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

[James Wynn]

> Gerry Quinn:
> [...] And (I will just note) the main character of the story is 
> Frog/Romulus. He and his immediate story and twin brother are more 
> central than the details of his ancestors.

Why do you not say that this is the story of Mowgli with a few details 
of Romulus thrown in? The name "Mowgli" actually _means_ 'frog', and 
there are at least as many parallels as with Romulus. There's no Red 
Flower in Romulus' story. What could be more straightforward? Of course, 
there's no Naked One in either story. It only maps to The Jungle Book 
because bear=bare (ha ha ha) but then we know that "puns are not 
translation" so let's ignore that.  And the Red Flower was never 
Mowgli's banner. There are lots details that sort of parallel one story 
or both, but are actually unique.
This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. You see what you think 
your supposed to see and you filter out all the rest.

>> My evidence is based on the clear patterns of the way Wolfe starts 
>> telling this story. Juno being called "Early Summer" is straight 
>> forward--it is just that the translator mixes up what comes from 
>> where. He assumes Juno's name comes from June rather than the other 
>> way around. Rhea Silvia is again a straightforward attempt attempt at 
>> translation.
>
> If puns count as translation!  But yes, Rhea Silvia is clear as 
> daylight, and Juno is perfectly plausible.

If historian of the future, were to tell the story of WW2 and called 
Germany "the Tribes" in his own language, that would not be a pun. That 
is a valid translation for Germany. And if that history traveled in Time 
back to us, and we read that the Tribes had invaded Paris, it would 
sound strange, but it is not a pun.

>> Of course, there is nothing in Romulus' or Remus' name or story to 
>> suggest calling them "Frog" and "Fish". You are arbitrarily stating 
>> that it's random noise because it doesn't fit your preconceived model.
>
> What would *you* suggest calling them?  There is no obvious 
> translation as with Juno or in particular Rhea Silvia.  Any name that 
> sounds like Rome is way too obvious to be usable.

Since when does Wolfe require obvious translations? I suppose a name 
associated with "teat" which is a common etymology of the word "Rome". 
Suddenly, Wolfe _doesn't_ want to be obvious?

> [...]Romulus isn't a character in the books either.  If Romulus could 
> be in a story, Martin Luther King could also.
> As could Neil Armstrong.

It's not Romulus anymore than it is Mowgli. You making the same mistake 
as the mythologers Wolfe is parodying.

> [...]  More importantly, if Wolfe had put a reference to Ymar or 
> Typhon into the story of Frog, it would have been to tell us something 
> about them.  What, exactly, do you think we are being told?

Ymar's parentage and a glimpse at the vast history Wolfe has imagined. 
What is the purpose of mentioning the Nargothrond or Moria in "The Hobbit"?

> I'm asking - if Wolfe is for some reason telling us the story of 
> Romulus, but hinting (in a manner too subtle for me)...

yep. It went right over your head.
It's not the story of Romulus. Nor is it the story of Mowgli. That is 
the mistake the mythographers made. And you are making it write along 
with them. I'm appreciating Wolfe's joke more and more.

J.