going with my post. Any number of works of art can be interpreted to mean any number of things by individuals.

Now, whether that is a positive or a negative goes to the standard question of where is the art, in the process or the product? I believe it's both, in the process for the artists, but just as much in the product for the individual (reader in the case of King's work). Like I said earlier, unless the artist specifically confirms somewhere that "this piece of art is about ________" then that blank doesn't necessarily represent anything. We can fill in the blank however we want, but we can't reasonably expect everyone else will see it precisely the same way, and we definitely can't state these interpretations as facts. Making the comparisons can be a fun intellectual challenge, but I don't think any of us knows what any artist really "means" with their work unless they state it outright.

For me it's hard not to read things into everything, but I also remind myself that it's not much more than an intellectual exercise than it is getting at the supposed 'reality' of something so subjective, which is to say, I agree with Lisa.

So how far off topic am I now?

"Won't somebody please think of the children!?!" - Helen Lovejoy

Darkthoughts
01-15-2009, 04:48 AM
About as off topic as I've taken the thread in the first place :D

jayson
01-15-2009, 04:53 AM
I suppose we could discuss different theories on what the children of the Callas may represent symbolically. I contend Tian Jaffords opened that door with his right pretty speech about the tree and its wood, so using the children as a metaphor is fair game. :)

Jean
01-15-2009, 05:00 AM
Like I said earlier, unless the artist specifically confirms somewhere that "this piece of art is about ________" then that blank doesn't necessarily represent anything.
Actually, I don't even think if he does confirm it it would mean anything; a work of literature is a product of interaciton between the text and the reader, and once the author writes "The End", there's nothing he can do to influence this process; but you were right, we're drifting further and further off... The question of whether what the author says or thinks or writes outside a finished piece has any bearing on the meaning of the piece is itself very interesting (I know my position is extreme), and certainly requires a separate thread - as I already hinted when people tried to argue at me with another "King said so himself".

jayson
01-15-2009, 05:03 AM
The question of whether what the author says or thinks or writes outside a finished piece has any bearing on the meaning of the piece is itself very interesting (I know my position is extreme), and certainly requires a separate thread - as I already hinted when people tried to argue at me with another "King said so himself".

Now that would be an interesting thread indeed. I think most could guess where I stand on that one.

obscurejude
01-15-2009, 08:12 AM
Like I said earlier, unless the artist specifically confirms somewhere that "this piece of art is about ________" then that blank doesn't necessarily represent anything.
Actually, I don't even think if he does confirm it it would mean anything; a work of literature is a product of interaciton between the text and the reader, and once the author writes "The End", there's nothing he can do to influence this process; but you were right, we're drifting further and further off... The question of whether what the author says or thinks or writes outside a finished piece has any bearing on the meaning of the piece is itself very interesting (I know my position is extreme), and certainly requires a separate thread - as I already hinted when people tried to argue at me with another "King said so himself".

Start the thread and I'll keep arguing with you. :couple:

Whitey Appleseed
01-16-2009, 04:24 AM
I mean, what you're trying to say is - you can read something extra into everything. And what I'm saying is - that may be, but there isn't always any need to do so.



And I reply, please Darkthoughts, please let me (and others) speculate to our hearts content about symbology, metaphors, the magic of words and their multiple connotations. The magic that is King is just that, magic, because one can read multiple connotations in the product. No, we don't need to do that, and the product is probably better if the artist wasn't trying to create some long drawn out allegory, and maybe along the lines of what Jean is saying...I think...and mayhap King himself...something along the lines of him not having any control over it...that's wrong, he does have control.

Sorry, I lost my train of thought there...









Do you see my point? You're suggesting that I'm shallow or near sighted for not wanting to read meaning into every little detail, but I'm saying that somethings can quite rightfully be appreciated for simply being/appearing to be what they are, even though I am fully aware of the details.

Certainly, Darkthoughts. I got your point the first time you made it. I apologize for not acknowledging that I got your point...I realize at times I come across as a real numbskull but give me a little credit.

I got your point back around the time I wrote something about not having a dog in this fight. All I wanted to do was to talk about the possibilities and the multiple connotations available--that's what makes King stories appealing to me. Sure, first time through, I read for the pure enjoyment of the story. They're great stories. Cry yer pardon, and all who read this, if I happen to be that way. Gawd no I'm not suggesting you're shallow, or near-sighted for not wanting to read meaning into every little detail--I don't read meaning into every little detail.

What was this thread about? Oh yeah, the children. I imagine the powers that be know what they're doing and can finesse the thread or work their magic.

What I do object to, however, is someone telling me I'm reading something into every little detail or suggesting that talking about it confuses the issue, when they've used the same language to talk about some detail...ubermensch...yeah, but everyone knows that and all the connotations of that...King used the word uberstory in the Coda section of SOS...and I like how he says he repudiates something...Dis...or something...

So, anyway, for not having a dog in this fight--that the children of the callaa could or couldn't be read as a metaphor for something--I haven't made that argument, nor have I stated it as fact--anyway, the dog fights, for what their worth, we'd sure covered all the bases...or not...shrug...dunno.

Spit if you want to know.

Darkthoughts
01-16-2009, 03:56 PM
Spit if you want to know? :lol:

Ok, cool. Divine what you will if it makes you happy :D

AIMB
07-28-2009, 06:26 PM
Easier than having to get rid of the bodies themselves.

grobblewobble
08-15-2011, 11:16 AM
They did it because otherwise the readers would have had to miss the horror of formerly normal kids turned into braindead giants. :cyclops:

Seriously though, I do like the explanation Jean gave in another thread:


I think it's because no inhuman ruling wants to pose as such. Be it fascism or communism, or any other dragon demanding human sacrifices, the ideology never says, "we're tyrants, we'll rape and rob you daily because such is our desire." Everything is done for some good aim, and it is always emphasised that no excessive cruelty is ever imposed. Children are brought back, after all. We don't want anything that doesn't belong to us. We have used the kids for the sake of the Greater Good you're all unable to understand, and now here they are, you can have them, we're no robbers.

(Sorry to quote that bit twice, but it really was a brilliant post imo.)


I wondered if the common occurence of twins was due to genetic manipulation by the Crimson King's followers too. After all they're not a common occurence in that world either. Only that arc.
Moreover, it is mentioned somewhere (was it in the conversation with granddaddy?) that it didn't use to be like that, that in the time before the wolves came, twins were the exception. So it's more or less implied that there was some sort of spell at work.

Jean
08-15-2011, 11:35 AM
grobble... bears feel honored... no, double honored http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif