{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3101", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3101, "subject": "Meschia and Meschiane", "messages": 8, "voices": 6, "first": "2002-03-28T06:12:58+00:00", "last": "2002-04-02T10:47:30+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "maa32", "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu" }, "date": "2002-03-28T06:12:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought I'd just throw this out here at you guys. I believe I owe this \ninformation to Mantis, so thanks!\nWe all agree that the play Eschatology and Genesis closely echoes what really \ngoes on, with the first man and first woman getting dropped off to recolonize \nthe planet or whatever, and the threat of flood and all that good stuff.\nThe names Meschiane and Meschia are persian ... they spring to new life out of \na golden tree instantaneously after that demon wench Jahi fools Mainyu into \npoisoning Gaya. Once again we have life simlutaneously springing into being \nfrom foliage after the poisoned Urth is reborn. (Opposing the story of \nHyacinth from mythology, the closing quote of the book: flower springs from \ndead man).\n\nPeople seem to be primarily arguing about the indentity of Blue as Urth - and \nI use the trees to justify it. Is it the trees that are one step too far for \nmost people, or do most people agree that the trees can eat people and spit \nout copies sans Blue=Urth? Is it the actual hybridization between plant and \nhuman that is too hard to accept, or is it the idea of sentient trees? \nWhatever else I may have done, I have made a huge case for the carnivorous \nsentience of these trees, and I have tied them to the vanished people \nregardless of whether eating humans creates new neighbors. Does anyone want to \nargue that vital first step? Trees = or approximate primitive neighbors; vines \n= or approximate primitive inhumu.\n\nBlattid said I should drop Blue=Urth. I'm not, but let's pretend for a second \nthat I did. Where does my argument then go too far? As far as I can see, \nit's all tied together inextricably - just say Horn is in Babbie? My only \nmechanistic proof (I mean, how it was done) for that transfer is the presence \nof the huge tree at the end of On blue's Waters where Horn/Silk has a vision \nof being Babbie. This of course explains a lot about the narrative changes and \nBabbie's later behavior, as well as the changes in the narrator at this point.\n I just don't see how I could back off from one position and keep anything at \nall of my theory. All the way back to \"Seawrack is a spy\"? (Nicely confirmed \nby GW, I might add.)\nMarc Aramini" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Spectacled Bear", "address": "spectacled.bear at pobox.com" }, "date": "2002-03-28T13:24:14+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At 06:12 2002-03-28, Marc wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "People seem to be primarily arguing about the indentity of Blue as Urth - and \nI use the trees to justify it. Is it the trees that are one step too far for \nmost people, or do most people agree that the trees can eat people and spit \nout copies sans Blue=Urth?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The ideas about trees are extremely interesting, even without believing\nthat Blue is Urth. And the reason it seems unlikely that Blue is Urth is\nthat you can see the one from the other, or at least see the Old Sun\nfrom Blue.\n\nSBear." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-03-28T16:47:47+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We all agree that the play Eschatology and Genesis closely echoes what\nreally goes on, " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Modulo some meaning of the word \"closely,\" I think we can all agree with\nthis proposition, yes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "People seem to be primarily arguing about the indentity of Blue as\nUrth - and I use the trees to justify it. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's where my credulity falls down and goes boom. I simply fail to\nsee any connection from the trees to the \"return to Urth\" scenario.\nIt is, as Cornelius Ryan might put it, a hypothesis too far." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is it the trees that are one step too far for most people, or do\nmost people agree that the trees can eat people and spit out copies\nsans Blue=Urth? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That some trees on Green are carnivorous seems beyond argument.\n\nThat some trees on Blue are carnivorous seems at least plausible.\n\nSpitting out copies, I'm not so sure about, nor could I, if you\nheld a gun to my head, believe any argument given thus far that \nthe trees spawn the Neighbors." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is it the actual hybridization between plant and human that is too\nhard to accept, or is it the idea of sentient trees? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Neither of these bothers me particularly. (BTW, there's an interesting\nquote in the Green Man passage of \"Claw\" that might be relevant here.\nI don't have my copy to hand, but it's something to the effect that\n\"even if trees were to follow the one path in a million that leads to\nsentience, they would not have the form or mind of men.\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whatever else I may have done, I have made a huge case for the\ncarnivorous sentience of these trees, and I have tied them to\nthe vanished people regardless of whether eating humans creates\nnew neighbors. Does anyone want to argue that vital first step? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The only part of this I question is the sentience of the trees.\nCarnivorous, certainly; related to the Neighbors, absolutely." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Trees = or approximate primitive neighbors;\nvines = or approximate primitive inhumu." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, I question this. I don't say \"drop it\" the way I do the\n\"Blue = Urth\" hypothesis, because I think it has merit and is\nworth pursuing. I simply don't think it's sufficiently established\nyet. But there aren't the kind of strong arguments _against_ it\nthat there are for the \"Blue = Urth\" hypothesis, so its explanatory\npower is a prima facie argument for its plausibility, if not its\nprobability. \n\nCan I say this too many times? My point about the \"Blue = Urth\" \nhypothesis is that, in the presence of so much evidence against, you \nneed a textual smoking gun to make the hypothesis even _plausible_. \nThat doesn't apply to the whole \"trees = neighbors, vines = inhumi\" \nbusiness, where the only real counterargument is Fava's story -- do \nI have her name right? -- about being a young inhuma swimming around \nin a Greenish river. What she describes doesn't _sound_ like a vine." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As far as I can see, it's all tied together inextricably - just\nsay Horn is in Babbie? My only mechanistic proof (I mean, how it\nwas done) for that transfer is the presence of the huge tree at\nthe end of On blue's Waters where Horn/Silk has a vision of being\nBabbie. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That isn't proof; but it is a mechanism. (I'm also agnostic about \nyour \"Horn is in Babbie\" theory.) I'm not clear on what this \nhypothesis seeks to explain or why it's necessary. It certainly \n_seems_ to me that the Narr still \"contains\" Horn right up to the\nend (indeed, I'm not at all convinced by the arguments some make that\nthe Narr is \"only\" Silk after his confession-crisis).\n\nNo, wait: I do recognize _one_ thing it _could_ explain: Marble's\nprophecy. It does not, however, explain the Narrator's comment\non the prophecy, particularly since that comment is made _before_\nthe vision of self-as-Babbie; I believe that comment implies that\nMarble's prophecy has come true in the Narrator's mind by that \npoint." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This of course explains a lot about the narrative changes and \nBabbie's later behavior, as well as the changes in the narrator\nat this point." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What changes, specifically, are you referring to? How does the\nNarrator and the narrative in the second book differ from that\nNarrator in the first, and how is this explained by Horn being \ntransferred to Babbie? Similarly, what changes in Babbies behavior\ndoes it explain and how? (And _why_ would the tree do this? - you \nhave a mechanism, but it is a totally unmotivated mechanism as far \nas I can see.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I just don't see how I could back off from one position and\nkeep anything at all of my theory. All the way back to \"Seawrack\nis a spy\"? (Nicely confirmed by GW, I might add.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How does any of it require Blue to be Urth? I simply do not get this." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-03-28T17:08:14+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nThat some trees on Green are carnivorous seems beyond argument." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I missed that detail. Do you have a reference?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The only part of this I question is the sentience of the trees.\nCarnivorous, certainly; related to the Neighbors, absolutely." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By \"related to the Neighbors\" are you refering to the Narrator's ability\nto walk between them, or that they are both lifeforms of the same\nplanet/ecosystem, or something else?\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-03-28T19:49:27+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I wrote:\nThat some trees on Green are carnivorous seems beyond argument." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And Rostrum queries:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I missed that detail. Do you have a reference?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not right now -- I will be rereading the Short Sun in a couple\nof months & (if I remember!) will post this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The only part of this I question is the sentience of the trees.\nCarnivorous, certainly; related to the Neighbors, absolutely." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By \"related to the Neighbors\" are you refering to the Narrator's\nability to walk between them, or that they are both lifeforms of\nthe same planet/ecosystem, or something else?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nothing so specific -- only that there seems to be some kind of\nassociation between the two. The Neighbors always seem to be seen\nin tree-y areas.\n\n--Dan'l" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-03-28T20:18:19+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As far as I can see, it's all tied together inextricably - just\nsay Horn is in Babbie? My only mechanistic proof (I mean, how it\nwas done) for that transfer is the presence of the huge tree at\nthe end of On blue's Waters where Horn/Silk has a vision of being\nBabbie. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That isn't proof; but it is a mechanism. (I'm also agnostic about \nyour \"Horn is in Babbie\" theory.) I'm not clear on what this \nhypothesis seeks to explain or why it's necessary. It certainly \n_seems_ to me that the Narr still \"contains\" Horn right up to the\nend (indeed, I'm not at all convinced by the arguments some make that\nthe Narr is \"only\" Silk after his confession-crisis).\n\nNo, wait: I do recognize _one_ thing it _could_ explain: Marble's\nprophecy. It does not, however, explain the Narrator's comment\non the prophecy, particularly since that comment is made _before_\nthe vision of self-as-Babbie; I believe that comment implies that\nMarble's prophecy has come true in the Narrator's mind by that \npoint." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe the narrator says quite explicitly, shortly after\nrecounting the prophecy, that he (as Horn) was riding a beast with\nthree horns when he was died. As Marc says, a Wolfean prophecy can\nhave two meanings, though.\n\nDo we know that the unaltered Babbie has two horns, by the way?\n...\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-03-28T20:32:19+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Spectacled Bear wrote:\nAt 06:12 2002-03-28, Marc wrote:\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "People seem to be primarily arguing about the indentity of Blue as Urth\n- and \nI use the trees to justify it. Is it the trees that are one step too\nfar for \nmost people, or do most people agree that the trees can eat people and\nspit \nout copies sans Blue=Urth?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Like Rostrum, I haven't noticed anything about the trees' eating\npeople, although I do remember a strong hint of their sentience (when\nHorn sees through the dying Krait's eyes). As for spitting out\ncopies--xylography?--I don't remember any hint of that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The ideas about trees are extremely interesting, even without believing\nthat Blue is Urth. And the reason it seems unlikely that Blue is Urth is\nthat you can see the one from the other, or at least see the Old Sun\nfrom Blue." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can see two possible explanations for this. One, which I saw\nsuggested by Jeff Wilson, is that the _Whorl_ got back to Ushas by\ngoing through a space warp, which is still warping the path of the\nlight from the Red Sun and sending it on a round trip. The space\nwarp would have been placed in the _Whorl_'s path by the Hierodules\nor somebody, presumably to repopulate Ushas after the People Vanished.\nThe difficulty is that you have to assume something with no evidence\nin order to save a theory that's already short of evidence.\n\nThe other is that Silkhorn is not being overly scrupulous with the\ntruth, as part of his campaign to tempt Juganu into helping him and\nOreb and Hoof travel astrally back to Urth. After all, how does\nSilkhorn know which star it is? The difficulty is that most of his\ndishonesty is suppressio veri and suggestio falsi; what he says about\nthe red star would be pretty close to a direct lie." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-04-02T10:47:30+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On 28/03/2002 16:47:47 Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n and before him Marc wrote" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That some trees on Green are carnivorous seems beyond argument.\n\nThat some trees on Blue are carnivorous seems at least plausible.\n\nSpitting out copies, I'm not so sure about, nor could I, if you\nheld a gun to my head, believe any argument given thus far that\nthe trees spawn the Neighbors." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Is it the actual hybridization between plant and human that is too\nhard to accept, or is it the idea of sentient trees?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Whatever else I may have done, I have made a huge case for the\ncarnivorous sentience of these trees, and I have tied them to\nthe vanished people regardless of whether eating humans creates\nnew neighbors. Does anyone want to argue that vital first step?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The only part of this I question is the sentience of the trees.\nCarnivorous, certainly; related to the Neighbors, absolutely." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Trees = or approximate primitive neighbors;\nvines = or approximate primitive inhumu." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Xenocide.\n\n\n\nMatthew" } ] } ] }