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

[David Stockhoff]

Basically the same point I made at 9:25 this morning.

But I would like to see (though not necessarily hear) a band called "The 
Megatherians."

On 5/22/2011 2:25 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 110522-0, 05/22/2011
> Tested on: 5/22/2011 2:27:05 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110522-0, 05/22/2011
Tested on: 5/22/2011 3:09:48 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com