Challenge 946 Response

Bewildering Stories discusses:

The Nadir of the Labyrinth

with Andrew Krygoski

The Challenge, “Bound Away,” appears in issue 946.

Did the king deliberately allow Elena and Andreas to form their romance or did the couple successfully manage to keep it a secret?

[Andrew Krygoski] I do not believe that the king was aware until Elena asked. I believe it was so below him, or not an issue, that he was just not aware. The moment she voiced her wishes, he was aware and was able to piece together all previous actions into this. The man does not strike me as stupid, and can probably piece a puzzle together. But as the story is presented to the reader, it doesn’t seem like the king should care about his daughter at all. It feels like he views her only as a plaything, an extension of his own life and where that extension breaks down, she’s meaningless to him. I got the feeling that he is a “force of nature” rather than a human being.

[Don Webb] The question does have to do with the character type of the king. If the king were a concerned and doting parent, he would be naturally curious about Elena’s friends and entourage. But he isn’t one; he’s a tyrant, and his cruelty is a symptom of paranoia.

The king is not portrayed as a conflicted character; rather, he is psychopathic. He does not — in fact, cannot — care how Elena or anyone else feels. Since his primary objective is complete control of the social order, he will rely on spies to keep him informed of anything that Elena — or anyone — does that might overstep a boundary.

The king most likely knows only that Elena and Andreas are acquainted, which he would consider normal. Since the king intervenes only after Elena requests that Andreas be given a social promotion and made her bodyguard, I think we can infer that the couple successfully keep their feelings a secret up to that point.

Should Elena have anticipated that the king would find her request offensive that Andreas become her bodyguard?

[A. K.] I thought she did, that she knew the request was doomed to failure even before she made it. That’s how I felt from the story, but maybe I’m projecting my own expectations.

[D. W.] The question implies another: why does Elena misjudge her father so badly? Two possibilities: she is either very naive or she is so fed up with living like a prisoner that she decides to take a chance that her family relationship to the king might win her a favor. The character development seems to go both ways at once.

What does the reconciliation of Elena and Sophia symbolize?

[A. K.] I frankly don’t know, as I did not like Sophia as a person. I get that she blamed the royalty for what was happening to the bodies of the poverty, but honestly I couldn’t dig her reactions and felt like she was kinda a dick when we first met her, that her temper was misguided later on. No where did I feel like she was correct in her feelings, as weird of an idea that is.

[D. W.] Elena and Sophia stand at opposite ends of the social order: Elena is a princess, while Sophia is a peasant. Readers might find it surprising if Sophia did not instinctively distrust Elena for being a member of the ruling family, especially since it is so despotic.

However, once Elena’s and Sophia’s imprisonment and life stories have stripped away artificial boundaries, they realize they are both persons of good will. Attempting to escape together from the “Labyrinth” to the safety of another kingdom symbolizes a social revolution, a step towards democracy.

Elena and Sophia cannot remain in the cavern. Does Elena consider escaping by way of the river a real or a forlorn hope?

[A. K.] It doesn’t matter. The river is an escape from what she’s done. There’s two places at that point of the story: in the cave or in the river. #1 is the worst, as its where her beloved’s body lies (from her perspective, as a result of her actions) and she doesn’t expose anything that makes her seem the type to want to lay with it. That leaves her only with option #2, meaning she’s gonna jump in there.

I personally feel like there’s a real question of whether Sophia is Elena’s excuse to escape. Would she stay and die of starvation at the side of her beloved if Sophia wasn’t there? Did she choose river for the hope of Sophia’s sake (potentially of survival), or because Sophia’s presence would tarnish a starvation ending within the cavern? Would Elena have “honor” without Sophia is the underlying question here, I feel.

[D. W.] At one point, the river water is referred to as “freezing.” Even if it’s an exaggeration, the suggestion is clear that Elena and Sophia may die of cold before they can complete their escape. But it’s quite true that the degree of hope doesn’t matter. What have Elena and Sophia got to lose by trying to escape?

What is the function of the quiet man, the one who doesn’t get to tell his story? Would anything substantial change if his role were omitted?

[A. K.] What is the purpose of cinnamon in a curry? Its not in your face, there’s no way you could name it as a spice used unless under much duress. But without it, there’s no way you could say we ended up with the same dish. The flavor is all important, the tinge it casts on the rest of the story undeniably colors it. Would it be substantial? No, of course not. But without it it wouldn’t be the same Nadir of the Labyrinth.

[D. W.] To ascertain the function of a character — or anything else — in a story, simply omit it and see what else is affected. Is the “quiet man” like cinnamon in a curry sauce? The analogy is not far-fetched. But what happens to him? He meets a gory end that shocks everyone else. His role allows readers to see the dangers of the cavern much more vividly than if we’d merely been told about them.

Another Review Editor says that the quiet man plays a role analogous to the “red shirts” of Star Trek “away missions.” The “red shirts” seldom have speaking roles; rather, they are “extras” who are usually killed off by enemies, thereby visually emphasizing the danger of the missions.