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

[Lee Berman]

>Gerry Quinn: 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 mean "translated" in the sense of using your interpretation that abos are not human but 
instead shapeshifting aliens. Since you have sneered at Star Trek in the past I'm sure you
likewise sneer at the idea that all aliens in our galaxy speak english. Thus, what we read
is translated. And if shapeshifters have the ability to become haystacks or trees or whatever
I can't see how the concept of death could be the same for them as for us. (I also assume you
don't ascribe to the notion that aliens evolved independently into human form on Ste. Anne. I am 
curious Gerry, what do you think is the original form of abos?)
 
>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.
 
Speak for yourself, please. If you would only qualify your words by saying "plain to me" we would
have 85% fewer disagreements. I have made it clear that the text suggests to me that the meaning
of death and motherhood to shapeshifting aliens is likely not the same as our own.
 
>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.
 
Cedar Branches waving's lactation and birthing is probably the best evidence that abos reproduced in our 
human way. But VRT is only half-abo. What is the other half? Human? That makes no sense if abos are 
fully human in form. As Tony observes, the invocation of Dollo's Law implies that abos have lost some
of their previous humanity. Lost it to become...what? Again, the question: What is the original form of abos?
 
>They [shadow children] are expressly *not* acorporeal (they can be eaten) or indeterminate in number.
 
Heh, well, perhaps semi-corporeal is a better term. "I for five"? I could probably lose a few pounds but 
I don't find myself speaking in single first person for five beings very often. "Eaten" is another word 
that probably has diffrent meaning for insubstantial shadows than for us. When I am walking in bright 
sunlight and I stop to stand next to my small son, my shadow swallows his. If shadows could talk is that 
how would they describe what happened? How would they describe it when our shadows separate? (birth?)
 
>> 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.
 
>Gerry: 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.
 
Again with the Daleks. The only one bringing them up is Gerry Quinn. Essentially immortal, shapeshifting beings
are found in more than one Wolfe story. Your denials do not erase them except in your own mind. Which is okay,
but how can you hope to erase them from everyone else's mind?  Pretending they are Daleks? sheesh. I am not 
getting my ideas from Dr. Who. Gerry. All my ideas are inspired and supported BY THE TEXT OF WOLFE BOOKS. 
Please stop insinuating otherwise in your attempts to win arguments and promote your own theories.
 
Someone recently mentioned "a different set of axioms". A good concept to consider. Gerry I understand that you
are satisfied with your own solutions and interpretations to Wolfe's work. I am not. Why do you hope to force
your satisfaction upon someone who sees things differently than you do? You consider my ideas fantastical and 
silly. I consider your ideas to be threadbare and skeletal. But I don't try to tell you your ideas universally 
suck. If they work for you then keep them and use them. If they help someone else, that is also great. I don't 
think your ideas should be repressed or that they are harmful to the lupine universe or whatever. Same for mine.
 
Nobody could possibly match my interpretations of Gene Wolfe word for word because nobody shares my exact brain
architecture. The same is true for each of us.  But when others ask me questions about my ideas it seems to be 
with interest and to help shape them. Your comments reflect an interest only in invalidation and elimination. 
I get no sense of cameraderie  or sharing and comparison of ideas from you. Which is a shame.