jenny.holmstrom at brevet.nu
Tue Apr 2 01:50:07 EST 2002
At 05:54 PM 4/1/02 -0700, you wrote:
>>I always thought that Spellcoats was the first - because it's set in much
>>older times than the others, sort of early mediaeval, then C&C -
>>renaissance-ish, then the others, early modern/pre-industrial. Or have I got
>>it completely wrong?
>Apparently, but you are wrong in company with me. I always assumed
>Spellcoats was first until the recent paperback re-edition which numbers
>the books from 1-4, and Spellcoats is 3. I don't really understand this.
>For a long time it was pretty much a stand-alone book until Crown of
>Dalemark used a couple of the characters in a tangential way. It certainly
>takes place a lot earlier than the other three books, but clearly this is
>no reason to regard it as early in a series.
Wait! _That's_ the way in which I read them! I do have that paperback
re-edition you're talking about - if it's a US one. It was said on the
covers and I read them like that: 1, Cart and Cwidder, 2, Drowned Ammet, 3,
The Spellcoats, 4, The Crown of Dalemark.
But even so, I, for some reason, always thought and felt that Spellcoats
were taking place much earlier than the others - isn't that right?
Well, I felt you had a different feeling for the country when you had read
the first two ones and was going on Spellcoats. Then you could feel with
Tanaqui much more... Maybe that's a reason to number them like that? Or was
it just a mistake?
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj