(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ

[Gerry Quinn]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>Gerry Quinn:

>>I would have thought that there is good evidence that for the Shadow 
>>Children, death is much the
>>same as it is for us.
>
> That's because of the translated word "death" which is used.

How do you mean, "translated"?  We have a text, presumably written by VRT in 
English, in which he uses the word "death" (or words derived from the same 
root such as "die").  He not only uses the word, he uses it in numerous 
contexts which indicate that it means the same as it means to us (not just 
Shadow Children die, but Hillmen, Marshmen, children, trees struck by 
lightning, the Maitre of 666 Saltimbanque St.


> I think we have thesame problem with the
> word "mother" when shapeshifting abos use the word. What do these words 
> mean when used by alien creatures
> who may not have sexual reproduction or death as we know it?

Again, he uses it in contexts which make it plain that the meaning is the 
same as ours.  Not just his own mother, but Cedar Branches Waving and Seven 
Girls Waiting.

In "A Story" he indicates that the Hillmen reproduce in a fashion that is, 
if not identical to that of humans, is at least very similar.  About 
gestation and birth there is very little room for doubt. He includes a 
sexual interlude between Sandwalker and Seven Girls Waiting.  He has 
Sweetmouth mock the castrated Eastwind.  He enjoys the female fare provided 
by Maitre, and later whatever comforts are provided by Mme.Etienne (about 
whose misuse of candles he has earlier speculated).

There may be some room for speculation about the male seed, if any, of the 
native Annese, though I tend to the view that their reproductive system is 
the same as that of humans, and the only serious doubt concerns whether the 
two species can interbreed.  But there seems no good reason to doubt that 
Hillmen, Marshmen and Shadow Children all die just as humans do.


> Gerry, you are willing to believe the words of Shadow Children when they 
> say they are human even
> though those words are later called into question. You ignore the words of 
> Shadow Children when
> they say they are acorporeal and indeterminate in number, though that part 
> is not called into
> question.

They don't say that.  There are legends about them (we are told by VRT), 
which are substantially explained (in the writings of VRT).  The latter 
indicate that they draw beings into existence which are not in fact true 
Shadow Children.  They are expressly *not* acorporeal (they can be eaten) or 
indeterminate in number ("we have names for one, three, and five")

Why won't you pay attention to the text?  It seems to me that you pick on 
some random half-formed idea, decide this must be the true reading of the 
text, or at least a reading as valid as any other, and then ignore numerous 
parts of the text that show it to be plainly wrong, or even misread the text 
to say it is backing up your latest theory when it very plainly is doing 
nothing of the sort.


> The story takes on worlds of new meaning if you can shuck your own human 
> experience a little and make
> an attempt to understand what it would be like to be an immortal, 
> shapeshifting being who happens
> to currently be in human form.

Or if you understand it as a retelling of Doctor Who or the Daleks.  Or any 
other random idea that is unsupported by the text.

- Gerry Quinn