(urth) do the Hierogrammates *care* about the megatherians?

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>James Wynn: I think your responses to Lee's points were argumentative 
>>without
>>touching on the point he is making.
>
> This is in Gerry's nature and I think I can accept that. Harping on the 
> "giant
> sloth" bit was an error (the correct term for that creature is 
> "megatheriam") but
> what bothers me is the attempt at using it for reductio ad absurdum. To me 
> that is
> a dirty trick to play on a fellow member of the small group of passionate 
> Wolfe fans.
> Why not be respectful of those with whom you share such a narrow interest? 
> But if you
> can't you can't. I have this one cousin who...well, anyway. Regardless of 
> his abrasive
> nature I will always consider him part of the family. Gerry also.

I would call it sarcasm rather than reductio ad absurdum.  Perhaps I should 
not have put it that way, but I was making a real point. Type 'megatherian' 
into any online dictionary, and 'giant extinct ground sloth' is what you 
get.  Even if the iconic creature is known as 'megatherium', it's family are 
the megatherians.

[By the way, I'd personally sooner be noted for occasional sarcasm rather 
than opportunistic ad hominem sniping of the above kind.]

Now it is pretty evident that Wolfe did not mean ground sloths, and probably 
the 17 Megatherians are some line of human rulers, monsters, or humans who 
were for some reason called 'great beasts'.  It is conceivable, though I 
will admit unlikely, that they were a line of hermits who modelled 
themselves after ground sloths, or a heavy metal rock band (if you saw an 
announcement "Coming Soon, The Megatherians" would you fear Abaia, or 
ear-splitting noise?).  Given that the sea monsters aren't known or 
suggested to number 17, I don't see how they can be so blithely identified 
with them.

Also, the title simply doesn't ring true to me if that is who/what they are. 
Apart from the slight connotation of historicity, "Lives of" is a little too 
cosy an expression to use for such monsters.  Of course it can be used as in 
"Lives of the Great Cats" or whatever, but this is describing something that 
would be seen as natural and normal.  Nobody would write "Life of Chulthu", 
or "Life of Satan".  "History of", maybe.  It's not proof or anything like 
it, but I find it hard to believe that the sea monsters are even a strong 
possibility.

- Gerry Quinn