Good question! I thought it was a nice way to handle Silver, because although he was a scoundrel and deserved to be punished, he was the most compelling character of the story and was sort of a lovable villain. I doubt readers would have been happy to see him hang, but they couldn't exactly just let him go, either. I immediately thought that allowing him to escape left the door open for a Silver-centric sequel.
I agree that Silver was sort of lovable, and it was nice to see a villain in a kid's story who wasn't pure evil, who had some (kind of)redeeming features. Also the trait of unprincipled self-interest is such a common one in real life, but it's frequently sugar-coated and made to look like something far more palatable. In Silver it's laid bare and, though just as despicable, it's somehow less hypocritical.
A kid's story without "justice" in the end seems so unusual — and so instructive.
2 comments:
Good question! I thought it was a nice way to handle Silver, because although he was a scoundrel and deserved to be punished, he was the most compelling character of the story and was sort of a lovable villain. I doubt readers would have been happy to see him hang, but they couldn't exactly just let him go, either. I immediately thought that allowing him to escape left the door open for a Silver-centric sequel.
(Sorry so delinquent in following up!)
I agree that Silver was sort of lovable, and it was nice to see a villain in a kid's story who wasn't pure evil, who had some (kind of)redeeming features. Also the trait of unprincipled self-interest is such a common one in real life, but it's frequently sugar-coated and made to look like something far more palatable. In Silver it's laid bare and, though just as despicable, it's somehow less hypocritical.
A kid's story without "justice" in the end seems so unusual — and so instructive.
Post a Comment