Challenge 289 response: Xunnax
by Slawomir Rapala
Slawomir responds to Challenge 289:
Hi Don,
The fate of Xunnax, the character in the Three Kings novel, is still an open question.
I wrote him out of the novel because I felt that he didn’t fit into the story, at least not the direction that it was going. He’s played his role of Iskald’s companion and friend during a desperate cirumstance, and that’s that.
In an earlier version of the novel I had Iskald and Xunnax meet at the end and go through an adventure together, but the latter did not survive it, and I deleted that scene altogether anyway, feeling that killing off Xunnax would serve no purpose.
However, I have a feeling that he will resurface elsewhere in the world at a different time, perhaps crossing swords with Aezubah even.
He is an interesting character and, while closing the door, I wanted to leave a window open in case he re-emerges years later, say, as a mercenary himself. That’s why there’s that bit of foreshadowing which I’m glad you picked up on.
Slawomir
Copyright © 2008 by Slawomir Rapala
Discussion
Bill Bowler: Slawomir’s comments on the fate of Xunnax are quite interesting — the way he wrote him in then wrote him out; the author playing God, as it were.
I’ve always been fascinated by Tolstoy’s comments about his character Prince Andrei in War and Peace. Tolstoy said he needed a brilliant officer to die at Austerlitz, so he created Prince Andrei. But having done so, he became interested in the character, so he didn’t kill him in the battle but only had him wounded. Andrei recovers and goes on to become one of the central characters of the epic, Natasha’s love interest, etc. It’s amazing how it works.
Gary Inbinder: Pickwick Papers was Dickens’ first great success, but it didn’t take off until he added Sam Weller as a comic foil to Mr. Pickwick. In fact, the serialized novel was dying before Dickens came up with a great comic character to appeal to his audience. The Tolstoy and Dickens references are two good examples of how great writers can adapt, modify, expand or contract characters to advance the story-line.
Don Webb: Thank you for the explanation, Slawomir. I think writers, especially, will like to hear how a novel has taken shape; it’s the sort of thing that parallels their own experiences.
The case of Xunnax is interesting because it involves plotting in the way I think it’s most effectively done: put the characters on stage and let them evolve on their own. As you say, you gave him a brief role, but he didn’t fit in for one reason or another.
Crossing swords with Aezubah or even Iskald, for that matter, is not the sort of thing I would expect of Xunnax: he would become either a copy of Iskald, which seems useless, or a villain, which would be out of character for him.
Rather, Xunnax as an image of Iskald has intriguing possibilities. Where Iskald goes from the heights to the depths and, presumably, back again, Xunnax starts out at the bottom of society; he has nowhere to go but up.
Even in a world as semi-barbaric as the Azmattic, where everything is resolved by violence, Xunnax offers a new opportunity. He will have to become a warrior like Aezubah and Iskald — that’s the way of his world — but he also comes from a background completely different from that of the other two main characters.
In the end, Xunnax and Iskald need not go on some pointless adventure together; rather they might clash intellectually over the government of Lyons. For example, Iskald might be more conservative, while Xunnax might have more democratic ideals. In short, where Iskald can become a successor to Aezubah, Xunnax could become a successor to Iskald.
In any event, “foreshadowing” is normally done by action or description, not by the author’s marginal notes to reader, e.g. “You can forget Xunnax; he’s not coming back.” Let the readers hope he will return and be disappointed later rather than sooner, when he doesn’t.
