|
Hmm... it would be most interesting if I could come up with a reason for Hilderinc not to tell the truth in this situation as well, or not at least from the beginning and pretend to be just stupid or oblivious. I don't see it as completely impossible, but it will certainly be a challenge for me to think of a way to make it make sense.
One way how to "save it" would be if only Thornden approached him (and Coen would e.g. just go ahead to quickly rouse the rest of the men, leaving Thornden to explain to Hilderinc and appoint them to gather search parties on their own or something), that way, Hilderinc only would talk to Thornden (I could make Áforglaed react to the news and then just briefly take a look at Scyrr, so he'd be out of the way too). It might be then up to Thornden to either convince Hilderinc not to tell anything (ai, ai? If you, Folwren, want a challenge, then this would definitely be one; we also could make it a co-post) or to somehow avoid the question "but sir, didn't Lithor actually talk to you or something?" It would be an interesting thing if it could be done, like, how much it takes to convince Hilderinc that Erbrand is harmless and he should be let alone and whatnot, or if Thornden is going to outright lie (somehow I pity him, he got into this horrible situation and it seems he just cannot stop lying... that's exactly how this web of lies forms and spreads)...
But if it does not work, we can leave it be and make some other soldier notice.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories
|