>All right, I'm going to take one more hack at this, and then I'm done
>with it: You are overanalyzing the fuck out of the entire
>thing. For one thing, the whole point of Corwin at that
>age, and indeed any age, is that when he says things that otherwise
>seem like they ought to involve weird buried-context ulterior-movie
>bullshit like the above, they don't. That's a recurring
>feature of his that I think a reasonably perceptive reader can't have
>missed... except possibly on purpose, because it's inconveniently
>out-of-line with her Purported Agenda Theory.

Not going to get into the bulk of this discussion, but I did want to comment on this. Personally, I have always interpreted Corwin to be one of those rare souls who not only can and should be taken at face value, but who essentially goes out of his way (so to speak) to remind you of that fact whenever possible. He doesn't just mean what he says, he is what he says. Other than a few clear occasions when he's scheming to surprise someone, he's simply incapable of doing otherwise (and even then, you know something's up even if you don't know what).

The problem with this is that there are so few people out there who actually behave like that, that many people are simply incapable of truly believing that anyone could be that way, even a fictional character. It's not that he's poorly written or inconsistent or any of the standard problems with a character that can make them unbelievable, it's that he's "too good to be true", so people are looking for the catch. The fact that there isn't one is irrelevant; either people will believe or they won't, and there's unfortunately nothing you can do about it.

I know this doesn't help your interpretation of success/failure, but if it makes you feel any better I think you succeeded.

Offsides

[...] in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.
-- David Ben Gurion
EPU RCW #π
#include <stdsig.h>