do the Hierogrammates care about the megatherians?

Jack Smith · 22 May 2011, 18:01 · from 2011-May.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: jack.smith.1946 at gmail.com (Jack Smith)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 14:01:13 -0400
Subject: (urth) do the Hierogrammates *care* about the megatherians?
In-Reply-To: <4DD8FD3A.1070509 at irit.fr>
References: <4DD8FD3A.1070509 at irit.fr>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinJ4bGH9JLXAEhdUrgMVtQ-82nK8A at mail.gmail.com>

I agree that the number 17 being connected to the Soviet poliburo is
probably a myth.  I've seen it repeated many times but no source is ever
given.

Does anyone have a Soviet or Communist reference?  If not, we should
probably drop it.


On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:

> I would like to slow down the growth of one more myth - what is the source
> of the idea
> that the number of the memebers of Politburo was 17? First of all, the
> "norm" changed
> several times. The first one, in 1917, had, as far as I remember, 7
> members.
> Then the number varied - from 8 (in 1920-es) to 25 (in 1970-es). That is,
> in the
> USSR. In China, it varied as well, between 19 and 25. To me the expression
> "group of 17" has somewhat Chinese flavour - like "gang of four"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four (nowadays there is also a rock
> group
> with this name).
>
> Best
>
> Sergei
>
>
> Le Dimanche 22 Mai 2011 02:52 CEST, Jerry Friedman <
> jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> a ?crit:
>
>
>  > From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
>>
>> > >> The other options  are that megatherians refers to a line of  human
>> rulers >that
>> > >> have ruled under  Abaia's authority or a line  of human rulers that
>> have
>> > >> fashioned themselves as  being like  Abaia or all the undersea
>> powers.
>> > > Is there an objection to those  options?
>> > > Yeah, but I get that its aesthetic. It's just that it still  leaves
>> open the >question "Why 17?" "Who did they rule?" We at least know
>>  something of monstrous >undersea rulers. A reference to a some unknown
>> rulers who  are vaguely related >to one of the giant beasts or all of them
>> strikes me as  random. Some people >prefer that. I don't. Like the carefully
>> laid structures in  this novel that >have been identified or are glimpsed.
>>
>> Okay, is there an objection to the idea that the "megatherian" human
>> rulers were early rulers of Ascia?
>>
>> We don't know why 17, but if there are 17 sea creatures, we don't know why
>> that number either.  (Other than the reference to the Politburo in either
>> case, or the speculations in my previous post.)
>>
>> It's true that the relation of the present "Group of 17" to these
>> hypothetical 17 founders is vague, but so is the relation of the present
>> "Group of 17" to the hypothetical 17 sea creatures.
>>
>> > >> And I  think we have  enough information to put the pieces together:
>> > >> > >> There are 17 recognized  "Great Beasts" who are ruling or have
>>  ruled Urth.
>> > > Part of Urth?  And what makes you say they're  ruling?
>> > > Their various territories. They rule as the Storm King rules in  'An
>> Evil >Guest'. And Abaia has an army.
>>
>> Okay, that's one.
>>  > >> Why would people NOT  write a  history of the alien powers that have
>> >controlled
>> > >> and  influenced life on Urth for  millenia?
>> > > Because they have no  material?  It seems quite possible that people
>> know >very
>> > > little of  those undersea powers' lives.
>> > > I think that's unlikely. The Ascians don't  *have* to follow Abaia.
>> They choose >to (or originally chose to) for rational  reasons.
>>
>> Interesting.  That never occurred to me.  I always imagined that the
>> Ascians knew no more about Abaia's life than Lovecraft's characters knew
>> about the life stories of Yog-Sothoth and Nyarlathotep.
>>
>> Severian tells us, as I recall, that Abaia et al. could kill all the
>> humans in the world but don't do so because they want to enslave everyone.
>>  This suggests the possibility that they threatened the Ascians or just the
>> future Ascian leaders, who went along.  I guess you could call that
>> "rational reasons".  The Commonwealth, however, called their bluff.  Or
>> maybe the sea creatures possessed the rulers of Ascia, as Dan'l suggested.
>>  I don't see any hint that the Ascians decided to follow Abaia because of
>> his impressive CV.
>>
>> I think we'll have to disagree about what "Lives of" could mean.
>>
>> Jerry Friedman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Best wishes,
Jack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110522/09bfe7f4/attachment-0001.htm>

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