(Warning: spoilers)
I think the answer to that is a qualified "no". A more interesting question, and one which every future blog post will attempt to answer, is:
To what extent does LB's work consist of a single fictional universe?
There are sets of stories which are explicitly set in the same continuity: the events described in one story are referenced in the other as having taken place (e.g. The Croning references the events of "The Men From Porlock").
There are sets of stories which seem to be set in the same continuity. They share characters, (fictional) locations, creatures, items, etc, and the presentation of those elements is reasonably consistent, given the unreliability of narrators, the omission of details, and other story exigencies.
Complicating things slightly, we are explicitly introduced to parallel dimensions in several stories ("Parallax", X's for Eyes) which share elements with other stories. The implication is that different presentations of the same elements may still be part of the same meta-continuity.
There are stories with few overt ties to other stories. They may (currently) share their fictional universe with no other stories by Laird.
My hypothesis from the outset is that LB puts the needs of the story above continuity concerns. The meta-narrative that parallel worlds exist, and that the divergence between them can be very small, provides cover for any unintended continuity snarls. I think that the shared elements are featured because they serve a storytelling purpose (to increase verisimilitude, to produce a thrill of recognition in the reader, etc.), and not because Laird is attempting to produce one (or many) entirely self-consistent canon(s) of stories.
I don't think that it will be possible to unambiguously determine which sets of stories share the same fictional universes, which share the same meta-universe(s), and which are entirely out of continuity with the others. That does not mean however that it can not be meaningfully attempted.
No comments:
Post a Comment