MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 267 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Enya by Adrienne York 2) Re: holidays by mel (Melanie Dymond Harper) 3) Question (AFall) by "Sanna Koulu" 4) gods on velgarth by Heather Mina 5) Re: Question (AFall) by Catherine Osborne 6) Re: Question (AFall) by Absolut Flaming 7) Re: Favorite Misty Book by Wendy Howell 8) Help by Skip 9) Re: Randale's illness by AliFarr-+AT+-aol.com 10) Re: gods on velgarth by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 11) Re: gods on velgarth by PS9562-+AT+-wheeler.northland.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 19:19:30 -0500 (EST) From: Adrienne York To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Enya Message-ID: On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Aaron James Legg wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Amy Mason wrote: > > > > > Hi, I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but does anybody on this list > > like Enya? > > > > I just bought her new cd, _The Memory of Trees_, a couple of days ago, > > and I can't put it down. The celtic taste she adds to her music is > > unbelievable, also there is one song called "Pax Dorum"(sp?) which is a > > Gregorian chant which is also lovely. > > > > Any comments anyone? > > > > Amy :) > I bought it too I like Pax dorum have you seen the music video of anywhere > is? > I just wanted to say I like Enya but I haven't seen nor heard _The Memory of Trees_. ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ;] Adrienne York-Minor ;] ;] "I'd like to believe that, but I'm fresh out of optimism." ;] ;] -Princess Jasmine ;] ;] ayork-+AT+-simons-rock.edu ;] ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:32:42 GMT From: mel (Melanie Dymond Harper) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: holidays Message-ID: <9512111032.AA01534-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk> > On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Melanie Dymond Harper wrote: > > > For those of you who will be feeling a little short of things to do over > > the break, you could always re-read your favourite Lackey book -- or listen > > to your favourite tape/CD for that matter -- and write a review; I'm sure > > Jerry, who maintains the review archives, would be pleased of some more to > > put in them ... > > > Where would you send it to and what format would you like it in?? > > Ashke> > Format: check the currently existing ones, but basically plain text. Where to send them: Jerry, I guess this'll be you? jc-+AT+-selune.demon.co.uk. M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:41:09 EET From: "Sanna Koulu" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Question (AFall) Message-ID: <23A2F4B78E3-+AT+-otdk.helsinki.fi> I confess, I'm occasionally stupid... I didn't understand in AFall, when Dirk is talking to Elspeth about the "no one true way" creed, _why_ Valdemaran clergy were forbidden to pray for a victory in war. Could someone who knows the answer explain? -Seanna ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 08:08:42 GMT+0000 From: Heather Mina To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <9512111313.AA03296-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk> Seanna writes: >I think the "gods" on Velgarth aren't this. Read: I don't think they >created that world. As in Pratchett's Small Gods, I think that these >beings were formed/personified/something by collective belief >(which is what the demon in Oathbound indicates. Also the same world- >view as in Blood Lines by Huff), because humans have a need for >personified divinities/endless beings. My problem with this is that you are applying your own assumptions to Misty's texts. In Velgarth, there is a very specific definition of what exactly a "god" is. This is not completely spelled out, but is implied by Kethry's explanation to Tarma - I would say that as a working definition, a god is an ethereal or abyssal spirit present on the material plane through a focus object, which has gained enough power (through blood or believers or both) to no longer need the focus object to manifest on the material plane. (Read Oathbound, paperback p. 169) Now I would guess that some god(s) may have been present for or actually participated in the creation of Velgarth. These gods may no longer even exist. (See Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar saga, or Piers Anthony's Incarnations for prime examples of gods who have died - or turn to Greek or Norse mythologies, for that matter). But there is a method which any being (well, probably any *spiritual* being) can follow to become a god. The god would then not fit your definition, but would still be worshipped. And, when it all comes down to it, whether or not an alleged deity created the world (or is powerful enough to), the deity is not a deity unless s/he has worshippers. No worshippers, no god. End of story. If all the believers in Kal'enal ewre instantly vaporized (heaven forbid nukes develop on Velgarth), then she really is no longer a goddess, but a spiritual being who may or may not continue to exist. >There's superior beings. Calling them gods is the most practical way, >but it makes some unprovable assumptions. There is only one assumption you can legitimately make if I call someone a god, and that is that the someone has worshippers. You can't even make the assumption that the god has any powers, until I tell you how the god has demonstrated them. (Ever notice that every god in history - including capital GOD - has had to prove his powers to gain a population of believers?) Your assumption about creating the world (or having the power to) is just a faulty assumption, based on your personal idea of what a god should be. Disclaimer: Keep in mind, though, that I am writing this as a science fiction/fantasy author, not as Heather, the Episcopalian-Agnostic. <<< snippped theory about there only being one god(dess) or pair of them >>> >I have two objections to this theory: 1) Just because everyone thinks >the world is flat (or round, on Discworld :) doesn't mean it's true. >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. >Or _primary_ gods. There have been "miracles" on this world, >performed by a wide variety of prophets, avatars and holy people of >various religions, but to infer from this that all those gods (or, >indeed, any god) exists, is illogical. I think a good textual case could be made for the striking similarity of the deities on Velgarth potentially being the same single or pair of deities. The following points support this argument: - Kal'enel telling Kethry that Lady Windborn is one of her many faces in Oathbound - Kal'enel calling Roald something like "child of my other self" in Oathbreakers - name similarity between Kal'enel and Kalenal - fact that most cultures (Mero's excluded, of course) on Velgarth seem to worship a (multi-faceted, often) pair of deities which have similar powers and characteristics - Kero's description of the gods worshipped in her area are *highly* reminiscent of Tarma's description of the different aspects of the Shina'in goddess. However, I think Misty has probably created an assortment of very similar deities who have the potential to be the same one, but might not be. After all, "there is no one, true way" --- who are we to say that there is one, true deity? Now, the assertions of miracles need to be taken with a grain of salt, considering that magic is prevalent in Velgarth. And, precisely, what is the difference betwen magic and a miracle? (Well, a miracle is performed by a deity or special avatar of the deity (companion, hawk, priest, whatever), and magic is performed by anybody off the street. That's how I usually think about it). However, Misty has created several deities, and has told us that some types of beings can achieve godhood. There is much textual evidence of this, and absolutely no textual evidence to support your assertion that there are no gods on Velgarth. >2) I think that to say a god is "male" or "female" is silly, to say >the least. Maleness/femaleness are physical attributes. A god (if >they exist :) has never (rarely?) had a body, so to make a biological >statement about them isn't really reasonable. One might worship >Godhead as male or female, but that doesn't really say anything about >the being/force/whatever. Transcendental beings by definition >transcend humanity, so how could we understand them? True. But what purpose does a deity serve, if s/he does not try to make some part of him/her accessible to humanity? For instance, Kal'enel is only one aspect of the Shina'in goddess, and really the only one that Tarma can relate to. So even though a deity should completely transcend humanity, s/he will not be worshipped if s/he can not offer some sort of manifestation to humans. Even though I can wrap my mind around the concept of genderlessness, I don't think I could really handle worshipping a truly genderless deity. >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 difference being that you're talking about the real world, and we're talking about a novel in which deities are clearly presented as deities - complete with physical manifestations - and nothing else. >This is in no way meant to disparage anyone's faith or religion. This >happens to be what I believe in, but I recognize that my views are no >more nor no less valid than anyone else's. I would welcome >philosophical/psychological/metaphysical debate, but it might be a >bit off-topic... While I can accept that these are your views on the real world, I cannot accept them as valid opinions about the ficitonal world of Velgarth unless you offer textual support for them. I think Misty has been quite clear in her intentions about deities (if a bit fuzzy about the true nature of them - as rightfully she should be, since deities are *far* beyond us mere mortals), and we must accept her presentations when we discuss her novels. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ The only way to have a friend is to be one. ~ ~ ----- Ralph Waldo Emerson ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..... hlmina-+AT+-mailhost.vwc.edu ..... heamin-+AT+-sunshine.vab.unisysgsg.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:47:23 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine Osborne To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Question (AFall) Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Sanna Koulu wrote: > I confess, I'm occasionally stupid... I didn't understand in AFall, > when Dirk is talking to Elspeth about the "no one true way" creed, > _why_ Valdemaran clergy were forbidden to pray for a victory in war. > Could someone who knows the answer explain? Well, I don't presume to know the answer (there *is* no one true answer ;) but my theory is this: Since there is no one true way, where would Valdemar get off claiming that their way is right and, say, Karse's is wrong? What if Valdemar wound up on the "wrong side"? I\/ Catherine Osborne "After great pain, I\/ Sundancer a formal feeling comes." I cosborne-+AT+-sidwell.edu --Emily Dickinson I http://www.sidwell.edu/~cosborne/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:51:04 -0500 (EST) From: Absolut Flaming To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Question (AFall) Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Sanna Koulu wrote: > I confess, I'm occasionally stupid... I didn't understand in AFall, > when Dirk is talking to Elspeth about the "no one true way" creed, > _why_ Valdemaran clergy were forbidden to pray for a victory in war. > Could someone who knows the answer explain? I always assumed that it was because there was always a chance that the enemy was on the side of right and Valdemar was not. In this case, "right" would be defined as the side favored by (a) god. At the very least, if you beleive that your enemy's belief system is equally valid with yours, it would be rather difficult to pray for victory over them without seeming hypocritical. Or so, IMO, the reasoning goes. I won't bother to point out the rather huge fallacies in this argument. I leave that as an exercise for all you logic majors out there. :-) Kenny Kenneth Allen Hyde | No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife Univ. of Delaware | between the shoulder blades will seriously Dept. of Linguistics | cramp his style -- Old Jhereg proverb kenny-+AT+-strauss.udel.edu | A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:06:58 -0500 (EST) From: Wendy Howell To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Favorite Misty Book Message-ID: i have to say that my favorite series was lhm, but i really don't want to pick out which was my favorite of those three...hmmm, i suppose if i had to choose, it would be the last in the series simply because of the ending (that was, by far, one of the best and most bittersweet book endings that i've ever read...). -winterhart (whowell-+AT+-simons-rock.edu) "i'm close with his mother, and she cries endlessly lord how we miss him (at least what's remembered) it's so important to make best friends in life but it's hard when my friend sits with a blank expression he's as hollow as i alone, a shell of my friend just flesh and bone, there's no soul, he sees my love, i shake my fists at skys above mad at god he is hollow as i converse i wish he'd waken from this curse hear my words before it's through i want to come in after you, my best friend" -pantera, "hollow" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:08:00 -0800 From: Skip To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Help Message-ID: <199512112108.NAA17586-+AT+-mom.hooked.net> I am going on vacation and I need the majordomo address to send unscribe to until I get back.... Can anyone help??? Thanks Skip ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ txtweety-+AT+-hooked.net http://www.hooked.net/users/txtweety/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:31:34 -0500 From: AliFarr-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Randale's illness Message-ID: <951211182752_51202305-+AT+-emout06.mail.aol.com> Sorry all, I tried to post this a week ago, but spelling errors (me) and e-mail confusion (AOL) kept it from going anywhere. Thought I'd still throw it in, though we've gone on to other topics......... After reading assorted comments on what disease Randale might have had, I offer two thoughts: 1. Misty made up a new one. It is a fantasy :) 2. The mundane disease Cystic Fibrosis. First it fulfils the catagory that Randale be sterile, as CF males are about 98%. Second, depending on the genetic marker variation causing the problem that is diagnosed as CF, some people die before birth, shortly after birth, at adolescense (sp?) and some live into middle age. It is hereditary, but as a double recessive, requiring both parents to be carriers. The royal line could be a carrier line, but could go many generations without the disease showing up if the consorts were not carriers. But if someone in the royal line were to marry back in, it could show up with a vengance. This would also explain the dearth of royals at the time. Everyone else could have died at, right after or right before birth. It also gives Shavri something to work on, for as long as she can keep bacterial infections Healed, Randale would stay relatively well. But as the disease keeps pushing its way into a person's system, it also starts to mimic the auto-immune disorder diseases, with weakness, hoarseness, arthritis, etc. Okay :::puts flame suit on::: anybody care to shoot some holes in this idea? AliFarr AliFarr-+AT+-aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 09:28:23 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <9512112228.AA05108-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Let me preface this with: No offence meant, it's all my opinion only. Ok? If I'm absolutely, completely, totally wrong, have pity on the poor misguided guy and be nice to him.. :) Heather writes: > Seanna writes: > >I think the "gods" on Velgarth aren't this. Read: I don't think they > >created that world. As in Pratchett's Small Gods, I think that these > >beings were formed/personified/something by collective belief > >(which is what the demon in Oathbound indicates. Also the same world- > >view as in Blood Lines by Huff), because humans have a need for > >personified divinities/endless beings. > > My problem with this is that you are applying your own assumptions to > Misty's texts. In Velgarth, there is a very specific definition of what > exactly a "god" is. This is not completely spelled out, but is implied by > Kethry's explanation to Tarma - I would say that as a working definition, a > god is an ethereal or abyssal spirit present on the material plane through a > focus object, which has gained enough power (through blood or believers or > both) to no longer need the focus object to manifest on the material plane. > (Read Oathbound, paperback p. 169) To be perfectly honest, I didn't read that whole demon "Become a god in just 3 easy lessons" thing to be *anything* except how a *demon* might attain godhood. I can't see any implication in *Misty's* text (as opposed to Pratchett, Huff, whoever - all of whom I also love) that implies that this works with Ethereal spirits or even plain Abyssal spirits (as opposed to demons). > And, when it all comes down to it, whether or not an alleged deity created > the world (or is powerful enough to), the deity is not a deity unless s/he > has worshippers. No worshippers, no god. End of story. If all the > believers in Kal'enal ewre instantly vaporized (heaven forbid nukes develop > on Velgarth), then she really is no longer a goddess, but a spiritual being > who may or may not continue to exist. YMMV (Your mileage may vary) but that doesn't work for me. When Need talks about the god twins of her time, I seem to recall her mentioning that they may not be recognized anymore, but there was no hint of them not being gods or not existing. Tarma & Kethry got the demon (twice) before he could attain actual godhood remember.. IMO, once you're there, you're there, you can't fall back down (at least not by people just nuking your worshippers). Otherwise, Kalanel and any other gods who were threatened with the wholesale destruction of their worshippers would likely have taken a far more direct hand in the Mage Wars. Basically I guess, sweeping arguments aside, I just can't agree with the flat contention that a God is defined by his/her/its worshippers. (But hey, I'm a non-practicing catholic so a lot of my personal beliefs are hang-overs from that). Cheers, Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:21:56 CST From: PS9562-+AT+-wheeler.northland.edu To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <3A2B5400587-+AT+-wheeler.northland.edu> >Kerry writes: >> Heather writes: > > > > > And, when it all comes down to it, whether or not an alleged deity created > > the world (or is powerful enough to), the deity is not a deity unless s/he > > has worshippers. No worshippers, no god. End of story. If all the > > believers in Kal'enal ewre instantly vaporized (heaven forbid nukes develop > > on Velgarth), then she really is no longer a goddess, but a spiritual being > > who may or may not continue to exist. > > YMMV (Your mileage may vary) but that doesn't work for me. When Need talks > about the god twins of her time, I seem to recall her mentioning that they > may not be recognized anymore, but there was no hint of them not being > gods or not existing. > I also noticed that when I went back and read Need's soliloquy that one of the twins from both sets name closely resembled Kal'enal (Kalanel, or whatever you want to believe). I don't have the text with me at the moment, but I know it's in Winds of Fate when Elspeth and Skif get to Kata'shin'a'in that she relates her story. Any comments? "Without darkness there can be no light" Stacey ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 267 *********************************