AEG: Margaret

Roy C. Lackey · 18 Jan 2009, 02:08 · from 2009-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: rclackey at stic.net (Roy C. Lackey)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:08:12 -0600
Subject: (urth) AEG: Margaret
References: <002c01c978ef$dcbd9a60$98d14a0c@rclackey>
	<4972732D.8090508 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002801c97911$a4967ae0$c2d24a0c@rclackey>

Dave Tallman quoted and wrote:
> > That's not right. What Gid did for Cassie to bring out her star quality
was
> > to enhance what was already there. That is not the same thing as
> > shape-shifting as defined by Gid. (99-100) Cassie still looked like
Cassie,
> > only better and more charming. To shape-shift is to morph into another
> > physical form that is different from the original.
> >
> I have to disagree. Cassie was told "It is easy, terribly easy, for
> someone who has transformed up to slip back down; and it wouldn't be
> right for me to die without having warned you" (p. 100). Why would
> Cassie need a warning about someone else slipping down?

Because there may be others who have transformed that she should be careful
of--even if he only meant Margaret.

> She was
> transformed up, and needs to know that she could lose it. You say that
> it cannot be transformation if she doesn't look different. I say at
> least her voice was different.

That's not enough. It's not the radical transformation Gid spoke of, such as
human to animal form, as different as Carlos and the wolf that got Scott.

> What Chase calls a "higher form" for Cassie even appeared spontaneously
> at times in her performances before he did anything for her.

Right. He only enhanced what she already had.

[snip]
> In short, I see no reason not to accept Cassie as a person who
> transformed up, and Margaret as a person who transformed down.

I disagree for reasons stated previously. But even if you are right, that
doesn't satisfy the question Cassie asked about humans who have transformed
up, "Do they become angels? Or--or . . ." By your own account, the
transformation of Margaret to werewolf is down, not up. Angels or what? I'm
sure you will agree that a werebeast is not a step up on the moral and
aspirational level.

-Roy

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net