Subject: (urth) How long, how long, has my little Whorl been gone?

From: Jeff Veyera <teflon93 at cox.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:13:04 +0000

Don Doggett wrote:

Fair enough.  The thing I think that keeps me drawn to my theory is the fact
that Marble's internal clock is off by three thousand years (well 2,700)
soon after Silk's enlightenment. I know that's circumstantial evidence and
everything is breaking on the Whorl, but it seems compelling to me.

Don

That brings up another nagging point---with all the allusions to the fact
that The Whorl's been in space a lot longer than the inhabitants suspect,
why couldn't Marble's clock be correct?

Those chems seem like they were built to last, as was the ship.  It
certainly seems to me that it might take a lot longer to get as decrepit as
it did than 300 years.  Some factors potentially weighing in here:

1.  The fact that the cargo GREATLY outnumbers the sleepers.  Can't imagine
that this would have been the case from the outset, or shortly thereafter.

2.  There are very few flyers left.  There had to have been a host of
them---would Typhon have taken any chances by undermanning the primary
propulsion and heating system of the ship?

3.  Marble is absolutely decrepit.  I find it hard to believe that an
advanced chem capable of self-repair and engaged in only mildly strenuous
activity would decay so soon.

4.  The ship has been looted.  Cards have been currency for long enough for
people to forget what they originally were or where they could be found.
Sleepers have largely been exterminated or joined the cargo.  The embryos
have been pillaged.  The Ayuntamiento knows a LOT more than they should
about the ship and how it operates (not like they were given a manual when
they came aboard.)  All of this takes time, particularly when the original
inhabitants were utterly ignorant of being aboard a ship and given that
everything initially was provided for them.

I'm left with the disturbing feeling that The Whorl was in space a LOT
longer than its inhabitants believe.

What say the sages?

--

---

From: Don Doggett <harlekin at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:55:57 +0000

Jeff wrote
> why couldn't Marble's clock be correct?

Well, it seemed to be implied in the text that Marble's clock showed a lot
smaller number not too long before.

Don

--