MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 269 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Randale's illness by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 2) Re: gods on velgarth by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 3) Re: gods on velgarth by "Sanna Koulu" 4) Re: gods on velgarth by "Sanna Koulu" 5) Re: gods on velgarth - Warning: flame by "Sanna Koulu" 6) Re: Enya by Wallace-+AT+-online.knoxnews.com 7) Rereading observations by Jean 8) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by "Starhawk" 9) Re: Storms book 3 ideas (*SPOILERS*) by jc-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) 10) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by Rosario Holsen-Baker 11) by Rosario Holsen-Baker 12) Re: Casting characrers... by s003yms-+AT+-desire.wright.edu 13) Re: Casting characrers... by Rosario Holsen-Baker 14) COuldn't resist :-) by jc-+AT+-selune.demon.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) 15) Re: Casting characrers... by AlyxGMacK-+AT+-aol.com 16) Re: COuldn't resist :-) by "Starhawk" 17) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by Absolut Flaming 18) Re: COuldn't resist :-) by AnneS3832-+AT+-aol.com 19) Re: COuldn't resist :-) by Anne Cross 20) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 21) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 22) RE: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by Gyrfalcon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:04:14 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Randale's illness Message-ID: <9512130304.AA16976-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Pandora wrote: > Ok here goes...I do not think Randale's illness was C.F. he did not > show the symptoms. > Here is an indepth look at C.F. All right.. I yield to greater knowledge (not that greater would be hard in comparison to me) and sit corrected.. :) Just as well I didn't go into medicine. :) Cheers, Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:18:39 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: <9512130318.AA17019-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Heather wrote: > Kerry writes: > Heather wrote: > >> 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. > >Kerry replied: > >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 agree. Again, I think the god twins probably do still exist in some > reduced state. Since they do not have any worshippers, they do not have the > power to perform any supernatural acts (which is the primary way by which a > god proves himself to be a god). But if somebody dusted off an old history > book (assuming one still existed) and decided that he liked the idea of the > twin gods and started a sect to worship them, they would increase in power > again. Heather, my apologies, I just reread your quoted text way above and we very very nearly agree. :) The only thing I would differ on, is that I'd say a God with no worshippers is still a god and while reduced in power, could still perform minor supernatural acts.. Basically just semantics and slightly diverging definitions. > My personal interpretation, though, is not quite this literal. I think that > clerics a god can reduce the powers of an enemy god, to the point where his > worshippers no longer worship him. With that power base gone, it is pretty > difficult for the enemy god to recover. He must once again build up a > following of worshippers so that he has enough power to be a god once again. Almost almost agree.. I'd have said: He must once once again build up a following of worshippers so that he can become a major power again (he's still a god, just a reduced one). Look at it this way - at the very least an [ex]God has access to any power source an Adept can tap, plus extra-planar sources (since they're spirits). So even a God robbed of his worshippers still qualifies as a God because they do have *some* power base. > Again, gods exist outside the mortal realm, and are of varying abilities and > powers. My question is - where does Zeus live now? Somewhere on the west coast apparently, working in macdonalds next to the guy humming 'love me tender'. :) Actually with the resurgance of Pagan'ism, Norse gods could once again start regaining a worshipper base. I know, not all or even most pagans necessarily worship in the Norse mythos, but I know a few who do on the pagan list. (Yes, I know, I'm not strictly pagan, but I'm not strictly anything in particular and they're nice folk and let me play in their sandbox (aka list), anyway). > This is not to say that the powers and abilities of a god are defined by his > worshippers. I subscribe to the theory that a god's *power* (as in energy, > ability to continue existing, to perform actions which may or may not be > "supernatural") comes from his worshippers. A god with millions of (true > and sincere) worshippers would be extremely powerful deity, while one with > 20 would still have some growing to do. In Velgarth this may well be the case.. Anyway, Cheers. Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:21:25 EET From: "Sanna Koulu" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <265DC917A5F-+AT+-otdk.helsinki.fi> Kerry wrote (in response to gods gaining power from their worshippers): > Actually with the resurgance of Pagan'ism, Norse gods could once again > start regaining a worshipper base. I know, not all or even most pagans > necessarily worship in the Norse mythos, but I know a few who do on the > pagan list. That brings up a good question: what defines which god gains power from the worshippers (if they do :)? Say someone worships Freya. But that person's picture of the god is hardly the same as someone else's. What if s/he uses some other name? Or imagines her as black? There might also be some leak-over effect: the whole Norse pantheon is strengthened because the individual gods gain power. Or the leak might be directed to other gods of beauty/love/fertility... -Seanna the philosopher ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:28:47 EET From: "Sanna Koulu" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <265FC41595B-+AT+-otdk.helsinki.fi> Heather Mina wrote: [Kerry wrote:] > >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 agree. Again, I think the god twins probably do still exist in some > reduced state. Since they do not have any worshippers, they do not have the > power to perform any supernatural acts (which is the primary way by which a > god proves himself to be a god). But if somebody dusted off an old history > book (assuming one still existed) and decided that he liked the idea of the > twin gods and started a sect to worship them, they would increase in power > again. This would mean that Gods are weaker, "miracle"-wise, than even hedge- wizards. Hedge-wizards (I think? Or apprentices) can always use their own power; you are saying, the way I understood it, that a god without worshippers can't do _anything_. I agree that a lot of followers will give a god power; at least of the secular, mundane sort. Probably also "energy". But I find it hard to believe your actual god would be too weak to light a hearth-fire. More, why would a god need to "prove himself"? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:02:54 EET From: "Sanna Koulu" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: gods on velgarth - Warning: flame Message-ID: <2668D6B02DB-+AT+-otdk.helsinki.fi> Absolut Flaming wrote: > On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Sanna Koulu wrote: > > > Of course I'm applying my own assumptions - who else's? :) > > I know that Misty defines "god" as just your generic superhuman > > being, but I think that definition is faulty and requires > > redefining. > > It's not really a question of how you define "god" anyway; more a > > question of whether there _are_ gods (as in my definition) on > > Velgarth. > > No. The point is that the existence of gods on Velgarth is *not* in > question. It is. I repeat: we are using the term "god" in different meanings. You are using it the way Misty uses it, I think. I'm applying my own viewpoint. You can't say my view is in-valid, just because Misty says there are gods, since we use different definitions. We agree Kal'enel and Vkandis (for example) exist on Velgarth, no? Now, they might be collectively created by their worshippers imagination; that is irrelevant. You are saying they are gods, end of discussion. I'm saying they are "gods" in the sense that they are superior (to humans, that is) beings who can perform miracles, who are worshipped etc, but they are not "gods" in the sense I defined the word. You are not making yourself very clear, btw. Are you claiming that there are gods (my definition: pre-existing/permanent beings who possibly created the world) on Velgarth? > > I disagree here. Being worshipped is by no means necessary to a god, > > I'd say. Hermes and Aphrodite are just as much gods now as in ancient > > times, but I don't think they have many worshippers? > > If you concede that Hermes and Aphrodite were gods, then you cannot > maintain your definition of "creator of the world" or even "supreme > being." I'm conceding that they are gods by your definition. I don't think they are gods by my definition. Please don't deliberately confuse the issue. > Hermes and Aphrodite did not create the world. They did not > even preexist creation. Creation theory in the greek mythos is a little > sticky, but basically the assumption seems to be that the world was not > created. There are pre-existing beings in that pantheon, anyway. (Gaia and Uranus, as you pointed out. I'm not very sure of this, but weren't they the fore-parents of the rest of the gods, by way of Kronos etc?) > Actually, when you look > cross-culturally, there are actually very few creator gods, although > there are huge bunchies of other kinds of gods. Do we want to say that > Shiva is not a god simply because he is not the creator? Or that > Ameterasu Omi Kami (The goddess that is the heart of Shinto) is not a > goddess, because she did not create the world? If you had read what I said, instead of just interpreting it deliberately wrong, you'd have noticed that nowhere did I claim that a god (even by my definition) had to create the world. I said that I think "god" requires pre-existence, and _that_ in turn, often goes with having created the world. The creation is by no means necessary. I just think it's often intertwined. [Oh, btw, you just mentioning gods without explaining any doesn't make very much sense to me, since I haven't been taught Religion since I was 12. Even if you read comparative religions, it doesn't mean everyone else knows what you're talking of.) > > Again, I wasn't saying deities should be worshipped as genderless. I > > said that even though humans prefer to give a face, and usually a > > sex, to their god, that doesn't mean that the god (if it exists) is > > _intrinsically_ male or female or dark-haired or blue-eyed or > > whatever. > > It also doesn't mean that they are intrinsically non-sexed. The opposite > of prescription (they have to have gender) is not necessarily > proscription (they have to not have gender). It could be optional (they > do not have to have--but may have--gender). It's not necessarily, logically so, true. However, I _strongly_ disagree with the theory that souls/spirits are somehow sexed. I think that's just a prejudice that results from centuries of brain- washing along the lines of "women are earthy, sinful, and emotional. Men are logical, wise and spiritual". I think sex is just a trait of our bodies, since evolution gave us this form of continuing the race. If we were a hermaphroditical species, I don't think we'd have "male" and "female" gods. > > (For example: if an author tells us that there are dragons on her > > world, which have pink wings and plaid skin, and which whistle > > Mozart's symphonies, do we just accept that yes, that's the way it > > is? Or do we search for an explanation - or get a headache from trying > > to imagine the things and go read something else?) > > A good author would use novelistic narrative strategies to establish > that such a creature does exist in the setting of the novel. S/he would > not attempt to give a logical explanation for why a draconian in another > world happens to know and love "Eine Kleine NachtMusik." Such an > explanation does not exist. So in answer to your question, yes, you do > just accept that that's the way it is. Would you _please_ stick to the topic? In all your answer, you didn't address what you thought wrong with my theory. The "reality" of a fictional work is dependent on what the reader puts into it. I don't understand your reasoning why it is so EEEVIL to try to understand that reality internally. -Seanna the believer -><-Convictions cause convicts-><- -Principia Discordia ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1995 08:09:38 EDT From: Wallace-+AT+-online.knoxnews.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Enya Message-ID: <9512131310.AA05224-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk> ME>I know I feel really stupid, but does anybody have the address for the ME>Firebird Catalogue? Thanks a lot... ME>Amy :) Don't feel stupid! I got the address here . . . it's Firebird Music, P. O. Box 14785, Portland, OR 97214. Toll free telephone orders, 1-800-752-0494. I wrote them and requested a catalog, and I got it in less than a week. Not only do they have ALL of Misty's books, CD's, artwork, etc., they have the best offering of Celtic and other "different" types of music I've ever seen. Most of the music stores here have a very, very small section for so-called "new age" music, and the selection isn't the best. As this is my music of choice, I get very frustrated trying to find CDs I want. Candace ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 08:28:23 EST From: Jean To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Rereading observations Message-ID: <951213.083814.EST.JWSCHM00-+AT+-ukcc.uky.edu> I was rereading _Winds of Change_ last night (for the umpteenth time) and you know how when you reread little miniscule details jump out and hit you? (Well, they do to me 8-).) Anyway, Darkwind's talking to Kethra and "looked into her green eyes." Now, Kethra's a shaman from the same clan as Tre'valen (Tarma and Kethry's clan). Does this mean Kethry's one of Kethra's ancestors (grandmother?)? Also, what about a green-eyed Shin'a'in mage in the Firesong's pool at Haven (in the scene with Eldan, Kero, Elspeth, etc.) in one of the Mage Storm books? Do you think Myste keeps inserting these characters just to see if we're paying attention or is she going to have one of Kethry's Shin'a'in line become a major character at some time. ******2nd Storm book spoiler*** Could it happen in the last Storm book? The groups is stranded out on the Plains? Anybody else have any ideas? Sorry about the length, Mistfox ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 09:51:03 EST From: "Starhawk" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: >From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) > >** Burning Water spoilers ** > >Mat T wrote: >> Sort of. Didn't she find the sworn enemy, and let him do the real >> work? And they didn't actually take him out. They just made him >> give up a crucial sacrifice, and he died later because of it. This >> is all IIRC, as I've only read Burning Water once, and that was a few >> months ago. > >Is it just me or do other people have a sneaking sympathy for Burning >Water also? You know, now that I think about it, yeah...! >I mean, he wasn't 'evil' per se though his actions may have appeared so, >but rather simply out of his time.. >(And before people jump on me for that comment, the Old Testament wasn't >exactly pristine either, I know exactly what you mean....he had a noble enough objective, it was just an ethical question whether or not to hold some idoit descendant responsible for the sins of his conquering ancestor. At several points in the book, I found myself thinking, "This is really awful...gross too...but he's kinda got a point." >Note also that even the other god (dammit, I'm blanking on names bigtime today), Feathered Serpant (English translation again) >didn't destroy or drive off Burning Water - they *negotiated*. *sigh* Again, that's what I meant in my original post. :P I give up...forget English and writing...I'm going to wait tables for the rest of my life...:) >BW came off badly because he wasn't up to date with the current >status of the world (and hence didn't realize how difficult it would >be to find another sacrifice in time for him to re-enter the world >via the sacrifice of his avatar). Actually, the way I read it was >that (as in the original story) the sacrifice was flawed (because >the women were lesbians or at least had not borne children and >didn't weave their own clothes). So his avatar died in vain, leaving >him without a gateway to the world until he can find another avatar ( >which could well take another couple of centuries). That's about the way I read it. I took the ending differently, though. That was what all the tension at the end was about: finding an avatar isn't going to be that hard, especially for the handmaidens. That's why Di is kind of nervous when she leaves. She sees the possibility for the whole mess starting up again, and it was barely a standoff this time. What about the next? >Comments? See above. Zhai'helleva-- Lyn Lyn Belzer * P.O. Box 234 St. Bonaventure, NY 14778 * 716/379-3034 ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* In spite of all the tears she may cry, this is how she has to live her life. As hard as it may be, she has to find out for herself. -Reba McEntire, _Find out for Herself_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:52:41 +0000 (GMT) From: jc-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Storms book 3 ideas (*SPOILERS*) Message-ID: <9512131652.AA16486-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk> ***SPOILERS FOR STORMS BOOKS AHEAD!**** > > Could it happen in the last Storm book? The groups is stranded out on > the Plains? Anybody else have any ideas? > > Mistfox > I'd guess that (if they've stopped the storms permanently and not just held them off) that what we're likely to see is some more of the Empire - either the aftermath of collapse, or a large force trying to take out Valdemar before they use their mage-storms again :-). (Remember, as far as the Empire is concerned, their last info probably placed Valdemar as a likely source). Maybe stir in a few changed creatures, and definately stir in some major threat or other main plot device(s) to hang the main storyline on. I'd bet on more about Karal, Vkandis, and maybe Iftel, too. -Jerry -- _|_ / | Jerry Cullingford jc-+AT+-crosfield.co.uk (Work) \_|_ jc-+AT+-selune.demon.co.uk (Home) \__/ Hemel Hempstead, UK jerry-+AT+-shell.portal.com (alternate) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 12:09:25 -0500 (EST) From: Rosario Holsen-Baker To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: Starhawk wrote: > >From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) > > > >** Burning Water spoilers ** > > > >Mat T wrote: > >> Sort of. Didn't she find the sworn enemy, and let him do the real > >> work? And they didn't actually take him out. They just made him > >> give up a crucial sacrifice, and he died later because of it. This > >> is all IIRC, as I've only read Burning Water once, and that was a few > >> months ago. > > > >Is it just me or do other people have a sneaking sympathy for Burning > >Water also? > > You know, now that I think about it, yeah...! Count me in there, too. > > >I mean, he wasn't 'evil' per se though his actions may have appeared so, > >but rather simply out of his time.. > >(And before people jump on me for that comment, the Old Testament wasn't > >exactly pristine either, > > I know exactly what you mean....he had a noble enough objective, it > was just an ethical question whether or not to hold some idoit > descendant responsible for the sins of his conquering ancestor. At > several points in the book, I found myself thinking, "This is really > awful...gross too...but he's kinda got a point." > I'm doing my history paper on the ancient mexican gods. (aargh!), and those two, specifically. He's not that bad a god (as gods go...gee that sounds weird), he's just rather...capricious. :) > >Note also that even the other god (dammit, I'm blanking on names > bigtime today), > > Feathered Serpant (English translation again) Quetzalcoatl > > >didn't destroy or drive off Burning Water - they *negotiated*. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tezcatlipoca ;) > |--------------------------------<>------------------------------| | Three rings for the elven kings under the sky | | Seven for the dwarves in their halls of stone | | Nine for the mortal men, doomed to die | | One for the dark lord on his dark throne.... | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 12:29:11 -0500 (EST) From: Rosario Holsen-Baker To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Message-ID: Help! I have a friend who's trying to get on this list. We tried all the ones I know, anyone out there who's just subscribed and can help? |--------------------------------<>------------------------------| | Three rings for the elven kings under the sky | | Seven for the dwarves in their halls of stone | | Nine for the mortal men, doomed to die | | One for the dark lord on his dark throne.... | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 12:39:33 -0500 (EST) From: s003yms-+AT+-desire.wright.edu To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Casting characrers... Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Catherine A Murdoch wrote: > > Daniel Day Lewis (swoon, swoon) for Vanyel? Yes, definitely. Daniel > Day Lewis is, IMO, simply gorgeous. Furthermore, he is a fantastic actor. What movies has he played in? Im trying to remember who he is Ashke S003yms-+AT+-desire.wright.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:41:41 -0500 (EST) From: Rosario Holsen-Baker To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Casting characrers... Message-ID: Ashke wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Catherine A Murdoch wrote: > > > > Daniel Day Lewis (swoon, swoon) for Vanyel? Yes, definitely. Daniel > > Day Lewis is, IMO, simply gorgeous. Furthermore, he is a fantastic actor. > > What movies has he played in? Im trying to remember who he is > He was the really cute one :) in Last of the Mohicans, he was the way-too-uptight Cecil in Room With A View, he was Gerry Conlon in In The Name Of The Father...and I know he was in a lot more, just can't remember any more. |--------------------------------<>------------------------------| | Three rings for the elven kings under the sky | | Seven for the dwarves in their halls of stone | | Nine for the mortal men, doomed to die | | One for the dark lord on his dark throne.... | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 19:32:31 +0100 (GMT) From: jc-+AT+-selune.demon.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: COuldn't resist :-) Message-ID: > |--------------------------------<>------------------------------| > | Three rings for the elven kings under the sky | > | Seven for the dwarves in their halls of stone | > | Nine for the mortal men, doomed to die | > | One for the dark lord on his dark throne.... | .... But all you ever get is "Leave your message at the tone" :-) :-) (sorry - couldn't resist the temptation...) -Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:56:54 -0500 From: AlyxGMacK-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Casting characrers... Message-ID: <951213145653_53133954-+AT+-mail04.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 95-12-13 14:17:40 EST, you write: > >Ashke wrote: >> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Catherine A Murdoch wrote: >> > >> > Daniel Day Lewis (swoon, swoon) for Vanyel? Yes, definitely. Daniel >> > Day Lewis is, IMO, simply gorgeous. Furthermore, he is a fantastic >actor. >> >> What movies has he played in? Im trying to remember who he is >> > He was the really cute one :) in Last of the Mohicans, he was the >way-too-uptight Cecil in Room With A View, he was Gerry Conlon in In The >Name Of The Father...and I know he was in a lot more, just can't remember >any more. He won an Oscar for My Left Foot. ::grins:: And he's a fantastic actor. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:22:08 EST From: "Starhawk" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: COuldn't resist :-) Message-ID: > From: jc-+AT+-selune.demon.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) > > |--------------------------------<>------------------------------| > > | Three rings for the elven kings under the sky | > > | Seven for the dwarves in their halls of stone | > > | Nine for the mortal men, doomed to die | > > | One for the dark lord on his dark throne.... | > > .... But all you ever get is "Leave your message at the tone" :-) :-) > > (sorry - couldn't resist the temptation...) OK, the flogging with wet noodles and the pelting with pies and tennis balls will now begin!! *giggle* Lyn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:02:04 -0500 (EST) From: Absolut Flaming To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Rosario Holsen-Baker wrote: > > >didn't destroy or drive off Burning Water - they *negotiated*. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Tezcatlipoca > ;) Thank You! =) I can stop going crazy now! *grin* I have been trying to remember the Nahuatl name for Burning Water. The only other name I could come up with is the other common acclamation/translation, "Smoking Mirror." And I did an Anthro paper on the Colhua Mexica (the Aztecs after they settled in Tenochtitlan). I can't beleive how much info I am unable to retreive from my brain these days. BTW, I agree that Tezcatlipoca was not "evil." In reference to the ongoing discussion about gods, I would propose that this is another characteristic of gods. Since they are the arbiters of moral good, within their ethno-religious context, they generally cannot be evil, unless they are explicitly gods of evil. And even then, they sort of transcend our definitions of good and evil. The only gods in actual religions that I can think of who are truly considered to be evil are Ahriman (in Zoroastrianism) and Loki (in Norse mythology...and even this is open to interpretation). Oh, and Set (in Pharaonic Egyptian). There are prob more, but I can't think of the them off-hand. What do others think? 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: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:24:30 -0500 From: AnneS3832-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: COuldn't resist :-) Message-ID: <951213162302_53212634-+AT+-mail02.mail.aol.com> >> > | Three rings for the elven kings under the sky | >> > | Seven for the dwarves in their halls of stone | >> > | Nine for the mortal men, doomed to die | >> > | One for the dark lord on his dark throne.... | >> >> .... But all you ever get is "Leave your message at the tone" :-) :-) >> >> (sorry - couldn't resist the temptation...) >OK, the flogging with wet noodles and the pelting with pies and >tennis balls will now begin!! > >*giggle* > >Lyn aaarrrrggggggghhhhhhhh . . . not puns keptin- I canna take much more o this . . . oh, what the heck . . . - - - - - - - - - - - -+AT+- - - - --+AT+- - - - - - - - -+AT+- tennis balls HO! Anne ::giggling:: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:46:24 -0500 (EST) From: Anne Cross To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: COuldn't resist :-) Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 AnneS3832-+AT+-aol.com wrote: > oh, what the heck . . . > > - - - - - - - - - - - -+AT+- > > - - - --+AT+- > > - - - - - - - -+AT+- > > tennis balls HO! > > Anne > ::giggling:: The Other Anne giggles too...when I first got ON this list, there were tennis balls being hurled at Anne and I couldn't figure out why the heck I was having tennis balls thrown at me... ;) _ - - - _ / \ / -+AT+- / / , o/~ ~\o /| /| / \ / \ On a slightly more relevant note, I have zero sympathy for Tezcatlipoca. None. Anyone who kills children and flays women to dance in their skins, be he god or human, gets no sympathy from me at all. There are two reasons the Aztecs fell: one was smallpox and the other was that everyone hated them and their enemies were glad to band with Cortez and kill them off! They were horrible. I'm with Diana all the way. Does anyone know if Tezcatlipoca has a female counterpart? ____________________________________________________________________________ | Anne Cross | "How many witches does it take | | juniper-+AT+-fledge.watson.org | to change a lightbulb?" | | http://www.watson.org/~juniper/ | "What do you want to change it into?" | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:45:10 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <9512132245.AA24819-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Absolut Flaming (Kenny) wrote: > The only gods in actual > religions that I can think of who are truly considered to be evil are > Ahriman (in Zoroastrianism) and Loki (in Norse mythology...and even this > is open to interpretation). Oh, and Set (in Pharaonic Egyptian). There > are prob more, but I can't think of the them off-hand. What do others > think? I don't mean to be pedantic (well, actually I do, but it's always good to disclaim these things first ), but I'd always thought Loki was considered a god of Mischief rather than outright evil. Certainly I had the impression that when Ragnarok arrived, he'd be fighting on the side of the Norse Gods rather than their opponents (the serpent, the wolf etc). Similarly I'd thought that Set wasn't exactly evil.. but I'm a lot more shaky on Egyptian mythology and might be mixing up some of his aspects with Osiris (Lord of the Dead).. Hmm, it's just come home to me how long it is since I've read mythology.. (this discussion & another one on the Amber list about Nuada of the Silver hand and the Tuath'de'Danu (the Sidhe of Celtic mythology)). Comments? (And please, corrections if I'm wrong). Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 10:00:41 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <9512132300.AA24863-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> (Badly paraphrased from memory 'cos I deleted the message by mistake): Anne Cross wrote about not respecting *any* god that flays and/or kills women & children.. I'm not trying to flame, but perhaps point out that 'traditionally' it's always been considered acceptable for Gods to do 'bad things' to their enemies or the worshippers of their enemies. Also, sacrifices of the God's own people are also acceptable (as indications of the people's great love for their god). While I suspect you (Anne) aren't of christian persuasion (judging from that brilliantly funny witches quote in your sig file, there are lots of examples from the christian old testament. Sodom & Gomorrah spring to mind - there had to have been women & kids in the city.. (and you don't get screams and wails from nothing), and Lot's wife certainly didn't do anything more than give momentary vent to her curiosity - hardly enough to warrent being turned into a condiment. None of this makes it acceptable or moral of course, just more widespread than might first be suspected. (Avoids the whole issue of applying human morals to a deity). One of the few Aztec gods I've read mainly good things about is Feathered Serpant (English translation again) aka Quetzalcoatl (Thanks Jaguar!). Even then, he's portrayed as having human sacrifices in the Lord Darcy Investigates series of mysteries, though I suspect the author was mixing him up with Burning Water. (Y'see, some of my sources are exceedingly suspect). Can anyone think of any god who somewhere along the line didn't smote someone that you'd have thought oughtn't to have been smoted? Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:22:21 -0500 From: Gyrfalcon To: "'mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk'" Subject: RE: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <01BAC987.F3194F00-+AT+-S98003.U98.stevens-tech.edu> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BAC987.F32A17E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kerry Mealing wrote: >Absolut Flaming (Kenny) wrote: > >> The only gods in actual >> religions that I can think of who are truly considered to be evil are >> Ahriman (in Zoroastrianism) and Loki (in Norse mythology... >> and even this is open to interpretation). Oh, and Set (in >> Pharaonic Egyptian). There are prob more, but I can't think >> of the them off-hand. What do others think? > but I'd always thought Loki was considered a god of Mischief > rather than outright evil. Certainly I had the impression that > when Ragnarok arrived, he'd be fighting on the side of the Norse > Gods rather than their opponents (the serpent, the wolf etc). > Similarly I'd thought that Set wasn't exactly evil.. but I'm a lot > more shaky on Egyptian mythology and might be mixing up some > of his aspects with Osiris (Lord of the Dead).. IIRC (And please don't quote me on this, I'm working with a faulty memory and a seven year gap since I've read the mythology.) Loki was bound and chained under an acid drip by Odin and Thor, until Ragnarok. But he was going to be on the same side as Hel and Fenris (sp?) against the other gods. He was a trickster, but most, if not all of his tricks ended in misery for the poor sap on the recieveing end. Not a nice guy, by today's standards, but hey, who are we to judge? As for Set, I don't remember anything much about him other than he was definately not the good guy. Set was the lord of darkness and all it represents. You know, snakes, scorpions and things that go bump in the night. As always this is what I remember. If anyone can fill in the blanks or correct me, feel free to. I can't vouch for any of the info. Finals are coming. --Gyrfalcon ------ =_NextPart_000_01BAC987.F32A17E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhgXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AGwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAGUAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABtZXJjZWRlcy1sYWNrZXlAdmFueWVsLmhlcmFsZC5jby51awBTTVRQAG1lcmNlZGVz LWxhY2tleUB2YW55ZWwuaGVyYWxkLmNvLnVrAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEA AAAkAAAAbWVyY2VkZXMtbGFja2V5QHZhbnllbC5oZXJhbGQuY28udWsAAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAA AB4AATABAAAAJgAAACdtZXJjZWRlcy1sYWNrZXlAdmFueWVsLmhlcmFsZC5jby51aycAAAACAQsw AQAAACkAAABTTVRQOk1FUkNFREVTLUxBQ0tFWUBWQU5ZRUwuSEVSQUxELkNPLlVLAAAAAAMAADkA AAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADgU8BCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwu Tm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAKQAAAFJFOiBCdXJuaW5nIHdhdGVyLCB3YXM6IGdvZHMgb24gdmVsZ2FydGgA IQ4BBYADAA4AAADLBwwADQASABYAFQADACsBASCAAwAOAAAAywcMAA0AEgALADkAAwBEAQEJgAEA IQAAADkzMTYwMkVFNEEzNUNGMTFBMTlGMDgwMDAwODBBNTU3AOoGAQOQBgC4BwAAEgAAAAsAIwAA AAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AKDcjtqxyboBHgBwAAEAAAApAAAAUkU6IEJ1 cm5pbmcgd2F0ZXIsIHdhczogZ29kcyBvbiB2ZWxnYXJ0aAAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABusmx2ofu AhaUNUoRz6GfCAAAgKVXAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAJQAAAG1zb3dlcnNA bWVuZ2VyLmVlY3Muc3RldmVucy10ZWNoLmVkdQAAAAADAAYQZK8I/gMABxAqBQAAHgAIEAEAAABl AAAAS0VSUllNRUFMSU5HV1JPVEU6QUJTT0xVVEZMQU1JTkcoS0VOTlkpV1JPVEU6PFNOSVBTTklQ U05JUFRIRU9OTFlHT0RTSU5BQ1RVQUxSRUxJR0lPTlNUSEFUSUNBTlRISU5LTwAAAAACAQkQAQAA ABcGAAATBgAALQwAAExaRnXcHIZP/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMy A8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYGBuZzEwMxRQCwNs eGkzNg3wC1UUUQvyY0kAQCBLBJByeQXQZWMHQAuAZyB3A2AT0Dq7CoUKhT4aLRNQHFFjBUCoQWJz BvB1BUBGC2AKbRvyKBtQbm55KZ8cLBovGzAdfx6FPHMDAHRwICQHPiDfIe8d/j6gIFRoZSACIGwb kC5nBHAEIAuAIADQdHV/B0Ac9iVvJn8niRYQGdBnNmkCIAQgdBGABUBJIK5jA5EtkAuAayhgZhwg nGhvKTAWEC2AcnUokb8FoACBBIEJgC2ALvBiKFD8ZXYDES8SKb8qyCtfHoWtFLBoBRADgigpEVoF sJxvYRPAByEDAHNtIFBDAHAwQExva2k1A05jBbARsCBteS2QFZFn/HkuOBAxXzJpOK4edjZSnzDA CfAuMijxBCBvcDvi9y7wC4AT0HITUBHALbAtQcQpLjRwT2gsNkMGYJ8FQDUSOE85XzpvIFARgcJh AiBpYyBFN/AFML810T3yKDEvIS8DHnFiN3C1BbBlPlBiH0Et4ycFQP8uRD8/QE9BXy6SLZAvMShA cm0ukWYtEYA2YD4BV30tomQu8BxQQ+Etci5hP78c9kZfKshIHx6FRTMnMEA5B0B3YROwLYEIYGdo /wVANpNQoAQgL7hNTxswTo/3OxYosi6STQQAEXAIkC6w/0zfTe9UT0KgS5ItggOgCGDvNbFRMjDC PgBDBJABkAuA/yiRLeARgDBBKEEHcD1hBBD/LUFW71O/Hmctk1Z/V49e38Mu0DvhUmFnbgrANqD3 LwEFEDvQZD5QKEBQUTCR/mZaohvyAiBJsy/iSYY3JPdgP2FPYl9HKNFn715PWR/bWiJJwWkFwDyQ cAIgCfD6dAQgKGYTPUFvAT5QScLudwbwLrARwGM98Gd/aI/9bI9TB3ADEArAW8JQUVD2zy2TPrJR wUWyZXgpQSiR/1rzPgBQBEowVVAVoGAfcg//cx8FQETSeO9r8WreHnYRgP5rG5Bl4UMWN3g2Qx+g UTLrMJEfoHgb8nUkMQNwZ1//eW99f0lzPCI1kDygHsAEIN8D8C2Qgo9r/x5nTwCQBRCvbzE2kAsg SYZEG8BkPfCHcQaCHxrHSUlSQx/gfkE2YQtQG8A3UUtQRbJx/nUcUTdwKFI8Az5Qd9JwcD5yNrAc AoZBVUEKhWZh/S9wdBuQB4BE0YA0VVARsM070nkbwAXAZ2EkMQuAfmMoUFBAO9As4VwlN4gp9wqF UXcG4HWSAjZhEXELgP8wMZZRWeEDkQDQL/BLQAUR8zCAG5BPZCkSNmEoMAWwdz5QllA9sGwKhWO2 PgFC/x9BcEJR0SjAG/IwZGXmH5C7ZjVR0UgtADZDCoVGCfD7iVOFwD82MZMAC4ATwEmzf0uDKLM+ AZ3AUbNVUDWxY/5rE8GZcUUyBGATwD5QBpD9HPZueEEHQAMghUWhpDCw/5dhMEApER+gb6EbkAIQ WfL9RGFvBbGc8CQwZeUWEJfw/zvBG/EKhaTxPgE3IFUyQtFxKFBndXlFERuQMGBk/VCwJwQgE8A2 UQsRj0FFMlcoQKmxLtZ3LzFvCoVq4HVkZ2U/h78elIre+xmfGqlBBCCl8j6xj1GN5T8WEJGBMJCX kjeRG/Jtdf8RcCkwljF+gQdwoDVaEyhA/wqFUcINsQuALbAtABuQo5L/ScIowFWBqZE+AXX1SbMV oftVk6rRa27wBBGeCaPShkCvLOFcsm8CPgFZCGAgucD8b3c+UCQAfrAHkLyRBaH+cC1DNlKzoy11 KMAKhUUw/1ygKQJJwgMAUTGKzbGhUIffPDQu0C2zsuY+AUkusLNx/27hLfNlULriZfQCYABwpMG/ BbAKhQWhp3F7gUUBZgngvwMgA1AJ4DBRw3JFhXYIYH+0IaXys3FJhguAAhCKzUZ9tqFshZEvIQWg H6KKzS3QLUd5cpEQbC+xrX8LrosVMQDPwAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAQAAHMGBPO2awyboBQAAI MGBPO2awyboBHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAADDlg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BAC987.F32A17E0-- ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 269 *********************************