Talk:The Baroque Cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirected The Baroque Cycle (novel) to here under the assumption that there is no other Baroque Cycle other than the novel of that name. - Tim Shell

There is a prety big mistake in this series. The IJsselmeer does not exist in 1600 something. It only was created in 1932. Also the capitalisation is incorrect, as that of IJ. Anyway thoughts on where and how to hack this in to one the entries regarding this bookseries. Spearhead 14:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Solomon - Anachronistic, Travelling as Solomen Kohen" Is it implied in the books that Kohen is in fact King Solomon? I never noticed that or came across it in any analysis.

He refers to himself as "the wise," and he goes way back with Enoch. Also remember all the discussion of Solomon's gold in The Confusion. Mr. Kohen has enough gold on him to prove his merit when Peter the Great finds him, and when Waterhouse et al submit Solomon's gold in the form of punch cards, it's him that identifies it and develops a scheme to have all such gold locked away in St. Petersburg, rather than floating around the world being con-fused by coiners and eaten by upstart alchemists. It's also hinted at: the tomb of the templars is modelled after Solomon's temple, which prompts Waterhouse to say something like "If you're that Solomon...", a question which the character dismisses without answering. Unfortunately I returned the book to the library several months ago, otherwise I might have more support. At any rate, I came to that conclusion, but I'll admit that it was never explicitly stated, and that King Solomon's use of Kohen as a last name would probably be inappropriate since he was more involved with government than with priestly activities. By the way, you can sign your messages with four tildes, like this:Joel 02:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renamed 'Errors' to 'Deviations from Real History'

Given that these novels are a work of fantasy-fiction, not history, I think it's a bit strong to call these discrepancies 'Errors'. We simply don't know which elements are 'wrong' because Stephenson deliberately manipulated history for the sake of the story, and which are due to his lack of knowledge. We might make a reasonable guess in some cases, but if we're to call them all errors, we might as well add to the list the facts that Newton didn't really bunk-up with Daniel Waterhouse, there is no known elixir that will revive someone from death, and people don't live as long as Enoch Root. --DudeGalea 14:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Slavery did not exist in France (colonies excluded) during the 17th century — "nulle personne n'est esclave en ce royaume" — so Abigail cannot be kept there in slavery by Lord Upnor. Such was, presumably, the positive law, but that doesn't mean that Lord Upnor could not possibly have managed to do so in fact. Nit-pickingly, you could call it false imprisonment rather than slavery, but the effect for Abigail wouldn't have been much different.194.109.198.99 18:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)