MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 265 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: "Renthorn" by danny the street 2) Favorite Misty book by MIKE278485-+AT+-aol.com 3) I pay the not in gold by Kim Hatton 4) RE: Favorite Misty book by GERKEJ-+AT+-MINNIE.HOLLINS.EDU 5) Re: Deities (+ religion) -Beware: metaphysics! by Kim Hatton ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:36:10 -0600 (CST) From: danny the street To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: "Renthorn" Message-ID: i'm rereading "Change" and the only time i can remember it is in that oft-quoted list of Ma'ar's old "incarnations"--has anyone else seen it conclusively elsewhere? oh yeah, and did anyone else feel like the book picked up TREMENDOUSLY from the point where they find Starblade's new bird? Because i almost cried about four times between that and the end of the book (when the bird says, :_we belong, me, him...need, me, him:, and then when the bird practices acting hurt--laughing and crying at the same time--and then with Elspeth and Darkwind and the feather, and then when everything worked out okay-ish in the end)... maybe it was just the (sleep-deprived) state i was reading in, but it all reminded me of that feeling you get when you're reading Arrows for the first time, and the wonderful things keep happening to Talia, you know? it was a good feeling. wind to thy wings, jacob clifton danny the street "the boy in the belfry, he's crazy, he's throwing himself down from the top of the tower/like a hunchback in heaven, he's ringing the bells in the church for the last half-an-hour/he sounds like he's missing something or someone that he knows he can't have now; and if he isn't, i certainly am." (suzanne vega, "in liverpool") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 00:45:09 -0500 From: MIKE278485-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Favorite Misty book Message-ID: <951209004509_128836720-+AT+-mail06.mail.aol.com> Eric asked: > Perhaps this is a question that people don't want to entertain but what > _is_ everyone's favorite book / series? My favorite is _By the Sword_. Whenever I need a good read that gets me in a good mood I always reach for this. Don't know how many times I have read it but it's got to be in the realm of 20 or more. Next after that is the Mage Winds series though I am eagerly awaiting the third in that. (Don't you just hate haveing to wait for the next book in the series to find out what happens. :-) ) Michael Weber MIKE278485-+AT+-aol.com "Never try to outstubborn a cat" -Lazarus Long(R.A.Heinlein) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 16:59:32 +1100 (EST) From: Kim Hatton To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: I pay the not in gold Message-ID: <199512090559.QAA09737-+AT+-oznet02.ozemail.com.au> I have just finished reading "I pay the not in gold" and thoroughly enjoyed it. Does anyone know if there are any plans for a follow-on to this book. Or if there are any other Piers & Misty collaborations which are worth reading? Ta, Kim Hatton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 8:17:39 -0500 (EST) From: GERKEJ-+AT+-MINNIE.HOLLINS.EDU To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: RE: Favorite Misty book Message-ID: <951209081739.2020de3a-+AT+-MINNIE.HOLLINS.EDU> > Eric asked: >> Perhaps this is a question that people don't want to entertain but what >> _is_ everyone's favorite book / series? > Michael answered: > My favorite is _By the Sword_. Whenever I need a good read that gets me in a > good mood I always reach for this. Don't know how many times I have read it > but it's got to be in the realm of 20 or more. ME TOO!!!!!! I love _By the Sword_, I have read it upwards of 20 times and can recite certain parts by heart. Kero is so amazing in that book and I gobble up anything that she is in. I admit that I am as greedy for stories of her as many people are for stories of Vanyel. Jennie(who has been lurking for quite some time now.) gerkej-+AT+-minnie.hollins.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 03:25:20 +1100 (EST) From: Kim Hatton To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Deities (+ religion) -Beware: metaphysics! Message-ID: <199512091625.DAA04334-+AT+-oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Seanna wrote about deities: >Now, I think to call these beings "gods" implies they precede, and possibly >cause, Velgarth (the world). I think "god" implies "the creator of >the world". I'm not sure that God or a god can be defined as the "creator of the world". This is very much a christian definition of God and not entirely consistent with other world theories. When in doubt I consulted my trusty Oxford dictionary, which defined god as "superhuman being worshippped as having power over nature and human fortunes". A loose definition I agree, but the important point is that it does not require that a god be the creator. >Meaning that even though there's miracles and such happening, which >indicates the presence of transcendental beings (whether those are >collective delusions or not), it doesn't mean these beings are gods. True, but that again depends on your definition of a god. In many cultures, god has not been defined as being THE supreme being and creator, but rather A supreme being - meaning one of the most advanced entities. > I think that to say a god is "male" or "female" is silly, to say >the least. Maleness/femaleness are physical attributes. Again I agree, but, beliefs about the gender of gods has generally related to their nature rather than physical gender. Many people believe we have a feminine nature and a masculine one, this extends even into cultural, values and psycological theory. Whilst the terms masculine and feminine are probably unfortunate as they carry other baggage, they can exist and are broadly considered to exist beyond the pure physical gender definition. >Also, regarding the statement that all god(desse)s are one god(dess): >note the difference between saying "all human conceptualizations of >god have the same function and meaning to those humans" and "all >existing supreme beings are aspects ("Other Selves") of the same >supreme being). I hold with the former. The former means we use different words to describe the same thing, the later means there are many faces or aspects to god/s/supreme being/entity etc. I agree with both as they are not mutually exclusive. > I would welcome philosophical/psychological/metaphysical >debate, but it might be a bit off-topic... Maybe we could continue it in private email. If you're interested you can mail me on klhatton-+AT+-ozemail.com.au Kim Hatton ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "There is no one true way......." - Mercedes Lackey - Burning Water ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 265 *********************************