MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 1075 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: What is Fantasy Fiction? by "Cynthia K. Meeks" 2) RE:Fire Rose and silk robes by "Cynthia K. Meeks" 3) Flame/lifebond/English/disappearing gifts/good-and-evil by awand-+AT+-mail.idt.net (Kymberli) 4) defining fantasy by "Hth." 5) various stuff, but mostly "what is fantasy?" by Aimee Dowd 6) channels/Gala by Aimee Dowd 7) Gala/Sovreign Lands/Gwena/some fluff by Glithoniel-+AT+-aol.com 8) oops/plea/evil/fluff by Deniz 9) Gala/Sovreign Lands/Gwena/some fluff by AERDEN-+AT+-delphi.com 10) My mother in law and Gala by John Hagen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:43:13 -0600 From: "Cynthia K. Meeks" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: What is Fantasy Fiction? Message-ID: <199701260335.VAA28069-+AT+-mail.gte.net> Here's my first post. I read somewhere (don't ask me where 'cause I don't remember) Fiction is a made up story using elements of the known world... Science Fiction is Fiction that is enhanced by adding or subtracting technology... Fantasy is fiction that doesn't follow the rules of science. > But Misty's not completely Sci Fi... I tend to think her system of magic > (working like electricity) is what gives it the Sci Fi nature. I agree that her magic works like a science but... magic does not come from technology. The Mages use technology to tame magic... This puts it firmly back into the realm of fantasy! > Well, I'm gonna retract a bit here. I think Fantasy Fiction is basically, if > you accept the Fantastic elements as true, a Fiction story. I feel that the Fantasy Fiction term is totally redundant. > I think that Misty is a blend of Sci Fi and Fantasy. > >Can you show me a work of fiction that does not involve the > >imagination? I would say NO... Fiction by its nature demands you use your imagination. > I would call The Hobbit a fantasy not only because it has elves, but because > it takes place in a world where there are very few humans and all the main > characters are, strictly to say, figments of the imagination, who go off on a > quest to kill another figment of the imagination. > The Great Gatsby is, on the surface, an anecdote of part of a man's life that, > when you read it, you could believe to be a real man... you can imagine > bumping into him in the streets and asking about Daisy. Of course, this sure > would be a boring story if that's all it was, so it employs symbolism and > parallels and lots of good stuff so that the author, while telling a simple > story, can get across whatever weighty ideological philosophical nugget he > wants to. This is Fiction, and because of the deeper meanings which Prof's > like to show to students over and over again, This is Literature. But, you COULD bump into a character like him. This is what makes it Fiction. > >Well . . . is Jinx High a work of fantasy? There are no > >elves. What about Sacred Ground? To get more marginal, > >isn't The Princess Bride? Is Charlotte's Web a > >fantasy? We have pigs in reality, but not talking pigs . . . Now JH and SG are a little more questionable. There are those who believe that these types of witchcraft are practiced today. However, I would say that the magical aspect would push these into the fantasy realm. > I'd call The Princess Bride fiction, because it's basically a fairy tale (and > aren't fairy tales classified as fiction? They've been around so long that we > no longer think of them as fantastic(involving a huuuuuge stretch of the > imagination)). Why wouldn't Princess Bride be Fantasy? Aren't all Fairy Tales Fantasy??? > Charlotte's Web is something that when it was written, I suppose I'd call it > Urban Fiction (except it's really rural), but I'm more tempted to call it a > Fantasy, because the two of the three main characters are talking animals and > the third is a girl... this is basically a Fantastic children's story, I > suppose, with its charm and innocence and how they're children (Penny and > I-don't-remember-the-pig's-name). Should Children's stories be classed by themselves? You seem to judge them by a different standard. By the way, the pig's name is Wilbur. They call me RUNE! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:53:18 -0600 From: "Cynthia K. Meeks" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: RE:Fire Rose and silk robes Message-ID: <199701260345.VAA07284-+AT+-mail.gte.net> > > H. Wegemer wrote: > > "In The Fire Rose, the unicorn-summoning ritual requires a > robe not made from any animal-type creature. Cotton is mentioned as > a poor-person's option; Jason uses silk. Silk?!?? Unlike the > forbidden wool, which generally only inconveniencs the sheep in > question for a few minutes, the production of enough silk for Rose's > robe involves the destruction of hundreds flittle, living > caterpillars. Does anybody see a way to justify this?" > > I'm not an expert on silk weaving and so am probably not at all in any way > qualified to talk about this, but I have always thought that the silk is > collected as the caterpillars spin it. Not that the caterpillars are scrificed > by the thousands to weave silk. Of course, I am operating under an assumption > and could be very off the mark. > 'hawk > This is my second post. My fiancee suggests that insects are not considered animals. Rune ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:44:28 -0500 From: awand-+AT+-mail.idt.net (Kymberli) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Flame/lifebond/English/disappearing gifts/good-and-evil Message-ID: Hidden behind a black veil of mist, a thin, angular girl watches the sad population of bondbirds begin to grow ever-more exponentially. Stormy eyed, trembling with fury at this balatant irreverence, the white-robed novice turns to her God (of Karma), sends a breath of a prayer for what she's about to do, as she mounts the waves of seafoam horses, and dissapates herself into the movement. From their backs, she looks over her shoulder wistfully, then leaves quickly, heading for the Halls of Misty. As always, she makes a face at the loud trumpeting sound the horses make at her arrival. Her distinctly audible call "is there anyone who can't hear me?" echoes like the sirens of some nameless tragedy. She straightens, facing the dozens of denizens, who, from their faces, know what's coming, and pulls out a wand from her pocket. Swiftly tracing a gesture in the air, she summons the power of the Goddess of Many Names from within, relaxing. Rowan oak wood shimmers with a quiet inner fire, as she suddenly points the rod outward, toward Nightdancer. The light flickers outward, radiating spreading pools of brightness as it searches to find its intended target. "Nightdancer, for thy careless use of souls in summoning bondbird souls with thy breeding, and by my power as both priestess of Karma and Goddess of Many Names, thou art condemned, as the Wheel turns, to a life sentence being a bondbird. Thou shalt choose most unfortunately to bond to an unwilling listmember, as has been the fate of many a bird from thy den (bad genes? :P) In My own capacity as Goddess, thou art to be christened "Bird Sushi" May thou get exactly what thou deservest. =) Looking sternly down the length of her nose, the Goddess' wrath shimmers like a halo of searing balefire. Crooking a finger, she pulls a piece of parchment out of midair. As she reads aloud, the sparkling black ink seems to take on the colour of night-draped rainbows against the white: "In addition to thy transgressions of Karmic sort (which hath flooded the list most annoyingly with their fluffiness and hath ~not~ slowed one whit upon polite request), thou hast pestered the Avatar of Nomenclature with incessant requests to assume the title of Goddess of Bondbirds and Companions, which he hath declined to offer, for fear of infringing upon the rights of the Star-Eyed and the collective gods of Velgarth. "Oh yes. And thou art guilty, as well, of *atrocious* grammatical errors. "Hmmmm. BTW... if thou wouldst e'er think to escape thy fate, oh doomed one, a giant cat shall come along and eat you. =)" The pale faced novice stands hesitantly about before leaving, pocketing her wand and snuffing some of the flame, channeling her energy into calling the mist again. "Everything be copacetic, mind" as she draws the darkened fog around her, disappearing. ****************** the doomed one wrote: >Esmeralda wrote: ><Herald in danger>> > >In WofFury, Stefen said that opposites would life-bond. A over-stressed Herald >would bond with non-Herald who was not so stressed. "Van thinks it's likelier that someone with an extremely powerful Gift of some kind and a tendency to deep depression will be lifebonded than someone who is not so burdened and hag-ridden" That is 1. a speculation 2. a trembly one, with the use of the word "likely" 3. *an* overstressed Herald is not the opposite of a relaxed non-Herald. The idea is to complement the two. If the latter couldn't understand the former -- and they couldn't, without having personal experience and being able to really think like the other -- the relationship would probably end up being either a master-slave thing or the two of them would explode ****************** Ken wrote: >Summersong wrote: >> *I* at least make a conscious effort to speak as English was meant to be >> spoken > *snip* I assure you that if you spoke flawlessly "correct" English >(something that doesn't exist except as a myth perpetuated by English >teachers) in Jenks High, you would be alone and friendless very quickly, >primarily for two reasons. One is that you would be marking yourself very >overtly as "out-group." Cen? are you being fair to their characters here? when, for example, Kenisha goes into her ebonics mode, the rest of us don't just up and "you're out-group, poof, you're not acceptable" It's more like a running joke, actually "nah, you just sound stupid" "us? hey! what about you? *giggle*" >> I think the JH students are ditzy, down to their last strand of DNA, and >> I believe the same thing about people who talk and act the way the JH >> students do. I'm sorry if your best friend speaks in cloudy language, >> but that's just how I feel. I don't think so. Tannim was Jenks High student. So was Deke. So was Monica. Ditzy DNA? >Gala repudiated 'Lendel. They were not bound anymore. This is the point where your poor Kimmie the Pooh gets confused. Gala broke that bond, but isn't the love that came about because of the tie, a bond in itself? >Why would she be in Sorrows? what a horrible fate... if she ever comes back as a Companion again, >-----EOM/BOM > >Deniz wrote: (Welcome back btw, In case I forgot to say it before) > >> Well... have you *ever* heard Misty refer to a "Devil" type character? >> I just don't think she would have an Evil Goddess/God duo... it isn't >> her style... *cataloguing in her head* the creatures of the Abysmal Plane, the "demons" the Karsite priests turn loose, a Salamander, malevolent spirits in _Sacred Ground_ ... no, you're right; no devil, but lots of evil Thingies *gryn* >But I think, in general, you are right: Misty >doesn't really like the idea of an Evil Goddess. About the closest she >seems to get to it is callous (Vkandis and the Star-Eyed both have their >moments). Thalkarsh... didn't have a sex, really. He assumed the form of a male because men can rape and, *within the structure of that society*, more powerful in general. >-----EOM/BOM >Heather wrote: > >> As for dangerously self-absorbed kids with seemingly unlimited money, >> very little parental supervision, short attention spans, and a need for >> instant gratification? Yup, they're real. I've known them; my >> she'enedra went to a school in some ways very much like Jenks High, and >> she used to run with a similar kind of crowd. > *snip* Anyway, yes, those kids are real, I was one of them, *jaw drops to the floor* ye gods and little fishes, holy heck, *really*??! short attention span? a need for instant gratification? OUR staid, loving, long-posting Cennydd?!! >and they were not evil or mean-spirited, as Misty seemed to portray a lot of >them. Nor were they as "self-absorbed" as they appear at first sight. >However, they were extremely cliquish (Union raised "ingroup" and >"outgroup" status to an artform) I can believe the last and first (actually quite generous and very nice, once you can break the clique shield to talk to them), but Cen, not self aborbed? TINAF, but in what sense are you talking about? >I suppose that, based on my own HS >experience, it is plausible that a person like Faye might have the effect >of creating a bunch of monsters, though. With a little magical shove and a few drugs to kill their minds. But you can only push even monsters so far, anyway. >> I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Misty's philosophy on >> abuse and exploitation. > >Then I will. =) After all, why should you be the only one to criticise >Misty. There is something wrong with saying that people do things because >"they are bad." It basically takes away any possibility of preventing >such things from happening. People do things because they chose to shape their lives in a series of decisions that made them "bad" I think *perhaps* (this is most definitely not something sure on my part) we're confused. Misty isn't saying "bad people can't be reshaped" She's saying that people follow how they've been shaped, due to lousy upbringing, etc. I mentioned before that I wasn't sure if she was being just to Amanda's father, Andrew, because he was abused as a child. I rethought it, and thought that maybe she was perfectly fair. In psychology class on Friday, we learned that BF Skinner's utopian comminity only held up as long as the participants were in a certain environment. (ack, classroom invades Misty list!) I drew the conclusion, perhaps overhastily or carelessly, that ~some~ few people simply cannot be rehabilitated without constant attention and reinforcement of positive thoughts. (I know, the last person you'd expect to hear this from would be me) He went through a long life where he saw his alternatives, and killed his wife, raped his baby daughter repeatedly, and was thinking of trying something similar on his new wife and stepdaughter. The only true pleasure he got, the only positive stimulus he'd been trained to accept, was the evocation of pain on others, and other sorts of pleasure for himself. I agree, these people should be marked "dangerous" rather than risk the thought that others who were only starting to fall down this long, twisty, dark path should be dismissed out of hand. Still, I tend to think of Misty championing "good done in the name of evil is still good and evil done in the name of good is still evil" rather than "evil can't be changed" *sigh* Would you like some vanilla ice cream to share with me, Cen? >-----EOM/BOM > >Deniz wrote: *snip* >Deniz, you twerp! =) You didn't include my b-day! */me pouts and sulks >in a corner of the Hall of Mists!* Oh well, even if you don't love me, >the Ladies of the Pink Wand remembered. So there! I am going to take my >marbles and go home! *temper tantrum!* > >/me giggles uncontrollably. This is fun! Now I know why little kids do >this so much. *grin* *ROFL* can I help? "think I'll just go eat some worm!" you saw my temper tantrum with my partner, the lovely LF, right? *giggle* I have excellent credentials there ;D ****************** >>Dyana L Rose said, >> "But, what if the not being able to lie mind to mind clause, is something >>that the people are told to believe in and therefore never try to do it." I think that perhaps if you believe what you're saying when you tell the lie, as you could force yourself to do with a half truth, you might be able to lie mind-to-mind. Or just conceal part of the truth; lying by omission. ****************** Aimee wrote: > On the subject of Van's disappearing Bardic gift: I forget who brought >this up -- was it Nightdancer? -- but I'm glad you did. This occurs to me >every time I read that line ("Vanyel had them all. Each channel she tested -- >with the sole exception of Healing -- was open.... And -- irony of ironies -- >as if the gods were taking with one hand and offering a pittance as >compensation -- the Bardic Gift." MPawn, 215.), but I always forget it soon >after. Not only does his bardic gift disappear after this one sentence, but >his non-existant healing gift appears out of nowhere! Suddenly he has just >enough healing to be able to do things like make Medren get the measles. I >guess this is an instance of the author having a better idea between books one >and two. guys? I have a question. Can channels just close up? Misty, for example, implies that the bond of mother to child is a bond. (which leads to the other question of whether the Herald-Companion tie is a channel or a bond, of course ) Parents have let that channel trickle off, and anyone knows that if one doesn't use an ability, it shrinks to nonexistance. Actually... did Van lose the gift at all? empathic ability is related to Bardic ability, after all, Savil could have made a mistake (Misty's going to use the excuse that the bonds were raw, if she ever does make an excuse for that, though, I think) healing ability is related to empathy and mindspeech. (now there's an image for you: mix up your talents, here! *gryn*) uhhhm... actually, how related are the Gifts? if everyone has them to some weakened degree? there never have been any Heralds who've had Empathy without Mindspeech (including Talia) any Heralds who've had Mindspeech without Empathy? (empathy?) Misty never managed to point out how connected the Thoughtsensing is with projective Mindspeech, whereas with Empathy, she seems to just assign the ability to sense together with the ability to project emotions... ****************** Wyvern wrote: >Vanyel's disappearing/reappearing gifts: I have to reread LHM, now, just to >find out for sure. Great... : ) For some reason I seem to recall him using >the Bardic Gift somewhere. Argh, I can't remember where, though. Argh! I do too, somewhere... not the scene where he was singing about the Shadow-Lover, not the scene where he sends Stef that surge of love (though that's an interesting one; can Bards 'speak' to each other the same way Empaths can, if properly trained?) not as Valdir, not when he was building the illusion of 'Lendel... *groan* I have a TBR stack a mile high... drat! Heather wrote: >Hth: "(BTW, I did get the feeling that not *all* the kids at Jenks were >rich or bratty; just the ones in Faye's clique, and therefore the ones we >were interested in.)" *sudden image popping into her mind* Fay speaks centuries old English for the first few weeks having taken over her daughter's body to her daughter's friends... on the comedy channel tomorrow, served up with the drifting ashes left of said friends >Assuming that Di Tregarde's speeches on writing in Jinx High reflect >Misty's writing style, she spends, what, a couple of days developing the >plot for a book, is that right? Someone might look that up for me. Um... *wince* "One month developing the outline" Also remember she's talking about writing a romance novel, and no offense, but those things really don't have *that* much plot. So she's developing more details than it would appear at first, in that time, I'd think. *sheeps away as quickly as she can* >See, this I think is a mistake. The more thought you give something, >the more you toss it around, ponder alternatives, relate your >characters' actions to their backgrounds, get a feel for your story, the >more interesting things start cropping up in your psyche, things you >didn't originally plan. But doesn't that depend on the way you write? I don't know, but there must be some writers who have an alternative hit them on the side of the head while they're in the process of physically fleshing out detail. OTOH, Misty is CJ Cherryah's prodigy, so that doesn't seem likely. I think the reason we're getting antsy about her recent material is that she didn't spend enough time on the type of identification we have with Talia and Vanyel, or with Tarma and Kethry, or Eric, or Rune in the very first Bardic Voices. Character analysis, yes, indentification, no. And, she isn't changing her style. It's rigid. You can *see* the trademark Misty. While we might talk about MZB's ah, malleability getting her into trouble, I'd rather some abyssmal books and some stupendous ones rather than the same thing every time. The differences in style from book to book in most of the other major fantasy writers seem to vary a lot, with the possible exception of David Eddings. At least the characters are different. The fact that we could all *tell* that Misty had written Shelyra in _Tiger Burning Bright_ says something. I don't know whether it's that she doesn't take enough time to read and see the differences in style in order to fine tune herself, or whether she's decided she's going to have one type of voice, or if she's just not talented enough (I doubt this last one, since she had the originality to think up the plots of potentially good series, just didn't expand them, BTW) ****************** Emily the invisible said: >Does anyone feel like Misty's definition >of a "bad person" may be flexible? In other words, good people are >good, even if they do bad things, but bad people are bad, even if >they do good things. Whoa. When you look at people, is that not how you classify them? Do you call Mother Teresa evil if she goes and hits someone, while enjoying doing it? >It seems like no matter what the bad characters >do, there is nothing good in them, even when we get a look inside >their heads (see all sections where we see the thoughts of either >Mornelithe Falconsbane or Emperor Charliss) I thought Orthallen was a very compelling character because he was able to see the good in his actions, even if he noticed in an abstract fashion. That's how he won people over. To paraphrase Piers Anthoiny (I've been possessed by the MIW...) a half-truth is the most effective lie. So, you're seeing good twisted inside, mixed with evil (um, bear with me and accept the disgusting concepts of absolute good and evil for the sake of argument; I'm sorry I had to pose it this way *ick*) and you think you see only evil. And IIRC, Mornelithe Falconsbane thought something about "doing a favor for his people" at one point. >I find it hard to believe that all of Misty's evil characters >have tortured little children, kicked dogs, and raped women all the >time. Life kind of requires you to do other things at least >_sometimes_. Hmmph. *thinking over that* Yes. But Misty defines evil as "a kind of ultimate greed, a greed so all encompassing that it can't ever see anything lovely, rare, or precious without wanting to possess it. A greed so total that if it can't possess these things, it will destroy them rather than chance that someone else might have them. And a greed so intense that even having these things never causes it to lessen one iota -- the lovely, the rare and the precious never affect it except to make it want them" (p 210 AFlight, Dirk) Implicit in that statement is that we have to recognize good first, and how could we do that if we never touched it? Evil wants the precious because it finds itself lacking. So - maybe, this might be a long stretch - Misty is saying what you just said, tacitly =) ****************** Okay, enough of the hedging and playing devil's advocate, I think I'm in for it tomorrow. *wry grin* Well, from everyone except for Tensen, who will skip this one :) Summersong, goodbye, and come back soon! We'll miss you... *gives her a self filling plate of chocolate for a parting present* Love, Kimberly ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:29:11 CST From: "Hth." To: Subject: defining fantasy Message-ID: <26JAN97.00525553.0018.MUSIC-+AT+-ACADEMIC.TRUMAN.EDU> Sure, I'll take a shot at this one. I doubt I'll come up with a flawless definition, but we'll see what we see. (And, Heather Wegemer, my high profile doesn't make you merely a subsidiary, backup Heather. Treat yourself better than that.) I'm finding it easier to start by defining speculative fiction, and then branch from there into fantasy vs sci-fi (and I *will* say sci-fi, and anyone who'd like to take up that hackneyed old argument about sci-fi vs sf can private e-mail me). In my mind, speculative fiction is distinct from other types of fiction not in that it asks the reader to imagine things, but in what it asks the reader to imagine. The question in non-speculative fiction is "Did it happen?" and we are supposed, for the moment, to say "yes" -- or to say no, but enjoy the story anyway, I guess. The question in speculative fiction is "Could it happen?" Ideally your reader says "yes," -- or, again, no-but-who-cares. So if we take speculative fiction to be fiction in which things happen that not only did not or have not or might not happen in our world (to the best of our knowledge), but in fact *could not* happen in our world (to the best of our current knowledge), then that lets in all kinds of things. It includes horror under the umbrella of speculative fiction, which I think is reasonable, since it certainly seems related to me. It encompasses high fantasy (elves, dragons, fireball-throwing-wizards, et al), contemporary fantasy (sometimes called "urban" fantasy, though there are authors like Tom Dietz who write in rural settings, or something like Jinx High which is suburban), science fiction (more on this later), magical realism, alternate histories, and all sorts of fun stuff like that. Now, there are a few grey spots in this definition. For example, there will be some people who will object to me labeling magic as "something that couldn't happen." Let me say that *to the best of our current knowledge,* little or nothing in the way of what we call paranormal phenomena or magic has any influence over the laws of the universe. It may in fact be out there, but until we see some serious proof, I'm classifying it with the other staples of fantasy that may exist but we can't seem to locate, identify, or prove with any certainty, such as elves, angels, apparations of the Virgin Mary, so forth. Hope this doesn't step on too many toes. On a related topic, there are some who would say that science fiction falls outside of "things that couldn't happen," in that science certainly can and does happen, and some scientific innovations are entirely possible and just haven't been done yet -- putting science fiction in with "didn't happen" fiction instead of "couldn't happen" fiction. However, I think the key is that science fiction contains scientific innovations which, at the time of the work's writing, was not possible *given the extent of our knowledge at that time.* If an ansible, or faster-than-light travel, etc. etc., was possible for us to construct and use right now, we'd be doing it. Right now, it can't be done. Likewise, aliens fall in the same category as telekinesis and guardian angels: may exist, but not so far as we really know. Okay, now to sort out fantasy from other types of speculative fiction. This is especially hard. I would say, tentatively, that it's spec fic that asks us to rely on faith. Most science fiction makes at least the token attempt to explain how these things happen, in so far as the author can do so. X effect occurs because of *this* gadget, because of *this* technological advance, the alien can do X because of *this* adaptation to the environment. More often in fantasy, X effect occurs because it *can* in this reality, and the reader is called upon to simply believe that it can. How can an intelligent race create another intelligent race? A sci-fi writer would say, "further advances to our understanding of genetics, and the refinement of the science of genetic engineering, which is in use today in a limited form." A fantasy writer would say, "He's Urthro. It happens." The difference is that sci-fi is postulating a process that is an extention of and modification to something that already exists, while fantasy is postulating a type of activity that doesn't exist at all. There we go, that may be the key, the issue of adaptation vs whole-cloth creation. An alien survives because it has adapted to its environment, developing traits similar to those we know exist in Terran species. The writer creates a certain environment or evolutionary heritage and then asks *how* a creature would survive, given these conditions. Readers expect the answer to make sense given our current knowledge of zoology and physics. A fantasy creature, on the other hand, doesn't really need to be plausible in the same sense. We will take it on faith that a werewolf could exist, or that a Terran-type environment could produce a unicorn, even though these things really make no sense given what we know of how evolution works. Note that this does *not* mean that if the author attempts any kind of explanation at all, it instantly becomes not-fantasy anymore. This is where I would disagree with people who say that Misty writes science fiction simply because she uses a (more or less) internally consistent set of laws to govern her magic. Internal consistency is not the key; the key is how consistent the laws of her universe are with the laws of *our* universe (to the best of our knowledge, again). She explains magic as a force, but does not endeavor to explain it as a force that has any direct relationship with the forces we know in our world. Magic behave in some similar ways to, say, electricity, but it isn't a form or extention of electricity. It is something separate, something that does not exist in our world. Now, all this is very complicated, and it probably still leaves quite a few gaps. Frankly, I tend to prefer Terri Windling's rather intuitive approach to what's fantasy and what's not; she refers to "a sense of wonder," a certain subjective magical quality. I like that because it lets in all those things that *feel* like fantasy, but might not be impossible per se. I always thought that Parke Godwin's Robin Hood books felt like fantasy, but nothing magical happens in them, likewise with his Beloved Exile (Firelord is debatable). A good example is Jane Urquhart's book *Away,* in which it is never clear whether the heroine really was or was not enchanted. If you believe that she was, it's clearly fantasy; if not, it's merely historical fiction. But it *reads* like fantasy, and it definitely has a sense of wonder. But for those who like a more objective, concrete definition, I think the above is moderately helpful, though I admit there are some potentially troublesome loopholes in it. HTH Wand-Sworn Champion to the Ladies of the Pink Wand Grand Dame of the Order of Amber and Marigold DragonCon Shepherd r618-+AT+-academic.truman.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 97 00:40:52 EST From: Aimee Dowd To: Mercedes Lackey Discussion List Subject: various stuff, but mostly "what is fantasy?" Message-ID: <970126.013246.EST.AIMEDOWD-+AT+-UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Lee said, "I live in CA and I've heard y'all used as singular." Oh. Well, I guess that explains why I run across that usage so often (Misty is not the only writer to do this!), but it still sounds weird to my Southern- trained ears. ***** Later, Lee also said, quoting Jennifer, "'While I'm at it, I'd like to petition for membership in the Order of Amber and Marigold. I love Vanyel and promise to protect him from nasty hard objects.' " All nasty hard objects? You're sure Mr. Ashkevron wouldn't feel...deprived?" Oh, my! LOL! ********** And now for something completely different. I was thinking about the "what is Fantasy" question, and here's my definition: fantasy and science fiction contain elements that, in the world as we know it, are not real. Of course, all fiction is not real -- is made up -- but regular fiction *could* exist in our world, be it the here-and-now or, as with historical novels, the past. Fantasy and science fiction either take place in the future (which is by definition unknown and unknowable, and therefore is not the "world as we know it") or operates in some way that is currently considered impossible. That would include both magic -- witches, spells, talking horses, and whatnot -- and advanced technology -- FTL spaceships, matter transporters, or whatever. However, that definition doesn't distinguish between fantasy and science fiction. One could say that the difference between the two is that science fiction is about what *could* happen, but hasn't yet, and fantasy is about what could *never* happen. But I think the real difference is in feeling. Take, for example, Anne McCaffery's Pern series. I would call it fantasy, even though we learn in _Dragonsdawn_ that it's really science fiction. It still *feels* like fantasy. To me, dragons equal fantasy, even if they exist because of scientific genetic manipulation and not magic. Or -- have any of you read the new issue of "F&SF" yet? Jerry Oltion's story? Apparently, the *real* difference between science fiction and fantasy is 48. =) Anyway, yes, _The Princess Bride_ is fantasy. You've got a princess, a psudeo-medievalistic setting, and swordfighting. Not to mention a miracle man who can bring people back from the dead. Well, mostly dead. So, even though it's not fantasy by the definition I gave earlier -- all the fantastic elements are from a book a sick boy is having read to him by his father, which could happen in the world as we know it -- it still *feels* like fantasy, so it is. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. -Aimee, Dame of the Order of Amber and Marigold. Aimee Dowd aimedowd-+AT+-uga.cc.uga.edu *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -Groucho Marx ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 97 01:52:03 EST From: Aimee Dowd To: Mercedes Lackey Discussion List Subject: channels/Gala Message-ID: <970126.020741.EST.AIMEDOWD-+AT+-UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> While discussing Vanyel's disappearing/reappearing gifts, Kimberly said, "Can channels just close up?" No, I don't think they can, not once they're open. Remember in AotQ, when Talia got conked on the head and her gifts woke prematurely? She doesn't want another set of lessons, so she asks if they will just go away. I think Ylsa (or maybe Keren? Somebody, anyway.) says that they probably won't. But they wait to see if her gifts are around for good, so maybe the channels *can* close up. Now I've confused myself. I need to get out my copy of AotQ and look up some textevd. ********** Kimberly also said, "Gala broke that bond, but isn't the love that came about because of the tie, a bond in itself?" Yes, it is. They were tied to each other by the herald/companion bond, it's true, but also by love, friendship, and respect. They really needed to apologize to each other, Gala for repudiating 'Lendel, and 'Lendel for driving her to it. They could heal those bonds, at least, even if they will never be Companion and Chosen again. But I guess Gala doesn't need to be in Sorrows for that. As other people have pointed out, they could have had some time together in the Havens after 'Lendel died and before Stef was born. But I just wish Misty had let us *see* it. -Aimee, Dame of the OAM. Aimee Dowd aimedowd-+AT+-uga.cc.uga.edu *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -Groucho Marx ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 09:42:00 -0500 (EST) From: Glithoniel-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Gala/Sovreign Lands/Gwena/some fluff Message-ID: <970126094159_1446179926-+AT+-emout14.mail.aol.com> Better late than never, I guess. ******* Catchfire said of Scientology: >>[Scientology] supposedly bringing its members total sanity<< That's a frightening thought! Who'd want to be totally sane? There's some sick people in the world. Absolutely sick! ******* Aimee wrote: >>MPawn makes it pretty clear that Gala was wrong to repudiate Lendel -- he wasn't evil, but insane.<< Where did it say that? I think the Companions gave 'Lendel full honors because they took his madness into consideration. Gala repudiated him all right but then she suicided. I think she did perfectly right. 'Lendel let his insanity drive him to murder innocent people. I never read any of the passages about it as putting Gala in the wrong. Can you give me the text evd.? As to them reconciling in the afterlife, it is something we don't see. Maybe it does happen. I would certainly hope so, though I get the impression that Tylendel didn't have much time before he was reincarnated. ******* Aristes wrote: >> Tolkien just doesn't have any ability to write in emotions.<< I beg to differ. I cry every time I read the lament for Boromir. And the death of Thingold(?), King of Rohan. What about where they loose Gandalf in Moria? Or at the very end when the Elves and Frodo depart Middle Earth forever? He stirs the emotions just in a different, more melancholy way than Lackey. Lackey's emotions hit the gut, Tolkein's the mind. ******* Lee, the Eternally Nourished, asked: >>Well, what right would the Monarch have to (in effect) take their land and homes away from them just because they're discontent with the government?<< Essentially, all land belongs to the Crown in the first place. Everyone below the level of Monarch in a kingdom posesses their land by the consent of said Monarch--sometimes through several levels of ownership, but ultimately it all belongs to the Monarch. That's why taxes are paid. They are a form of rent. So, just like any landlord, Seleney has the right to move out malcontent renters. ******* Deniz wrote: >>I-don't-remember-Her-name, the ancient Egyptian Goddess of cats<< Bastet(sp?)! Its Bastet. Thanks for sending me downstairs to the nearest Amelia Peabody mystery I could find. I dug through two chapters then remembered the name. Now, I can catch up on the rest of my digests in peace! Don't you hate when you know you ought to remember something and it just sits there on the tip of your memory teasing you! ******* Kawryathen said: >>But, what if the not being able to lie mind to mind clause, is something that the people are told to believe in and therefore never try to do it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will anyway) but I can't remember a single time when someone tried to lie while mindspeaking ( truth spell doesn't count).<< Actually, Gwena does lie. It could of course pass for fudging. Due to the recent discussions on Elspeth, I decided to re-read the Winds series. I marked the pertinent passages in case this topic continued. When Gwena reveals that she can channel magical energy to Elspeth, the following exchange ensues E: : . . .I -- don't suppose this means you're a mage, too -- does it?: G: :Oh, no!: . . . . This takes place on page 144 of _Winds of Change_(Daw, 1992). On page 234 of the same book, Gwena reveals that she is a mage when they are planning to send the plea for help to k'Treva. Now, technically, Gwena didn't tell a lie. The fact that she is a channel doesn't make her a mage. So, like dealing with any demon (ack, visions of Granny, Nanny, and Magrat in the wash house--snicker), you have to ask the correct questions. Its still a lie of omission. ******* Nightdancer wrote: >>I found more stuff on what Goddess Van serves. IN MPromise, someone in Van's family or the holding said something about the Twain.<< It was Radevel who used the term on pg 136 (Daw paperback). Interestingly enough, "the Twain" is the same term that Need uses for her pair of twin gods and godesses. There is probably no significance(sp?) in that, just evidence of a recycled term. ******* Jayenna wrote: >>Do I feel lucky, or what? Ah, to live in N. Carolina, Where the sky is blue, and there's no snow, and its 18F instead of -20. So, are y'all jealous?<< Well, hello neighbor! I'm not jealous a bit. I live near Charleston, SC. Its been in the 50's and 60's (that's Farenheit--we hold to the old ways round here) during the day for the past two weeks. I've had the windows open during the afternoon several days this week. Of course summer is usually payback time, then it will be sweltering time. ******* Ok, that's it for me. Glithoniel Mistress of Willowhawk, Lady of the Pink Wand, Goddess of Tardiness "As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something." - Hagar the Horrible ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 97 12:52:39 -0500 From: Deniz To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: oops/plea/evil/fluff Message-ID: <199701261756.MAA07207-+AT+-sirocco.CC.McGill.CA> Okay, I know I classified Princess Bride as Fiction, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that my gut reaction is to call it Fantasy and that I'm not sure how I managed to rationalize calling it Fiction. Now fairy tales I'm not quite sure on... some of them are very definitely Fantasy (Little Red Riding Hood, Little Mermaid) but some read more like Fiction. The one I'm thinking of specifically is called *ithinkthinkthink* "The Snow Queen"-- I don't know about anyone else, but that one felt like Fiction to me for some reason. And I don't know why I tend to classify Children's Lit. a bit differently... I'll think about it some more. All of this brings me about to the next part of this post... I'm sorry to be writing this to the whole Misty List, but it's List-related... One of my folders on my client disappeared on me... the one where I had kept all of the volunteers to help with different things... if you did volunteer could you e-mail me again? (I know David T. and Cennydd have stuff for Pine, I know Em has stuff for Pegasus and Eudora light, and I know *someone* said they'd do Juno, I just don't remember who, likewise for aol... anyone for Netscape?) Also, if we were talking recently, and you sent me something that you expected a reply to and I haven't sent it... it's cause I don't have the note anymore. (Heather, I swear I'm gonna send in stuff on Sleep soon, I didn't lose that) Kimberliedoodle wrote: >The only true pleasure he got, the only positive stimulus he'd been trained >to accept, was the evocation of pain on others, and other sorts of pleasure >for himself. I agree, these people should be marked "dangerous" rather than >risk the thought that others who were only starting to fall down this long, >twisty, dark path should be dismissed out of hand. Uhh... guys? I have a big problem with this. I've been noticing this before, and I think I've finally found a way to bring it up. I have noticed this theme in Misty's literature of the pain=pleasure thing and it being a bad thing. However, when she uses it, it is NON-CONSENSUAL. I think that what Kimmy just said above makes it sound like anyone who's into S & M is bad. That's not neccessarily true. Non-consensual is definitely a no-no. But, look at the S & M community of today, and you'll see that what is approved within this community is *consensual* S & M. Among that community, if someone is noticed as disregarding safe-words or doing things non-consensually, *then* they are marked as "dangerous". This also holds true for D/s (Dominance/submission, or Master-slave relationships). Even in a Master-slave relationship, there must be consent, because the slave is entrusting the Master *totally* and the Master has *total* responsibility for the slave. There's the initial consent of a slave accepting their Master's collar. And even beyond that, the slave still has some say-so... they can tell their Master if they don't like what is happening, and the Master usually understands. If a slave feels they're being treated unfairly, they can bring their complaints to other people (usually sympathetic Masters) who will take care of the problem. But if it's all consensual, why would it be bad? Please, think about this before the next time you label S & M or D/s as bad things. >[Cennydd wrote:] >>Deniz wrote: >*snip* >>Deniz, you twerp! =) You didn't include my b-day! */me pouts and sulks >>in a corner of the Hall of Mists!* Oh well, even if you don't love me, >>the Ladies of the Pink Wand remembered. So there! I am going to take my >>marbles and go home! *temper tantrum!* >> >>/me giggles uncontrollably. This is fun! Now I know why little kids do >>this so much. *grin* > >*ROFL* can I help? "think I'll just go eat some worm!" you saw my temper >tantrum with my partner, the lovely LF, right? *giggle* I have excellent >credentials there ;D Are you guys trying to make me feel guilty? Well, it's all been fixed, now. I didn't *have* Ken's birthday, so how could I forget it? You Woozles just don't understand. I think I'm just gonna crawl into this corner and pout for a while, then I'm gonna go play Marco Polo at the pool and I won't play with you, so there! I'm not talking to you! love, Deniz Sarikaya, High Priestess of |"Perhaps today IS a good to die!"-- Worf Procrastination, Holy Custodian of|"You told him about the statue?" -- Riker the B-Day List, Dame of the OoAM, |"I'm a doctor, not a doorstop." -- EMH and Demon of Deceitful Aliases. |"Definitely not Swedish." -- Lily >dsarik-+AT+-PO-Box.McGill.CA< >freakola-+AT+-geocities.com< >http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/9359/< ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:30:12 -0500 (EST) From: AERDEN-+AT+-delphi.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Gala/Sovreign Lands/Gwena/some fluff Message-ID: <01IEO5CWYWEG9AN07Y-+AT+-delphi.com> Aimee--Mmm..I've got to disagree with the idea of Gala being wrong to repudiate Tylendel because he was insane, not evil. Believe me, if my rider turned into Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd repudiate his butt. True, that's an extreme example. What I mean is, there are criteria that a Chosen must meet before a Companion chooses that person. If there weren't, anyone could be a Herald. When the Chosen exceeds those boundaries I should think the Companion would be justified or possibly even required to draw the line. Evil-intentioned or not, there is only so far that you can allow a person to go. Actions and results are what matter in the world, not intentions. Ask anybody in management. (g) Chantal `[1;37;40mRainbow V 1.20.2 for Delphi - Test Drive ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:37:45 -0400 From: John Hagen To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: My mother in law and Gala Message-ID: <32EB965D.4EA8-+AT+-snet.net> My mother-in-law died 3 weeks ago this coming Tuesday. We have all been going thru a lot of changes since then. Insomnia is the most visible sign. My mother=in-law left me a legacy in the form of a completed novel to be published. It's very good, but I don't have the vaguest notion of who to send it to. All I know is that I need an agent for the book. BTW, the book is not a fantasy. It is a roman a clef about her life after the war in NYC and environs. BTW, she had written one previous novel that was published commercially in Great Britain and sold reasonably well. The reason I brought this up is that you people might possibly know someone who could help. Or on the other hand one of you might be able to help. Please e-mail me privately at john.hagen-+AT+-snet.net and let me know. Now on to Misty matters. The reason Gala never showed up in the Forest of Sorrows is that she and Tylendel/Stef were severed as a couple. At that point she had other things to do. Maybe she was reinced as someone or something else. Lady Sara, Dryad Extraordinaire ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 1075 **********************************