Subject: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 02:15:56 +0000

David Duffy's recent reference to TBOTSS in connection with 5HC made me
realize that TBOTSS is, among other things, about colonization, though I
haven't really thought of it that way.  But when I look at the book in those
terms, what I see is disturbing, at least to me.

Unlike the colonists of 5HC, the colonists on Blue aren't displacing
anybody, since the Neighbors have left and the inhumi live on Green.
Rather, it is the inhumi who savagely and without provocation assault the
colonists, killing and enslaving them.  Silkhorn's attempt to treat the
inhumi as human beings, rather than automatically killing them as is the
colonists' usual practice, ends in complete failure.  Jahlee, whom he treats
with the most kindness, treacherously tries to murder Nettle; and Juganu,
another inhumu whom Silkhorn had treated as human, repays him by attacking
his son's wedding.  (Though Silkhorn had goaded Juganu into attacking him,
that Juganu would kill hundreds of innocents to hit back at Silkhorn
indicates his savagery.)  To top it off, we learn that the inhumi don't have
souls of their own, just souls they've stolen from humans, so it is
presumably alright to exterminate them or reduce them to animality.  In
short, the portrayal of the inhumi seems nothing less than an apologia for
genocide.  I would like to think that Wolfe actually hopes for peaceful
relations between the humans and inhumi, but imo the books don't support
this reading.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not asserting that Wolfe is a racist in real life,
or that he supports the mistreatment, much less genocide, of any actual
group.  (Though his post-9/11 statements do give me pause.)  But the inhumi
must play such a large role for a reason; and, Wolfe being Wolfe, it
presumably isn't just to give Horn monsters to fight.  If, as I think, the
purpose of the inhumi being there isn't to teach us tolerance, what is
Wolfe's purpose?

--Adam

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 07:51:58 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Stephanides" <adamsteph at earthlink.net>

> relations between the humans and inhumi, but imo the books don't support

But there is a simple point to understand here.

Contemporary western morality enforces a deeply unreal hierarchy of virtue
based on class, gender, and race.  It also enforces a doublethink, whereby
the priviledged and favored races, gender and classes are labelled as
"oppressed".

Non-whites are morally superior to whites, women to men, and the poor to the
rich.

Wolfe, you may easily note, does *not* submit to this group ethnomasochoism.

He is not any sort of racist, but the PC cues of race, gender, and class are
rarely obeyed.

This, I believe, is a conscious policy on Wolfe's part.    He knows what he
is doing.

    --- *** ---

Thus, for example, the (moral and physical) ubermensch Silk is a blond Aryan
type;  most of the oppressed and suffering in Wolfe's books are poor whites;
the women warriors of whatisitname are a bunch of bitches, and so on.

Read some of Wolfe's stories with race, class and gender in mind.   The
messages are very clear.

    --- *** ---

Now,

The astonishing thing to me, really, is that you should find Wolfe's
writings on the subject of interspecies conflict odd.

The inhumi are *not* another human race.

Why the hell *should* an alien species like the inhumi be peacefully
inclined towards humanity?

Why should humanity not strive to exterminate its enemies?

It is a completely real picture of the natural processes of evolutionary
rivalry and conflict.

    --- *** ---

I am irresitably reminded of another very wise writer, Cordwainer Smith.

The message of his Underpeople stories was that **everything that seems
human is human**.

The message of the inhumi may be **no they are not**

    --- *** ---

Yet I am not sure of this.

The inhumi are *not* human, but they may indeed represent the human "other".

And the attempt to redeem them by love may be the greatest mistake humanity
will ever make. Or it may be the only way to solve the problem.

Silk/Horn repeatedly says it is. Who knows if he is right?   I suspect Wolfe
himself could not tell you.

    --- *** ---

Now let's really, really,  stir this one up.

Inhumi = jews?

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:12:55 +0000

> purpose of the inhumi being there isn't to teach us tolerance, what is

You mustn't forget that the inhumi are demons, quite explicitly. This is on
my mind because I've just been reading a book called -Demon Lovers- about
the accusations of sex with devils during the Renaissance witchhunts. So you
can't simply look at it as a colonial novel (I have a weakness for colonial
novels, btw). There's the whole Catholic mythology about spirits. That is
why I have made rather a point of reminding you all that Wolfe has
emphasized the resemblance of the inhumi (unhumans) to demons and the
Neighbors to cherubim. And also emphasized man's inhumanity to man in the
way that the colonists behave to each other--wretchedly, generally. It is a
didactic novel, to be sure, and very broadly sketched. I was offended by
Wolfe's treatment of Jahlee on first reading (and the crude melodrama of the
writing) but in the strict Catholic reading you can't get away from the fact
that a demon is a demon and will revert to type. (Origen, who took the
thoughtful and humane position that all of God's creatures could eventually
be saved, was anathematized over and over again as a heretic.) The inhumi
yearn to be human (that's what Origen said too) but they cannot become human
except in illusion in this book, no matter how kindly they are treated. So
your final question is answered by Wolfe's irony. Through Horn's (and
Wolfe's) relations with Fava, Krait and Jahlee (by far my favorite
characters in the book) we grow affectionate toward them. But they cannot
help their natures, as the scorpion said to the frog as both were dying.

-alga

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:26:17 +0000

--- Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > indicates his savagery.)  To top it off, we learn that the inhumi
> don't
> have

I think there's some truth to this last; such prejudices do exist,
though they're hardly "enforced"--I've heard lots of people express
the opposite prejudices (especially against women), and nothing
happened to them.

However, you're getting carried away when you call non-whites, women,
and the poor "privileged" and "favored".  True, the poor get welfare
and the rich don't.  This probably more than makes up for the fact
that as Anatole France said (more or less), the law in its majesty
forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges.  It
nowhere near compensates for the enormous, immense disadvantages of
being poor.  I'm not talking about getting tickets to the opera;
I'm talking about things from the way you're treated by the police
and courts to having to pay to get your paltry paycheck cashed.
The same applies to race.  As far as gender goes, I've heard some
interesting statistics about salaries and levels of advancement, but
I don't know the methods used to compile them.

> This, I believe, is a conscious policy on Wolfe's part.    He knows what

Well, unprecedented with regard to humanity.  We've extirpated a number
of species, but only in one case (the smallpox virus, if you want to
consider it a living organism) because it was our enemy.

Anyway, one reason humanity on Blue and Green shouldn't strive to
exterminate the inhumi is that humanity is in large part responsible
for the way the inhumi act.  This leads to the ambiguity you mention
below.  Another reason may be that the inhumi weren't hurting anybody
on Green after the Neighbors left and before humans showed up--unless
the speculation is correct that the inhumi were involved in bringing
the _Whorl_ to their system.

In what way?  Wolfe can't mean that Jews have to drink the blood of
Christians (literally or metaphorically) to live, or that our souls
are copies of Christians'.  He can't mean that the only two choices
for dealing with us are Christian love and genocide--the U.S., for
instance, hasn't tried either.  Possibly that, in the words of Auden,
"those to whom evil is done/ do evil in return"?  That applies to
a lot of groups; Auden was talking about the Nazis.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 06:49:41 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
>>I don't know the methods used to compile them.

I refer to depictions of race and gender in literature and the media, not
real life.    I repeat that you should read Wolfe with an eye to these
things.

> for the way the inhumi act.

No.  And this is part of the ambiguity.    Humanity is "responsible" in the
sense that the inhumi get their patterns of behaviour from humans, but
humanity is not "reponsible" for the fact that the inhumi are psychic and
physical parasites and that this is how the inhumi must and do act.

Consciously, the inhumi may even be friendly: but their genetic drives are
completely counter to human welfare, and when it comes to the pinch the
genetic drive is what counts.

As Alice said, they are demons, and remain demons  *even if they believe
they are human and try to act human*.

The basic message is, or at least seems to be, the primacy of genetic drives
over cultural conditioning.

But one could certainly answer that this is just the latest of a series of
ambiguous conclusions Wolfe comes to, and as I said I am not sure that he
knows the true, final, answer himself.

>.  Another reason may be that the inhumi weren't hurting anybody

The inhumi don't *have* to come to blue and prey on humans.

> a lot of groups; Auden was talking about the Nazis.

As you very well know the blood libel *did* say that jews drank the blood of
christians, and jews have been pictured as evil superintelligent
behind-the-scenes manipulators, pretending to be "human" but actually damned
demons (because they killed christ) very much like Quetzal, for generations.

I'm not going to push this one too hard, but I do think there is some input
here, not from real jews, but from what you might call the catholic
legendary picture of jews.

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:05:00 +0000

on 5/21/02 2:51 AM, Andy Robertson at andywrobertson at clara.co.uk wrote:

(I'll refrain from comment upon hartshorn's excursus into real-world
politics.)

> It is a completely real picture of the natural processes of evolutionary

I don't deny that within the fictional situation that Wolfe has set up, the
colonists are justified in killing the inhumi.  But, as I said, Wolfe must
have had a reason for giving the inhumi such a large role, and presumably it
wasn't to tell us what humanity should do if it ever does come across a race
of shape-shifting alien vampires.  What Wolfe is essentially doing is
biologizing evil, which is a dangerous thing to do whatever one's conscious
intentions.  And depicting the relations between groups in terms of
"evolutionary rivalry and conflict" to the death is also dangerous, given
this century's history.

> Now let's really, really,  stir this one up.

Actually, if the inhumi are indeed modelled upon any real-life group, my
guess would be the Palestinians, given Wolfe's post-9/11 remarks that the
U.S. should give Israel a free hand, and given the Exodus theme in TBOTLS.

And alga wrote:

> novels, btw).
[snip]
> I was offended by

Yes, I can see the resemblance of the inhumi to demons.  But they are also
an indigenous species on a colonized planet, whether Wolfe intended to write
a colonial novel or not (and I agree it doesn't read like one).  And again,
it seems quite dangerous to me to depict what is, in effect, a race as
compelled by its nature to be evil.

Once again, I am not claiming that Wolfe himself is racist, or intends to
promote racism, or that reading TBOTSS would make someone a racist.  But I
am saying that the philosophy Wolfe's portrayal of the inhumi seems intended
to convey is one that can easily, and has in the past, fostered racism,
whatever Wolfe's intentions.

--Adam

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:20:39 +0000

> I'm not going to push this one too hard, but I do think there 
> is some input here, not from real jews, but from what you might
> call the catholic legendary picture of jews.

I feel obliged to protest the use of the term "catholic" in this
context ... it isn't that the Roman church didn't do more than its 
share of persecution of Jews, but that other churches (including 
the Orthodox churches and many of the early Protestant churches) 
were equally guilty of this, and that some Protestant sects to this
day teach that the Jews are "Christ-killers" when the Catholic church
has clearly renounced such teachings. So my protest is not against
the basic idea, only the singling out of Catholicism.

--Dan'l

--

---

From: tom <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:06:17 +0000

> U.S. should give Israel a free hand, and given the Exodus theme in TBOTLS.

The Exodus theme fits very well, IMHO.  We have basically decent
colonists/Jews on one side, and completely evil inhumi/Canaanites
on the other.  The story then becomes the answer to "Why didn't
the Jews love their neighbors during the conquest of the Holy Land?".

Silk becomes a Moses figure.  The Neighbors are the giants on the
Earth in previous days.  Pas becomes (against his will) an aspect
of Yahweh.  Settlers on Green become the Jews who tried to live
with the Canaanites.

It's a nasty mapping, but has precedent in Tolkien's orcs = Eastern
Europeans parallel.

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:30:19 +0000

----- Original Message -----
> (I'll refrain from comment upon hartshorn's excursus into real-world

Comment freely, but only where relevant to Wolfe's work

> What Wolfe is essentially doing is
> intentions.

Wolfe is not biologising *human* evil.   If he did I would read with
interest, mind you.  But that is not relevant here.   He is not talking
about a different human race, but a different species.

> And depicting the relations between groups in terms of

A good writer writes about reality, not avoiding what is "dangerous".

> U.S. should give Israel a free hand, and given the Exodus theme in TBOTLS.

I doubt it, given the m.o. of the Inhumi.    They are not a race of peasants
being displaced, but rather a race of cunning psychic manipulators and
predators.

I do not of course imagine Wolfe has any thought of drawing an analogy with
real-life jews, but it does seem to me that there is something of the
*legendary* picture of the Jew in the inhumi.   Shylock.  Wormtongue.  The
evil counciler.

> compelled by its nature to be evil.

The whole point of Wolfe's writing *is* to depict such a race, and then give
it the agony of having a human soul and *perceiving* that evil *but still
not being able to renounce it*.

> whatever Wolfe's intentions.

Unquestionably Wolfe does not believe that the differences between human and
Inhumi can be erased by any amount of goodwill or environmental
manipulation.   They are genetic and unchangeable by any human power.

The whole point of the book is to show Silk, a saint, attempt this
redemption *and fail*.

    --- *** ---

Look, fiddle-faddle PC about "racism" is far, far,  below understanding what
Wolfe is attempting.

The whole moral point is that there *is* a vast biological difference.

Love may perhaps redeem the most evil human being.

But in the Lupiverse love must try to redeem something far worse - an
inhumi.

If the inhumi were not intrinsically evil, intrinsically far worse than the
worse human being, **this would have no meaning at all**.

There is this attempt to extend the matrix of human love to the inhumi, and
there is its failure.

If the ihnumi were just human beings in drag, neither the attempt nor its
failure would have any special meaning at all.

Surely, surely, you must see this?

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:36:09 +0000

>From hartshorn:

(a lot snipped)
> Surely, surely, you must see this?

Surely, surely, I do. And I'm even offended at the attempt to drag the Jews
into this. Wolfe, I think, would hit the ceiling at such a ham(heh!)fisted
interpretation. Look, we're talking spiritual here, and on some level it
isn't too complex. I was disappointed that no one complimented my Jonas-like
invocation of the scorpion and the frog, but that in the end is the
inhumi-human situation. Even Quetzal--remember him?-- who was perhaps as
much of an inhumu saint as Silk a human one--could not help his nature. Fava
preys on granny, though she'd prefer not to.

The book (I mean, of course, the three books) is about many other things,
about parents and children, about the divided soul, but most of all, I
maintain, it is about a pilgrim's progress, and the allusion is entirely
intentional. There are devils and angels in this book. (I prefer to call
them demons and cherubim, but I'm not getting much of a response.) There is
a flawed and divided human (or two) trying to cope rather biblically at
times, as when he becomes Solomon, harem and all. Even the awful racial
caricatures, that we have all deplored a bit, are a way of saying: look,
it's all of us; we're in it together. The races of the earth, the angels,
the demons, the terribly troubled heroes. He's laying a simplistic world out
in rather broad terms and sending his pilgrim(s) through it.

The interesting point, to me, is whether the inhumi can really be considered
"evil." In a debate, I'd enjoy taking the side that they are not. And that
Wolfe shows the humans, who do not have their needs and nature, as more
evil.

-alga

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:20:17 +0000

> Wolfe shows the humans, who do not have their needs and nature, as more

At the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing might
be called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic movies, crack
coccaine, a computer virus).  That is, something that harms people or does
evil because of way it was made.

On the other hand, I think its implied that the inhumi are as much persons
as chems.  Their souls may be derivative, but they are real, and they seem
to be capable of making real choices to do good or evil.  I think their
nature makes it very difficult to do good, but not impossible.  Is Wolfe's
view of humanity much different?  If the book seems to imply that the
inhumi are incapable of redemption, isn't it only to the extent that human
society is incapable of redemption?

-Rostrum

--

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 19:10:23 +0000

Interesting thread.

In genre terms, it seems to me that Gene Wolfe is working off of (or in the
same vein as) Blish's A CASE OF CONSCIENCE, but keeping to that work's
strong first part (with attendant ambiguities) and avoiding the less
thrilling final part (with its total and final resolution).

Back to the Neighbors.  It is easy for us to interpret the Neighbors as
being a Vingean "transcendent" species, a group who followed the
technological curve to the point of exiting the material plane of
existence.  But they might not have actually gone that far--we don't really
know.

So the hand-off of Blue to the humans is less the sale of Manhattan by
American Indians for some beads than it is the gift of, say, Africa, to
humanity from all the pre-homo sapiens sapiens humanoids.

But remind me what the inhumi were to the Neighbors.  Aside from being a
pain--they were a bother, weren't they?

In any event, the inhumi represent "discarded" or "left behind" creatures,
whether they be barnyard animals or uplifted critters or what-have-you.
Yet, iirc, the Neighbors' current attitude towards inhumi is that they are
the hammer (or anvil, or both) that made the Neighbors what they are and as
such will also spur the humans on.  The Neighbors didn't erradicate the
inhumi, clearly, although they may have fenced them in.

=mantis=

Sirius Fiction
booklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley
31 copies of "Snake's-hands" until OP!
http://www.siriusfiction.com/

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 20:31:29 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alice K. Turner" <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
> Surely, surely, I do.

Well, I'm glad you do at least.

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 19:52:42 +0000

> pain--they were a bother, weren't they?

One of the Neighbors (or maybe it was Silkhorn) said that the Neighbors
made the Inhumi their slaves, and thereby brought their own ruin.

I think one of the temptations Silkhorn rejects is to do the same thing.  
He seems to be able to exert some kind of influence over the inhumi.  (By
loving them?)  Is it possible he could have enslaved the inhumi, and in
doing so made himself a monster, and in doing so made them even more
monsterous?  Is that why he provokes Junangu into attacking him?  Lest he
and the other inhumi fall under whatever spell he's woven over Jahlee?

-Rostrum

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:30:19 +0000

> A good writer writes about reality, not avoiding what is "dangerous".

To be sure.  I don't regard that view of relations between groups to be
"reality," though.

> being displaced, but rather a race of cunning psychic manipulators and

But according to some historians (e. g. Joan Peters), the Palestinians were
not displaced peasants, but migrants attracted to a virtually empty land by
the Zionists' enterprise, who later falsely claimed to have lived there for
centuries in order to discredit Israel.  I do not endorse this account (but
I don't think this list is the place to discuss it).

> *legendary* picture of the Jew in the inhumi.   Shylock.  Wormtongue.  The

I don't see much of the evil councillor about the inhumi.  Horn is the only
human ruler we see who tolerates them, and he doesn't take counsel from
them.  As for the other resemblances between the inhumi and the anti-Semitic
picture of Jews, I think they're byproducts of the fact that the inhumi are
vampires.

> Surely, surely, you must see this?

Surely, surely, I don't.  In fact, to me the opposite seems truer to me.  If
the inhumi are not intended to have anything to do with humans (not
literally, of course, but metaphorically) -- if the point is just that some
hypothetical alien species, or demons, are unredeemable -- then that whole
aspect of the book becomes just an abstract theological exercise.

On reconsideration, though, I think I oversimplified what Wolfe was doing
with the inhumi.  The inhumi aren't evil by nature; they aren't anything by
nature except animals.  They are cruel to humans only because humans are
cruel to each other, as Silkhorn says explicitly more than once.  Certainly
their betrayals of Horn reflect Horn's own behavior.  Horn betrayed Nettle
by sleeping with Jahlee; Jahlee tried to kill Nettle to possess Horn.  As
for Juganu, Horn treated him like a thing in trying to goad him to murder
him; Juganu can be seen as, consciously or not, repaying this contempt.

So the inhumi aren't unredeemable because evil is in their genes.  They're
unredeemable because, in a sense, there's nothing to redeem.  They have no
souls of their own, just souls they've stolen from humans.  If they were
ever converted to being good, they would cease to prey on humans, and in a
generation they would be reduced to animals again.

Likewise, I'd also question the identification of inhumi with demons.  The
inhumi aren't fallen angels but fallen beasts, so to speak.  The original
"sin" is not theirs, but that of the Neighbors in travelling to Green and
enslaving them.

I still think the book has a message of "fight rather than accomodate."  But
it's not pro-colonialism.  Rather, it depicts colonization as destructive to
the colonizer as well as the colonized.

--Adam

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:01:10 +0000

>evil because of way it was made.

I don't agree with you.  This suggest that evil can be inherant in an
object.  I don't believe that it can: evil may in the intent of those who
created such things or those wo employ them but not in the inanimate and
unaware.

The inhumi as animals should not be capable of evil.  It's only after
acquiring the ability to make moral judgements that evil becomes possible.

That might also raise the question of whether it is justifiable to judge
inhumi in *human* moral terms.  But since their ability to make choices is
aquired *from* humans then human moral terms are the only ones applicable.
 In this they differ from such as the Neighbours who presumably would have
a moral framework native to themselves (although I see little to
illustrate it being different from the human).

>society is incapable of redemption?

If the inhumi have souls would it not be due to the actions of their
parents?

Having souls they're capable of "evil", and presumably similarly capable
of redemption. But unlike humans the concequences are imediate and
deleterious.  It's like original sin with added catch 22.

Also there's another proximity - each inhumu/inhuma's ability to make
moral choices is the result of it's progenitor's actions - as if each
generation were Cain and Abel - and their actions involve the next. To
refrain from the "evil" of attacking humans would be to reduce their
offspring, would that not be another evil?

So I would suggest that the inhumu would be capable of redemption but are
trapped into circumstances where they can neither attain it nor would it
benefit them if they did.

Matthew

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:52:22 +0000

> real life.    I repeat that you should read Wolfe with an eye to these

Sorry, I thought you were talking about real life.  I think you're
right that Wolfe tries to avoid political correctness.  (On the
other hand, maybe it was PC of him to admit, in TBotSS, that there
might be people of color in the distant future!)

> physical parasites and that this is how the inhumi must and do act.

True, but the inhumi aren't responsible for that either.

> they are human and try to act human*.

What about Krait?

> knows the true, final, answer himself.

Well, then, we don't disagree too much.
 
> The inhumi don't *have* to come to blue and prey on humans.

You just got done saying that they do.

Anyway, there are humans on Green as well.
 
> legendary picture of jews.

Sorry, again I thought you were talking about reality.  Anyway, all
you're going to get here is "some input", and there may be some, but
I agree with Alga and others that there's more input from legends of
demons and vampires who could appear to be human.

-- 
Jerry Friedman

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 19:37:45 +0000

----- Original Message -----
> To be sure.  I don't regard that view of relations between groups to be

It is not the character of Reality to be other than Dangerous.

Rather, the Real presents us with a series of Tests, each more unbearable
than the one before.

Wolfe is writing about one of these Tests.

Like all real tests, it is a moral one.

It is the question of how you behave when you have the ability  -  thrust
upon you by the horribly cruel machinery of Evolution - to create a living
soul within the body of a bloodsucking, predatory, reptile:  to create a
thing that then screams and weeps sincere psychic tears as it **continues**
to prey on and kill human beings.

It is not a test with an easy answer.

It seems to me that you are hopelessly thrall to the comfortable Star Trek
view of the universe, and the Other within it.

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 19:49:38 +0000

----- Original Message -----
> True, but the inhumi aren't responsible for that either.

I think this is a meaningless distinction.    Their minds are not
responsible for it.   But the mind/body duality, even if it has some truth
for humans, has no meaning for an Inhumi.

Their minds *right down to their deepest souls* are no more than a genetic
ghost conjured up by their blood-drinking bodies as a chameleon-game to
facilitate more blood-drinking - a fake so deep that the poor minds
themselves believe it to be true, but a fake nontheless.

The only thing about them that is *not* borrowed is their genetics, their
bodies, and it is the only thing that can be meaningfully judged.

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 22:08:31 +0000

Alga wrote:

> > At the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing 
> > might be called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic movies,
> > crack coccaine, a computer virus)...

and Matthew Malthouse replied:

> I don't agree with you.  This suggest that evil can be inherant 
> in an object.  I don't believe that it can: evil may in the 
> intent of those who created such things or those wo employ them 
> but not in the inanimate and unaware.

Matthew: while I may (and in fact do) disagree with one or more of
the items in Alga's list, she's using a perfectly reasonable sense
of the word "evil" -- If you will consult your Funk&Wagnall ... 
well, all right, make it your online Merriam-Webster (conveniently 
located at http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm), you will find the 
following (slightly edited by me to save space and improve
format):

Main Entry: (1) evil <http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif>
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old 
	High German ubil evil
Date: before 12th century
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> 
  b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct 
      
2 a archaic : INFERIOR 
  b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> 
  c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> 
  b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY

Main Entry: (2) evil
Function: noun
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing 
  b : a cosmic evil force
2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

Now, it seems to me that, of the adjectival senses, 1a is the
only one that can _not_ reasonably be spoken of an inanimate 
object or an animal (1b is arguable), and, in particular, to 
the inhumi (where, 2a is also arguable); while noun sense 2 
is clearly applicable to them, and noun sense 1b may also
reasonably be said of them.

Mind, this is not intended to suggest that dictionaries,
let alone this particular dictionary, should be prescriptive
for our use of the word "evil" -- but it is descriptively 
suggestive that the word is applicable in this case. 

"But," you may object, "I was specifically talking of evil
in the purely moral sense." Well and good; but even there,
the classic moral "problem of evil" does not merely apply to 
evil will but to "evils" such as disease and disaster that
cause suffering -- the "why do bad things happen to good
people?" side of the question. Certainly Wolfe, as a Catholic,
would be inclined to include this sense in any philosophical
discussion of "evil."

> The inhumi as animals should not be capable of evil.  It's 
> only after acquiring the ability to make moral judgements 
> that evil becomes possible.

No, Matthew. The word you are looking for is not evil; it is
"sin." Only a moral free agent can sin.

> That might also raise the question of whether it is 
> justifiable to judge inhumi in *human* moral terms.  

That question remains relevant. At what point is "doing what 
we must do to survive" sinful?

> But since their ability to make choices is aquired *from*
> humans then human moral terms are the only ones applicable.

I'm not at all sure that this is true. If the inhumi are to
have a 'morality' at all, it must be one that is applicable
to their biologic nature, including the necessity of drinking
the blood of living beings. 

> If the inhumi have souls would it not be due to the actions 
> of their parents?

As near as I can understand how the inhumi lifecycle works,
that would appear to be the case.

> Having souls they're capable of "evil", and presumably
> similarly capable of redemption. But unlike humans the
> concequences are imediate and deleterious.  It's like
> original sin with added catch 22.

I'm not clear what this paragraph means ... are you saying
that there are immediate adn deleterious consequences of
their choosing to do evil, or of their redemption?

> Also there's another proximity - each inhumu/inhuma's ability 
> to make moral choices is the result of it's progenitor's 
> actions - as if each generation were Cain and Abel - and their
> actions involve the next. 

Yes ... the sins of the parents are rewarded in the children.
Ugly, isn't it?

> To refrain from the "evil" of attacking humans would be to
> reduce their offspring, would that not be another evil?

Why?

> So I would suggest that the inhumu would be capable of 
> redemption but are trapped into circumstances where they
> can neither attain it nor would it benefit them if they did.

Well, except in the sense that redemption is in and of itself
a benefit...

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:08:49 +0000

> following (slightly edited by me to save space and improve
[snip, sorry, but you can look it up]

That wasn't my list and the current format of the Urth list makes it too
difficult to go back to find who it was. I insisted on the paradigm of the
scorpion and the frog, that the inhumu cannot help his nature and thus is
arguably *not* "evil," as a lion who kills an antelope is not evil. I said
that I would enjoy, in a debate, taking the position that they are not evil.
We get to know four of them very well: Quetzal, Krait, Fava and Jahlee, All
of them struggle against their nature. (I can't help thinking of Quetzal wrt
the current brouhaha re Catholic priests, has this struck anyone else? But I
remind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea.) These are vivid
characters; Wolfe was interested in them.

-alga

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 13:56:58 +0000

on 5/24/02 7:08 PM, Alice K. Turner at aturner6 at nyc.rr.com wrote:

> remind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea.)

I don't recall Quetzal well, but his attempt to stick to beef tea might well
have been in order to avoid doing things that might get him caught, rather
than out of compassion for humans.  After all, he does direct the colonists
to Green at the end.  And I'm not sure that Jahlee and Krait "struggle
against their nature."  They both refrain from drinking the blood of Horn or
those in his party (at least Jahlee does; I don't remember Krait too well,
again), but I don't recall any indications that they made any effort not to
drink the blood of humans in general.  It seems to me that this is at best
delayed gratification, not a struggle against one's nature.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 13:50:36 +0000

> view of the universe, and the Other within it.

It was specifically the view of relations between groups as an evolutionary
struggle to the death that I denied was "reality."

But no, I don't believe that love will conquer all.  But I also don't
believe that there are any races which are unredeemable by nature.  I'm also
doubtful that we will encounter an alien species which is unredeemable by
nature in the future.  The idea of such races comes from stereotypes of the
Other and from pulp sf, rather than reality.

But the more I think about it, the more dubious seems the idea that Horn's
error is loving the inhumi.  Yes, bringing Jahlee home was a spectacular
error of judgment (for that matter, sleeping with her was an error of
judgment).  But as Hoof would say, one can love someone while being aware of
their failings.  Horn knew that Jahlee was an amoral and bloodthirsty (no
pun intended) being, and should have realized that by bringing her to where
Nettle was he was leading her into temptation big time.  And, as I wrote
earlier, "love" has very little to do with Horn's relations with Juganu.
OTOH, had Horn not trusted Krait, he would have died on Green much earlier
(at least this is implied, iirc).

So maybe my original post which started this whole discussion was wrong, and
Horn's policy of treating the inhumi as humans fails because of his own
weakness, not because it's inherently doomed.  I don't know.

--Adam 

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:30:24 +0000

> bodies, and it is the only thing that can be meaningfully judged.

I don't see how you can hold to that view of mind/body relationship and
still view chems as persons (which Wolfe obviously does).

If a soul is only 'real' if it is part of a human being, then chems and
inhumi and Babbie and digitized "gods" are all just "a fake so deep that
the poor minds themselves believe it to be true."

There are people who believe that to be the case, that an AI for instance,
would only be pretending to have consciousness, but I don't think that is
the stance Wolfe is taking in these books.

For further disproof, note that Fava's soul seems to survive her death in
some way, living on in Mora's dreams and enabling them both to posess
Vadsig.

-Rostrum

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:07:04 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Straight" <straight at email.unc.edu>

> still view chems as persons (which Wolfe obviously does).

Why not?

Our own minds *right down to our deepest souls* are no more than a genetic
ghost conjured up by our bodies, to serve evolutionary drives.

The chems' minds are no more than a cybernetic ghost conjured up by *their*
bodies.

We are all chems;  inhumi;   machines;  beasts.

I didn't say we were existentially on different planes.

I said the conflict between human and inhumi was **embedded** - was part of
their disparate natures.

The inhumi are a parasitic/predatory chameleon species **because of their
inbuilt nature**.

And that "nature" is one thing with their flesh, not some indwelling
charioteer.

The chameleon/parasite aspect extends even to the nature of their *minds* -
which faithfully hold to the MetaLie, the belief that they are human,   even
while serving the cruel behest of evolution and nothing else.

(that belief is the heart of the chameleon/parasite: the sincerest **and
most evolutionarily successful** liars are those who *believe* their lies)

The initial point of this thread was that some of us deny the concept of an
"inbuilt nature" in intelligent species.

Be sure that Wolfe does **not** deny that concept, and be sure he knows what
a terrible evil it is.

    hartshorn

(( "colonialism" my foot!!!!!!!! ))

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:00:54 +0000

Alga,

I apologize for miscrediting someone else's "list" to you.

> That wasn't my list and the current format of the Urth list 
> makes it too difficult to go back to find who it was. I
> insisted on the paradigm of the scorpion and the frog, that
> the inhumu cannot help his nature and thus is arguably *not*
> "evil," as a lion who kills an antelope is not evil. 

Antelopes almost certainly have a radically different opinion of 
lions than you do. For an antelope (at least one with inclinations
toward ethical philosophizing), to be killed by a lion is a great 
evil indeed, and lions are evildoers. 

> I said that I would enjoy, in a debate, taking the position that 
> they are not evil. We get to know four of them very well: Quetzal,
> Krait, Fava and Jahlee, All of them struggle against their nature.

I'm don't think that Krait and Quetzal do -- I reserve judgement on
the other two until I've reread tBotSS, as I've begun to do. But 
Quetzal does not seem to me to be struggling against anything; he
drinks beef tea because he is in a position where it will be noticed
if he never takes any nourishment at all ... but there are at least
two, and probably several more, cases of his attacking people in the
course of the BotLS.

> (I can't help thinking of Quetzal wrt the current brouhaha re
> Catholic priests, has this struck anyone else? 

Good heavens, no! but it's really an obvious comparison once you
mention it, isn't it?

> But I remind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea.

Okay, then: I just reread LS, and I did not see anything that made
me think he was trying to "stick to" beef tea ... it seemed to me
that the beef tea was his camouflage, as mentioend above. Can you
cite anything in the text to make "trying to stick to beef tea"
more plausible?

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:38:24 +0000

> ghost conjured up by our bodies, to serve evolutionary drives.

OK.  I thought you were saying that inhumi souls were fake and human souls
were real.

> while serving the cruel behest of evolution and nothing else.

OK, I agree that they want to be human and never can be.  But I think in
the course of trying to be human, they become *persons*.  I think that is
the key distinction.

Only humans are human, but chems, inhumi, digitized gods, Babbie are all
people.  I can't exhaustively define personhood, but I think it includes
moral action, the ability to love and be loved, and, for Wolfe, the
possibility of surviving death.

Inhumi personhood is derived from human beings (as are all the other
examples above), and they can never be human, but I think they can be
persons, capable of and accountable for moral actions.

> "inbuilt nature" in intelligent species.

Yes, but I'm not sure the inhumi nature is necessarily more of an obstacle
to becoming virtuous persons than human nature.  Neither group comes off
very well in the SS books.

-Rostrum

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:08:30 +0000

----- Original Message -----

> very well in the SS books.

Right.   I think I agree with you here.

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:03:30 +0000

--- Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > > No.  And this is part of the ambiguity.    Humanity is "responsible"
> in
> > > the
> > > humanity is not "reponsible" for the fact that the inhumi are
> psychic
> > > and

This is possible, but their showing up as human in astral travel
suggests to me that their minds are not a fake.

> bodies, and it is the only thing that can be meaningfully judged.

Genetics can be judged as fortunate or unfortunate for a particular
person.  I suspect that the people who have been saying that 
individual inhumi can be judged as moral or immoral are right (in
the Lupiverse).

Jerry Friedman

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:57:43 +0000

> "inbuilt nature" in intelligent species.

Actually, the initial point of this thread was my objection to what I
perceived the Short Sun books to be saying about colonialism.

And I never said anything about "inbuilt nature" in general.  If by "inbuilt
nature" you mean only being predisposed to drink blood, or things of that
ilk, then I wll agree that humans have an "inbuilt nature."  But I see no
reason to believe that it is inevitable, or even probable, that we will
encounter a species that is unredeemable by nature.  Nor, for that matter,
do I believe that there are humans who are unredeemable by nature.

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:57:43 +0000

> evil indeed, and lions are evildoers.

For a human to be killed by smallpox is a great evil.  But we don't regard
smallpox viruses as evildoers, because they are incapable of moral thought.
Philosphical antelopes would presumably reach the same conclusion about
lions (assuming they remained lions).

--Adam

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:57:44 +0000

> Right.   I think I agree with you here.

How does this square with your original argument that the inhumi's tragedy
was that they were incapable by nature of being other than evil, and that if
they were just "humans in drag" this tragedy would be meaningless?

--Adam

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:31:36 +0000

----- Original Message -----
> they were just "humans in drag" this tragedy would be meaningless?

The ghost-soul in the inhumi may attain to a sort of human virtue.  The
flesh remains evil.   Of course the question is whether "evil" in this
context means anything other than "evil to humans".

It depends on what you mean by "nature", "good" and "evil".

Also by what "they" refers to when you are talking of the inhumi.

And the whole point of the inhumi is to put these concepts to the Question.
To Excruciation

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:25:27 +0000

Hartshorn wrote...

> The ghost-soul in the inhumi may attain to a sort of human 
> virtue.  The flesh remains evil.   Of course the question is
> whether "evil" in this context means anything other than
> "evil to humans".

It does indeed ... recall Krait's comment that humans are the
cattle of the inhumi (from memory, haven't read that passage in
a while...)

This also ties into my sermonette on souls and selves ... if 
the inhumi can't not drink blood because of their physical 
nature (though I suppose that an occasional, extraordinarily 
self-sacrificing, inhumX might choose to die rather than doing
so), then whatever souls they may possess should not be judged
by this ... the soul is responsbile for guiding the person's
behavior toward morality, but is limited by the facticity of
the person's physical circumstances, including the person's
body. This is a complex moral issue made more complex by the
introduction of a variety of non-humans, and Wolfe's deliberate
and concerted attempts to have the inhumi push as many "THESE
THINGS ARE SCARY/BAD!!!" buttons in his readers as possible. 
(Off the top of my head: they're reptilian; they're vampiric;
they're infiltrating shapeshifters; they're capable of deep and
malefic schemes; they have human intelligence without [or so
we are at first led to believe] human emotion; they drink beef
tea...)

> And the whole point of the inhumi is to put these concepts to 
> the Question. To Excruciation

Well, yes, but that's also the point of the alzabo, the aqastors,
the chems...

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:18:58 +0000

>lions (assuming they remained lions).

I'm glad someone has begun to make this distinction because I've felt
throughout this discussion that matter's have been confused by the loose
use of the word 'evil'.

To my mind an act can only be categorised as evil if there it is comitted
in the understanding that doing so transgresses some moral or ethical
imperative.

What those constraints are will be defined by culture and belief.

For example a death by smallpox is tragic in a humanist view, but not
evil. It's just one of those chances that might happen.  It takes some
additional input - such as the belief in a deity and a directed purpose to
such an eventuality - to make such a death an evil.

So we (humanist or deist alike) consider murder wrong. To kill with intent
is evil.  To cause death inadvertantly is not, however tragic.

In considering the inhumi we should ask if they have an inherant moral
framework against which their actions can be judged or if their
consciousness, being as it is human derived, places them in the moral
framework of the humans on Blue and Green.

If one opts for the former it is difficult, if not impossible, to didscern
from the text what shuch a framework would be.  However to be
comprehensible to us it should certainly include that using prey (lion and
antelope like) is a life necessity and not an evil.

I personally opt for the second choice.  Pragmatically because this allows
the author to pose questions of evil in a single framework without the
complications of evaluating the alien.  Moreover the mechanism by which
inhumi attain consciousness seems to suggest that it is only within a
human framework that they act.

If that is accepted we have the conflict mentioned a while back. To
survive in the form they are they must continually commit acts that are
seen as evil: and given the premis just made which they must understand as
evil.

So we have within a single moral context conscious predators, evil, pitted
against prey which should be contrasted as good or innocent.

Nothing Lupine is ever so simple.

Clearly we have human elements in the book that are at best ambigous and
easilly seen as evil.  So here there is no innocent at all but rather
shades of guilt or sin.  We have speculted that the "solution" to the
inhumi problem might be becoming "good" if that is indeed the solution
we're told categorically that the humans can't do it.

The inhumi cannot both renounce evil and survive as they currently are.
Humans might do so, and in doing so co-incidentally rehabilitate the inumi
but they won't or can't except perhaps for the rare "saint". The conflict
is within human nature: those who cannot enact their own redemption
against those who could but won't.

Matthew

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:03:14 +0000

> is evil.  To cause death inadvertantly is not, however tragic.

I think the Christian way of expressing this is that death by smallpox is
evil (one of the evils unleashed by humanity's estrangement from God) and
murder is sinful.

The humanist equivalent is probably that death by smallpox is bad and
murder is evil.

Thus the confusion about the word 'evil'.

-Rostrum

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:04:43 +0000

Matthew quoted Adam quoted me...

> > For a human to be killed by smallpox is a great evil.  But we don't
> > regard smallpox viruses as evildoers, because they are incapable of
> > moral thought. Philosphical antelopes would presumably reach the
> > same conclusion about lions (assuming they remained lions).

Well, fair enough ... I had considered that ungulate philosophers 
might well consider felids capable of moral choice also, but assuming 
the contrary, I agree with you (Adam): to be killed by a lion would 
be an evil, but the lion would not be an evildoer thereby.

> throughout this discussion that matter's have been confused by the
> loose use of the word 'evil'.
> 
> To my mind an act can only be categorised as evil if there it 
> is comitted in the understanding that doing so transgresses some
> moral or ethical imperative.

Matthew, you are (of course) free to think this way, it runs against
both common English usage of the word "evil," and the tradition of 
Western moral philosophy. 

As a simple example of the former, consider the fairly common 
usage, "That chemical mixture gives off an evil smell." Nobody 
who uses the word this way is imputing any morality to the odor 
or the chemical mixture; they are simply stating that they find 
it extremely unpleasant, even painful, to be exposed olfactorily 
to the chemical mixture.

The same is true of being killed by smallpox, or a lion. It is
an "evil fate," it is bad, but it is not in and of itself a 
moral wrong.

But wait, there's more ...

> What those constraints are will be defined by culture and belief.

... correct. And it is important to remember that in an appropriate 
interpretive context for Lupine texts, the "culture and belief" in
question are Western and Christian, sc., Catholic (and fairly 
conservative American Catholic at that).

> For example a death by smallpox is tragic in a humanist view, 
> but not evil. It's just one of those chances that might happen.
> It takes some additional input - such as the belief in a deity
> and a directed purpose to such an eventuality - to make such a
> death an evil.

See above: such belief is inherent to the Lupine. 

H'mmm. I should clarify ... I am not saying that one must be a 
Christian, let alone a fairly conservative American Catholic, to 
appropriately interpret a text Lupine; I am, however, saying that 
one must be able to, as it were, simulate that headset to do so, 
much as one needs to be able to simulate the headset of a lapsed 
Irish Catholic in order to appropriately interpret _The Portrait 
of the Artist as a Young Man_. Wolfe is more "dangerous" for the
interpreter than, say, C.S. Lewis (except perhaps for Lewis's 
final novel, _Till We Have Faces_, which is much subtler than 
any of his other fiction), in that it is entirely possible for 
someone not engaged in a Christian headset to read large amounts 
of Lupine text without ever realizing that Wolfe's is, in fact, 
Christian, and that this deeply imbues (almost?) all his texts.

> So we (humanist or deist alike) consider murder wrong. To 
> kill with intent is evil.  To cause death inadvertantly is not,
> however tragic.

Okay, this is where we differ deeply. I don't know about 
"deists," but from the Christian poing of view, causing death 
inadvertantly, not to mention being stricken by smallpox, et by 
a lion, or killed by a falling tree, is not only "an evil" in 
the sense above, but is also related, directly and causally, to 
the Fall. It is, in other words, the result of evil (that is, 
"sinful") moral choices made by human beings.

> In considering the inhumi we should ask if they have an 
> inherant moral framework against which their actions can be 
> judged or if their consciousness, being as it is human derived,
> places them in the moral framework of the humans on Blue and
> Green.

We must (more completely) inquire of the text regarding the way(s)
in which they relate to the overall Fall -- are they ensouled, but 
un-Fallen beings, who are harmful to humans only because of the 
human Fall? Sentient, Fallen beings? Devils? Animals? Etc. The 
answer to this question is (the beginning of) an answer to the 
question regarding the moral framework, if any, by which an inhumo's
acts should be judged. -- Note that this is not a disagreement with 
your question but a reframing of it in terms appropriate to the 
Lupine context.

> If one opts for the former it is difficult, if not impossible, to
> didscern from the text what shuch a framework would be.  However
> to be comprehensible to us it should certainly include that using 
> prey (lion and antelope like) is a life necessity and not an evil.

It would not be sinful; it remains an evil, a result of the Fall.

> I personally opt for the second choice.  Pragmatically because this 
> allows the author to pose questions of evil in a single framework
> without the complications of evaluating the alien.  Moreover the 
> mechanism by which inhumi attain consciousness seems to suggest that
> it is only within a human framework that they act.

Yes. An important point of the Judaeo-Christian framework is that
"the blood is the life." This has all sorts of ramifications for 
the Mosaic laws and Talmudic regulations of ritual purity; it is
tremendously important in understanding the nature of sacrifice in
the Vironese faith; and it is, very much, what makes the inhumi 
what they are. Thus, an appropriate approach to the reframed question 
is to work from the belief that the inhumi are, essentially, animals
with no capacity for moral choice beyond that which they gain from 
their feeding upon humans. This in fact does not quite remove from
us the burden of "evaluating the alien" -- we have to evaluate the
extent to which they actually attain the capacity for moral choice.

Another critically significant point of the Christian episteme is 
that sin is a kind of bondage; that as long as we remain sinners, 
we are not in fact free. The inhumi, in gaining their capacity for
moral choice from sinful humans, would appear to gain also the
taint of original sin, and the tendency to actual sin (in Catholic
terms, "concupiscence") that results from it. An inhumo trying to 
make a moral choice about whether to attack a human is less free
than a human making most of the moral choices which face us, in 
that not only concupiscence but actual physical need drives them 
to the "sinful" choice; additionally, they seem, as has been 
discussed recently, to be "damned if they don't," in that if they 
refrain from attacking humans, it appears that they will condemn 
their own children to insentience -- as the Narr puts it, to the
intelligence of a crocodile.

I very much like your summary:

> The inhumi cannot both renounce evil and survive as they 
> currently are. Humans might do so, and in doing so
> co-incidentally rehabilitate the inumi but they won't or can't 
> except perhaps for the rare "saint". The conflict is within
> human nature: those who cannot enact their own redemption

The conflict is also very much in the purview of Christianity --
nobody can save himself; they must be saved by the willing 
sacrifice of others. It is possible that the "answer" to the
secret of the inhumi, which the Narr hints at, is for saintly
humans to voluntarily give their blood to them. The next inhumi 
generation will then include saintly inhumi who will not attack
humans but only accept voluntarily-given blood. If enough humans
were to be saintly enough, there would appear a beneficent cycle,
in which ultimately the humans and the inhumi could live in
peace.

But, of course, it will never happen in the Fallen world...

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:27:20 +0000

--- Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> to becoming virtuous persons than human nature.  Neither group
> comes
> off
> > was that they were incapable by nature of being other than evil, and
> that
> if

Definitely!

> And the whole point of the inhumi is to put these concepts to the

In fact, as people have been saying, the distinction between humans
and inhumi seems to be one of degree rather than kind.  I would hate
to share a bedroom with an inhumus, but I'd also hate to share a
prison cell with a human being if we were fed, say, 2000 calories a
day for the two of us.  In both cases the biological imperatives
are going to lead to severe harm to me--it's just that humans have
worked out "modi vivendi" [?] that allow us with our biological
imperatives to co-exist.  So if you're going to call inhumi flesh
evil, I think you have to say the same about human flesh (and you
wouldn't be the first)--ours is just less evil.

And going along with Wolfe's belief in souls, I hardly see that it
matters whether one's soul is unique and acquired at or before one's
birth, or a copy of an existing soul acquired at or before one's
hatching.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:41:28 +0000

> Matthew quoted Adam quoted me...
...

> But, of course, it will never happen in the Fallen world...

I've given this matter more thought than I probably should have, and
I don't think saintliness is required.  The inhumi can pay for the
blood they drink.  Unfortunately, they aren't capable of doing much
manual labor (though like the abos, they're okay with ropes--Krait
can sail), but Blue certainly needs a good communication system,
not to mention maps.  Then considering that the inhumi can live on
animal blood sometimes, and even beef tea, one might be able to
develop a workable economy in a Fallen world.

Bluvians might be wise to limit the inhumi's pre-reproduction blood
meal to human volunteers in order to encourage altruism as well as
commercialism.

To get back to something more to the point, why doesn't Silkhorn
try "donating" blood to inhumi?  That would seem like an excellent
attempt at making improvements.  He's too humble to think he
would help?  Too squeamish?  Wolfe didn't like the echoes of the
Eucharist?

Jerry Friedman

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:52:43 +0000

> cattle of the inhumi (from memory, haven't read that passage in

Of course, we humans generally see non-human animals as our cattle,
and sometimes we even see humans that way.

Jerry Friedman

--

---

From: Jason Ingram <j_ingram at mac.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 04:12:16 +0000

On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 12:41 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
[. . .]
> would help?  Too squeamish?  Wolfe didn't like the echoes of the

I believe that he did so, deliberately opening his veins several times 
to feed an inhumu or two.  It seemed that this altered their subsequent 
behavior, though Jahlee presents a counter-example (I believe that she 
was a recipient).  I couldn't opine whether Silkhorn's intent was simply 
to prevent them from preying on others or he had something else in mind 
without rereading.

Sepia

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:44:55 +0000

>to prevent them from preying on others or he had something else in mind

Thought just appeared out of the blue so perhaps nonsense: if humans
volunteered this and inhumu acceded to it would it not create a dependence
that ultimately could make the inhumu a slave race?  Potentially a
solution as ethically problemtaic as the problem.

This would't happen if all human doners were altruistic.  But isn't our
premis that they (we?) can't be so consistantly and universally?

Matthew

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:26:34 +0000

Matthew wrote...

> volunteered [their blood] and inhumu acceded to it would it not create 
> a dependence that ultimately could make the inhumu a slave race? 

Actually, that had occurred to me also ... and immediately 
(inevitably?), the situation wrt the US and OPEC came to mind,
with US in the rôle of the inhumi ...

> Potentially a solution as ethically problemtaic as the problem.

Sort of. But predators _are_ dependent upon their prey; in the 
case of the inhumi, granted, the dependence is a little different 
in that other prey are available but won't give them sentience 
(and, just possibly, souls). But changing a predator/prey 
situation to one of mutual benefit and dependency seems to me
to be as close to a purely good thing as you get in the Fallen
world.

> This would't happen if all human doners were altruistic.  But 
> isn't our premis that they (we?) can't be so consistantly and
> universally?

Depends on what you mean by "altruistic" -- if you mean acting
from emotionally altruistic motives, your reading of the premise 
is correct; however, it is possible to behave altruistically for 
reasons other than altruism (this is actually one of the major
topics in current* evolutionary biology); if the inhumi were to
develop, from their human "victims," this kind of altruistic
character, it would be every bit as beneficial to both sides as
"emotional" altruism, and quite probably more so for the inhumi.

-----
* Where "current" means "long enough ago to be considered an
  exciting topic for current popular-science books.
-----

In other words, _assuming_ that we are right in believing that
their character is sufficiently susceptible to alteration by 
the character of those they prey upon, _then_ the forging of a 
mutually-beneficial détente would not require that it be only
saints who open their veins to the inhumi -- utilitarian/
pragmatists will do as well.

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:17:18 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>

from emotionally altruistic motives, your reading of the premise
is correct; however, it is possible to behave altruistically for
reasons other than altruism (this is actually one of the major
topics in current* evolutionary biology);

As a matter if fact, Evolutionary Psychology is the key to understanding the
whole mess.

There is a case of a planarian that infests a type of water snail.

It affects the snails' behaviour.

It makes them climb to the top of grass stalks and perch there waving their
eyes in the air.

The eyes get nipped of by birds - who are the planarians' secondary host.

The case of inhumi/humans, though not analagous,  is not essentially
different.

The inhumi affect the humans' behaviour, and the humans affect the inhumi.

Yet it is more complex, and mutual reciprocal altruism spreading
cross-species like this and forming a new Evolutionary Stable State would be
an  *exquisite* demonstration of Evolutionary Psychology

I wnder if Wolfe understands the disipline, or if he is just so acute that
he cannot diagram a world that does  not hold these deep truths?

    hartshorn

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:50:39 +0000

Hartshorn wrote:

> cross-species like this and forming a new Evolutionary Stable 
> State would be an  *exquisite* demonstration of Evolutionary
> Psychology

Sounds like you read a lot of the same popsci books I do 8*)

(O'course, for all I know you may be an evolutionary biologist
or psychologist in real life...) 

Yeah ... allowing for my (intentionally) looking at things through
spectacles of moral theology, that was more or less where I was
going, but without going into the technical details -- mostly on 
the assumption that many folks here _don't_ read the same popsci 
as me and it's too early in the morning to explain evolutionarily
stable strategies, mixed strategies, and all the rest. 8*|

> I wnder if Wolfe understands the disipline, or if he is just 
> so acute that he cannot diagram a world that does  not hold these
> deep truths?

Well, genetics and evolutionary bio have been part of the 
background of Wolfe's writing at least as far back as 5HC, so 
I'd guess he keeps up on the stuff as part of his "job" as an
SF writer.

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 20:05:57 +0000

> >to prevent them from preying on others or he had something else in mind

Anybody have a cite?

> solution as ethically problemtaic as the problem.

Well, we're not the slaves of OPEC (Dan'l's example) or of utilities,
still less of farmers.

I think the real problem along these lines might be people forcing
slaves to give the inhumi blood--those slaves who are adjusted to
their condition, predisposing the future generations of inhumi to
be slaves.  See the April _Scientific American_ for some not overly
original notes on the psychology of slavery.

> premis that they (we?) can't be so consistantly and universally?

Yes, or at least Wolfe's premise, but I agree with Dan'l that
ordinary economic behavior and enlightened self-interest could lead
to an improvement on the situation in the trilogy.

Jerry Friedman

--