[blue] Inhumic morality and dwellers in the deep
↰ answers Alex David Groce
· by quotation
2 quoted lines
Alex David Grace wrote:
The intelligent blood idea does present the cruel vision of species that, in order to remain morally and intellectually aware, must do something morally repulsive. Essentially, to have any will, they must exercise their will in a malevolent way.
Morally repugnant to whom? My interpretation of Krait's "cattle" metaphor and his comment "I must eat" is that the inhumi's drinking of blood is as matter-of-fact to them as eating fish is to Horn. When leatherskins kill humans, are they being immoral?
I don't detect any self-loathing or guilt in either Quetzal or Krait (or Jahlee for that matter). Inhumic morals could even be very similar to one prevalent human system (killing other species isn't particularly bad; needing to eat justifies the means, etc.) and still fit the story. But our planet only has one intelligent species, so we don't know which way we'd develop if cows could discuss philosophy with us.
Or maybe inhumi aren't moral agents at all.
*
* *
We don't (yet) have any idea of how inhumi reproduce. We know they have sexes, but do they care for their young? Do they have a larval stage? The secret could lie in this area, too.
*
* *
2 quoted lines
Alice Turner wrote:
Does anyone think that Seawrack's Mother is an undine? The description is not so undine-like, but it's very brief and Horn did not see her well. They can swim between the stars, so why not?
I speculate that the Mother is somehow connected with Erebus and Abaia. She has the right habitat, anyhow, and Jonas's aborted tale at the end of
Shadow of the Torturer seems to point to an origin on a planet far from Urth, visited by the human diaspora.
-- Dan Rabin
*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.