Useful Shadow Magic spells?
Peter Knutsen
anyway), so here's a question...:
Johan the Trickster is a master of Illusion Magic, and can also use
Light Magic, and use Body Magic to enhance his senses and temporarily
get new senses, e.g. the ability to see infrared light or hear
ultrasound, so that he can become even better at making illusions. His
ability with other forms of Body Magic is quite limited.
He also used to be able to cast Shadow Magic spells, that is spells that
manipulate, create or enhance shadows, in some way, but due to a big
spellcasting accident, he is no longer able to cast those spells -
permanently.
He still has knowledge of Shadow Magic, and knows a lot of spells, and
when Enchanting his spellcasting Focus (a silver arm ring, which he has
named "Shadow-Band"), soon after the accident, he decided that he would
put some of the most useful Shadow Magic spells into the Focus, so that
*it* can cast those spells at intervals, e.g. a few times per day, per
week, or per moon, depending on how powerful each spell is.
Johan is a sort of agent-for-hire, a bit like a mercenary except he's
not too good at this violence thing, so he prefers screwing people's
minds instead, with his illusions, to complete the mission.
In that light, what Shadow Magic spells would Johan want to put into his
Focus, seeing as each spell put into it costs him Essence, a ressource
which Johan can also put to use for other things, such as directly
making the Focus improve his ability to use Illusion Magic.
I've come up with three good candidates, but Johan has room for 1-3
additional spells, if any of you can think of some good ones.
1. Suppress Light Source.
This spell works at some range, and can temporarily suppress all light
emission from one targeted light source, such as a candle, torch or
bonfire, or a light-creating spell. Either the spell comes in multiple
"levels" depending on what strength of light it can suppress (in which
case Johan has to choose one level of the spell, e.g. the torch-grade
level), or else the spell is not guaranteed to work, depending on how
strong the spell is relative to how strong the light source is, or else
the spell *is* guaranteed to work, but the duration depends on how
strong the spell is relative to how strong the light source is. This
means that even if it is a fairly weak spell it can still supress the
light from a small bonfire for a few seconds. Perhaps time enough to
sneak past it, if one is quick.
2. Cloak of Shadows.
This spell covers the target in a shadowy armour, which makes him harder
to see under poor light conditions (and harder to hit with weapons too).
3. Create Darkness.
This spell creates a cloud of darkness, covering a few dozen square
meters and lasting for a few minutes.
All eminently useful spells if one is a sort of secret agent in a
low-tech type world (although the second one is somewhat redundant with
invisibility spell effects, something Johan is very good at), and all
having to do with Shadow as a naturally occuring phemonenon, without any
moral angle to it (Shadow Magic is no more evil than Light Magic is
good, although readers/players sometimes assume this).
Any other suggetions?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Rik Roots
Anyone got a nice regex filter to bypass the current spam? Most of it
seems to have titles starting with a non-alphanumeric character, or
includes 'www.' in the title, but my regex skillz are rusty ...
Rik
Peter Knutsen
> Just replying so folks don't lose the question in the spam ...
Thanks.
> Anyone got a nice regex filter to bypass the current spam? Most of it
> seems to have titles starting with a non-alphanumeric character, or
> includes 'www.' in the title, but my regex skillz are rusty ...
The last 8-10 spams I see have subjects that do start with a regular
alphabetic characters. Then again, I almost only see spam from a
Priyanka Mehta. It's possible that there is a lot of other spam that my
Usenet ISP filters out.
Worst case scenario, we can do what they did in < news:alt.sex.stories.d
>, which is to start all non-spam posts with a specific tag. I've lost
access to that group now, but the scheme worked for years and years,
without any spammers ever catching on to it. In that group, we used
{assd} or {ASSD} as the tag. On here, we could just use {RASFC}.
In a.s.s.d most users just filtered away all posts without the tag, but
there'd be a few, including me (back when I could access the group) who
didn't filter, and so if someone wrote an on-topic post without the tag,
one of us would reply to the post, adding the tag.
It worked well, and that was in a group in the sex-hierarchy which one
would expect to be hugely spam-prone, so it should work at least equally
well in here.
Alternatively, just check for posts that have been replied to, although
that's a very imperfect method, because lots of people still reply to
spam posts to complain about it.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Eric Ammadon
>Only one new non-spam thread in the last 9-10 days (that I can see,
>anyway),
When all the "trolls" are chased away, that's what you're left with.
> so here's a question...:
Moving ever forward is probably a better approach than many.
It seems like a Twiddle Shadow capability could be quite useful, using
it Johan could make his own shadow appear to be that of a cat, or a
street lamp, or whatever is useful at the moment.
Making still shadows appear to move, or moving shadows appear still,
could be part of the ability to Twiddle a shadow, or it could be
considered a separate capability.
Would it be too much to have a Solidify Shadow ability, that would
allow shadows to be given some actual mass?
If the lad could twiddle shadows, make them move, and solidify them,
he'd be a trickster to reckon with.
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
Eric Ammadon
>Just replying so folks don't lose the question in the spam ...
>
>Anyone got a nice regex filter to bypass the current spam? Most of it
>seems to have titles starting with a non-alphanumeric character, or
>includes 'www.' in the title, but my regex skillz are rusty ...
>
>Rik
I've been comforting myself that the current idjut uses a series of
~~~~ chars in his/her/its message titles so at least they're easy to
identify and I can skip them even though the ancient version of Agent
I'm using won't allow the use of ~~~~ characters in filter
expressions. But now that you've mentioned regular expressions, I've
remembered that Agent supposedly supports regex's (something I've
never fiddled with) in filters, which might be a way of getting rid
of the damned things.
In other words to answer your question, "no but maybe soon".
netcat
pe...@sagatafl.invalid says...
> Rik Roots wrote:
> > Just replying so folks don't lose the question in the spam ...
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Anyone got a nice regex filter to bypass the current spam? Most of it
> > seems to have titles starting with a non-alphanumeric character, or
> > includes 'www.' in the title, but my regex skillz are rusty ...
>
> The last 8-10 spams I see have subjects that do start with a regular
> alphabetic characters. Then again, I almost only see spam from a
> Priyanka Mehta.
Yes, me too. There haven't been that many, maybe a handful each day.
Before that Priyanka type turned up I didn't see any spam here at all.
rgds,
netcat
Eric Ammadon
>Anyone got a nice regex filter to bypass the current spam?
This seems to work:
Subject: {[~~]+}
Joy Beeson
<net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
Priyanka spam is the only spam I've seen for a long, long time.
And it wasn't thick enough that I noticed it until today. (It comes
in marked read, so I don't see it unless there is a large block.)
(So I must have seen one on some newsgroup, but I haven't noticed it.)
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Snerk -- my spell checker required me to click "ignore priyanka".
Bill Swears
How about a direct illusion of John, doing something innocuous? John
thinks he has an assassin on his tail, he casts a quick illusion, and
the assassin follows that, instead of the real john, who either casts a
shadow on himself, or does something unusual that would cause the
assassin/ex-girlfriend to look away.
Another possibility, John can make everybody in the area look like one
person, to everybody in the area. So, suddenly everyone in a crowd looks
just like the king, who John knows relatively well.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
James A. Donald
> having to do with Shadow as a naturally occuring phemonenon, without any
> moral angle to it (Shadow Magic is no more evil than Light Magic is
> good, although readers/players sometimes assume this).
Since shadow magic conceals, and light magic reveals, Light *should*
be good, and shadow magic *should* be evil.
Morally neutral magic is a bit pointless - it might as well be
technology.
Peter Knutsen
> It seems like a Twiddle Shadow capability could be quite useful, using
> it Johan could make his own shadow appear to be that of a cat, or a
> street lamp, or whatever is useful at the moment.
But Johan can do that with Illusion Magic spells, which he can cast
himself, on an ad hoc-basis, and which he gets better at at a steady
pace as he ages, studies his specific art, and uses his abilities in
high-pressure situations.
It's just rendering the original shadow invisible with one Illusion
spell, then casting a second Illusion spell to make a new shadow appear.
Or doing it all with a single spell.
It is quite possible that it would be *easier* to do with Shadow Magic,
as in requiring a 2nd level spell, compared to a 4th level Illusion
spell to achieve the same effect. Johan might even have specifically
invented a Twiddle Shadows spell. He's that kind of obsessed.
I just don't see it as being useful enough, if one thinks in Mission
Impossible terms, for Johan to spend Essence on putting such a spell
into his arm ring Focus. He only has so much Essence to spend, ever, so
he'll try to put it to optimal use, and twiddling shadows seems to me
more suited to entertaining children than to fooling enemies.
It could be a fun spell that he can teach his wife, and their children
(if they're able to learn magic easily), though.
> Making still shadows appear to move, or moving shadows appear still,
> could be part of the ability to Twiddle a shadow, or it could be
> considered a separate capability.
>
> Would it be too much to have a Solidify Shadow ability, that would
> allow shadows to be given some actual mass?
Sorry, that's a no-no. Shadow Magic and Illusion Magic cannot have any
physical effects, and Light Magic cannot have any physical effect except
illuminating something or blinding someone temporarily.
> If the lad could twiddle shadows, make them move, and solidify them,
> he'd be a trickster to reckon with.
Imagine you're the boss of the IMF, and have a budget of some hundred
million dollars to spend on gadgets and cutting-edge technological
research. Would shadow-manipulation really be all that useful?
I'm not seeing it. As long as it is just a spell, something Johan can
cast on an as-needed basis, without having to sacrifice Essence, it
fits, is in-character, and might even occasionally be useful. But I
can't see it as ending up on his top 3 or top 4 list of favourite Shadow
Magic spells, which he's willing to pay for with blood, in order to
still be able to use them during missions.
Same with Cloak-of-Shadows, actually. Or at least it's a borderline
case. Cast as a spell, it's fine. Having to pay for it with Essence?
That's a whole different picture.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> How about a direct illusion of John, doing something innocuous? John
> thinks he has an assassin on his tail, he casts a quick illusion, and
Sure, but that's just Illusion Magic, not Shadow Magic, so Johan
wouldn't have to put such a spell into his Focus item. Johan only lost
the ability to cast Shadow Magic spells, not Illusion spells, so if
there are some Shadow Magic spells that are sufficiently useful to him,
he's willing to pay precious Essence to put those spells into his Focus
item, so that it can cast them for him.
But if a given Shadow Magic spell isn't sufficiently useful, then Johan
will prefer to spend the Essence it would have cost on something else,
such as making his Focus item a stronger Focus (i.e. to aid him when he
casts spells of those types that he can still cast).
Also, he has to make all decisions at one point in time, while
Enchanting the arm ring. He cannot later go back and "upgrade" it. Nor
can he ever regain the Essence he spent on the Enchantments.
One thing a magic item can do more easily than a human spellcaster, is
cast a spell very quickly, but again, that costs Essence, so it's a
careful consideration, and Johan already has extensive training in
casting spells under mission conditions, including casting them pretty fast.
> the assassin follows that, instead of the real john, who either casts a
> shadow on himself, or does something unusual that would cause the
> assassin/ex-girlfriend to look away.
Invisibility effects are Illusion Magic.
The obvious candidate for a quick-spell, put into his Focus item would
indeed be a spell to turn him invisible, possibly also sound-less and
scent-less (he is that obsessively thorough), really fast, and possibly
garnished with a second illusion of Johan moving someplace else and
doing something else as an added distraction.
At some point an item-casting does become more efficient than a personal
casting, in some ways, but it is also very inflexible, and it costs
Essence, and the quality of the illusion would reflect Johan's knowledge
at the time he Enchants the item, so if he later on learns new things,
realizes he has made consistent mistakes earlier (e.g. assuming that
male eyelashes are actually different from female eyelashes - AFAIK they
aren't), he cannot "edit" the item to correct it, but he can of course
produce more believable illusions from then on, as long as he casts the
spells in person.
> Another possibility, John can make everybody in the area look like one
> person, to everybody in the area. So, suddenly everyone in a crowd looks
> just like the king, who John knows relatively well.
Sure, but that's Illusion Magic.
Shadow Magic is in some ways rather limited, compared to other families
of spells.
Perhaps only those 2 spells, Suppress Light and Create Shadows, are
sufficiently useful. And possibly Cloak-of-Shadows makes the pass too.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> Peter Knutsen
> > all
> > having to do with Shadow as a naturally occuring phemonenon, without any
> > moral angle to it (Shadow Magic is no more evil than Light Magic is
> > good, although readers/players sometimes assume this).
>
> Since shadow magic conceals, and light magic reveals, Light *should*
> be good, and shadow magic *should* be evil.
That is very much a viewpoint associated with a particular philosophy
of morality.
Bikinis reveal, while chadors conceal, and some find the latter more
moral.
More generally, it's not at all obvious that bringing all things into
the open is morally beneficial or even neutral, although some would
claim it. Fewer nowadays that a few decades ago, perhaps.
> Morally neutral magic is a bit pointless - it might as well be
> technology.
Well, it has a different flavour at least, which may be what the author
is looking for.
- Gerry Quinn
David Friedman
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > Morally neutral magic is a bit pointless - it might as well be
> > technology.
>
> Well, it has a different flavour at least, which may be what the author
> is looking for.
>
At a slight tangent, it seems to me that people have a strong tendency
to see technology as morally loaded, in one direction or another.
Consider the popular conflation of nuclear reactors with nuclear bombs.
Or, in the other direction, the emotional reaction of a
technophile--myself, for instance--to some clever new gadget.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Jacey Bedford
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> writes
>1. Suppress Light Source.
>2. Cloak of Shadows.
>3. Create Darkness.
>Any other suggetions?
How about banishing shadows to reveal anyone else hiding in them?
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
Eric Ammadon
Sorry I wasn't able to help. We seem to have quite different concepts
of magic. You're thinking that shadow manipulation isn't all that
useful, and that reminds me of Plato's Cave, and all I can do is shrug
and wish you luck.
James A. Donald
> > Since shadow magic conceals, and light magic
> > reveals, Light *should* be good, and shadow magic
> > *should* be evil.
Gerry Quinn
> That is very much a viewpoint associated with a
> particular philosophy of morality.
A large part of what makes a story set in a magical
universe entertaining is that human will, desire,
expectations, and values have physical impact directly,
and not merely through their effect on human actions.
Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
morality, but that true morality is in the non human
universe, not merely in the nature of men.
Thus, for example, in a magical universe, not only is it
unwise to decline the advice of a grandfather figure, it
is also bad luck, and a grandfather can inadvertently
jinx his grandchildren by giving advice that may be
overlooked or ignored.
> Bikinis reveal, while chadors conceal, and some find
> the latter more moral.
No one would suppose a woman standing in shadow is being
less seductive than a woman standing in light. Indeed,
when women are trying to be seductive, they
instinctively head for shadow. It is a tell. The
seduction community has a nerdly phrase for it, though I
do not know the phrase. A woman stands in the shadows
so that she can emit non verbal signals that only her
target perceives.
One of the theories underlying the chador is that
women's bodies emit a magical radiation that drives men
to madness
Another theory is that women are apt to get up to
mischief, and that the chador prevents them from
emitting non verbal signals, consciously or
unconsciously. Neither theory is concealment, except in
the sense that a gag is concealment. A third theory is
that by showing critical areas of skin, a woman is
emitting a non verbal signal - which is close to being a
concealment theory, but not quite.
> More generally, it's not at all obvious that bringing
> all things into the open is morally beneficial or even
> neutral, although some would claim it.
If everything is in the open, the powerful can coerce
the weak. If wealth is in the open, it will be
attacked. But also, public opinion can coerce deviance.
So even if putting everything in the open is bad, even
if not only evil hides in the shadows, but also wealth
and weakness, nonetheless evil hides in the shadows.
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:bauof5dtc82hhtsg6...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
> morality, but that true morality is in the non human
> universe, not merely in the nature of men.
Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
> Thus, for example, in a magical universe, not only is it
> unwise to decline the advice of a grandfather figure,
Except, of course, in the ones in which it isn't.
[...]
James A. Donald
> > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
> > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
> > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
"Brian M. Scott"
> Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
and significant readership.
In most books published, and in every book that is not a
miserable sales failure, magic is morally loaded - you
have dark magic and light magic, and or the moral
character of the spell or spellcaster makes a difference
and or ....
That is to say, provide an example where you found the
book in a library or bookshop, or read it because
recommended by a reader, rather than an example where
you wrote it an no one read it, or a fellow writer
inflicted the book on you for review.
David Goldfarb
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>"James A. Donald"
>> > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
>> > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
>> > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
>
>"Brian M. Scott"
>> Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
>
>Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
>and significant readership.
I can give you two: Poul Anderson, _Operation Chaos_, and
Randall Garrett, _Too Many Magicians_. (Since you are incapable
of admitting error, you will of course now move the goalposts
by asserting that these beloved classics have a readership
that is not significant.)
--
David Goldfarb |"The gentle journey jars to stop;
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | The drifting dream is done.
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | The long gone goblins loom ahead;
| The deadly, that we thought were dead,
| Stand waiting, every one." -- Walt Kelly
James A. Donald
> >Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
> >and significant readership.
David Goldfarb
> I can give you two: Poul Anderson, _Operation Chaos_, and
> Randall Garrett, _Too Many Magicians_. (Since you are incapable
> of admitting error, you will of course now move the goalposts
> by asserting that these beloved classics have a readership
> that is not significant.)
The back cover of "Operation Chaos" reads "in a war waged against
black magic ..."
Similarly for "too many magicians" It is a lord Darcy book, and the
lord Darcy universe works by moralistic magic. The problem is usually
"black magic" and murders are typically committed by "magic most foul"
Page 5 from "Lord Darcy", a book that contains several Lord Darcy
stories, among them "too many magicians":
"since he had taken up black magic as a hobby, he had, she suspected
been actually afraid to go anywhere near a church"
Now let me hear you admit error.
Books with morally neutral magic are seldom written, if written,
seldom published, if published, fail to sell.
Eric Ammadon
>"James A. Donald"
>> > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
>> > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
>> > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
>
>"Brian M. Scott"
>> Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
>
>Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
>and significant readership.
"significant readership"? Whazzat?
Five-Twelfths Of Heaven, Melissa Scott (1985)
First of a three book series so maybe readership could be assumed.
Magic seems very morality-neutral in that setting. Magic is used for
good and evil purposes, but magics are not classified as to good/bad,
light/dark, etc.
James A. Donald
wrote:
Nominally, it is a science setting. The magic is supposedly
superscience. The universe has FTL travel, subspace, hyperspace,
human settled universe, and so forth, and has no ghosts, elves, gods,
angels, werewolves, vampires, or demons. The main character travels
by starship, not broomstick. Heaven is actually hyperspace, and five
twelths of heaven is the hyper velocity of the starship that the main
character pilots. Further, the main character is put under a mind
control geas, which is evil mad science, and if it is magic, which
supposedly it is not, is definitely evil magic.
Now you might say it is "really" magic, not superscience, but the
reason it is morally neutral, to the extent that it is morally
neutral, is because it is supposedly science. If the starship travels
by magic, rather than superscience yes morally neutral magic ftl - but
if the geas is magic, not morally neutral.
(The mad science genre tends to mingle magic and science tropes, so
unsurprisingly violates any generalization one makes about the
difference between science based fictional worlds, and magic based
fictional worlds, because is intentionally unclear and debatable about
whether it is a magic based or superscience based world)
Eric Ammadon
I've only read the first of the series (when I first read it the
others were as yet unwritten, and having recently re-read it I find
the sequels are not in my local library) so you may be drawing on
information I'm not privy to, and your conclusions may be valid or
not.
The geas is an evil application of morality-neutral magic, had it been
an application of evil-magic it would have been unbreakable except by
an evil practitioner.
As for the starship traveling through hyperspace, the pilot exercises
strictly mental procedures to identify the course through purgatory
and a mechanism to change the course of the ship; I can see it argued
either way.
Ric Locke
You have to watch out. As he often does, I believe without realizing it
himself, James is providing a definition, not arguing a proposition.
If it is morally neutral or irrelevant to morality, and it works, it
must have definite and fixed rules and mechanisms. The rules and
mechanisms may be subtle or even complex to the point of contradiction
(/vide/ quantum mechanics) but they work the same for everybody. Such a
system is "science". Whether or not a person can learn, e.g., the finer
complexities of physics depends on intellectual capacity, which is
analogous to muscular strength and has no moral component.
If the system is morally loaded, the rules by which it works will be
arbitrary and differ according to which individual employs it. This may
be an abstract of "good and evil" or interaction with supernatural
beings that have their own agendas, but in any case the ability to learn
or use the system is personality-dependent and involves making moral
and/or ethical choices. Such a system is "magic". Only specific
individuals with particular orientations can learn (or be born to) use
of it; an arbitrarily selected person can do so only if favored by
chance or some higher power acting from non-human motives.
That seems to me a useful way of making the distinction, although as
with most any definition it implies overlaps and gray areas.
Regards,
Ric
James A. Donald
> >> >> > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
> >> >> > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
> >> >> > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
Eric Ammadon
> >> Five-Twelfths Of Heaven, Melissa Scott (1985)
Eric Ammadon
> The geas is an evil application of morality-neutral magic, had it been
> an application of evil-magic it would have been unbreakable except by
> an evil practitioner.
We are arguing about what kind of magic supposed superscience is in a
universe of ftl travel and interstellar colonization. I doubt there
is a meaningful answer to this question. If it is nominally
superscience, but really magic spells, maybe it is nominally morally
neutral, but actually morality affects the spells.
Larry Niven's universe had psychic powers and a mass detector that
could only be operated by a conscious being. Does that make his
universe a universe of morally neutral magic? If you argue that
Melissa Scott's universe is really magical, then the ringworld
universe is also magical. And if ringworld psychic powers are really
magic, not science, then the psychic powers are not morally neutral -
Kzinti telepathy is obviously evil magic, Teela's luck is obviously
good magic - her powers sacrifice her for the good of mankind.
But clearly, when we start arguing what kind of magic a space opera
uses, we are doing too much interpretation. It is science. The
author tells us so.
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:srjpf5d0ra6ovapoa...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "James A. Donald"
>>> Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
>>> morality, but that true morality is in the non human
>>> universe, not merely in the nature of men.
> "Brian M. Scott"
>> Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
> Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
> and significant readership.
Modesitt's Recluce novels. And if you think that his order
magic equates to good and his chaos magic to evil, you've
badly missed the point. It's even more obviously the case
with his new Imager series.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
<warric...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1tfi9kwhnod09.1...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
>> [...]
>> [...]
It's sufficiently out of alignment with my own usage that I
don't myself find it useful, but it's reasonable enough, and
I can see that others might find it so. (I'm not convinced
that it underlies JAD's comment, though.)
Brian
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And speaking of Imagers, it's clear in Stephen Donaldson's Mordant
Dualogy that Image magic is neither good nor evil, just a power that can
be used for good or evil by those with the talent.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Eric Ammadon
The thing about "rules" is that they are fixed (thus they may be
subject to formalization and subsequent mechanization as technology),
as opposed to "properties of operation" which might contain some
aspects that makes them unquantifiable as "rules".
For example, DDF's Salamander has what I'd consider properties of
operation, but if such a thing was sentient or near-sentient those
properties might involve whether it likes the practitioner or if
perhaps something about the wannabe practitioner pisses it off.
David Friedman
Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
> For example, DDF's Salamander has what I'd consider properties of
> operation, but if such a thing was sentient or near-sentient those
> properties might involve whether it likes the practitioner or if
> perhaps something about the wannabe practitioner pisses it off.
And I think the implication, at least as I have written it, is that it
is and that they do. Only one human has ever found an elemental and
survived the experience, so far as we know.
John W Kennedy
> In article <srjpf5d0ra6ovapoa...@4ax.com>,
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> "James A. Donald"
>>>> Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
>>>> morality, but that true morality is in the non human
>>>> universe, not merely in the nature of men.
>> "Brian M. Scott"
>>> Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
>> Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
>> and significant readership.
>
> I can give you two: Poul Anderson, _Operation Chaos_, and
> Randall Garrett, _Too Many Magicians_. (Since you are incapable
> of admitting error, you will of course now move the goalposts
> by asserting that these beloved classics have a readership
> that is not significant.)
Magic is not morally neutral in the Lord Darcy universe, where the
practice of black magic is known to bring about insanity, death, and
damnation, while the very definition of black magic is a moral one, even
subject to the usual problems of casuistics.
On the other hand, in the somewhat similar "Harry Potter" universe,
morality and magic operating independently, though positive law
proscribes certain curses.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> "James A. Donald"
> > > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
> > > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
> > > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
>
> "Brian M. Scott"
> > Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
>
> Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
> and significant readership.
Lyonesse, by Jack Vance.
Magicians are equally divided among heroes and villains here. Many are
selfish and power-crazed, but this condition is not ubiquitous among
magicians, nor unique to them.
- Gerry Quinn
Michelle Bottorff
> The back cover of "Operation Chaos" reads "in a war waged against
> black magic ..."
>
> Similarly for "too many magicians" It is a lord Darcy book, and the
> lord Darcy universe works by moralistic magic. The problem is usually
> "black magic" and murders are typically committed by "magic most foul"
>
> Page 5 from "Lord Darcy", a book that contains several Lord Darcy
> stories, among them "too many magicians":
> "since he had taken up black magic as a hobby, he had, she suspected
> been actually afraid to go anywhere near a church"
>
> Now let me hear you admit error.
I don't own these books, and it's been a while since I read my sister's
copies, but I seem to recall Darcy's magical aide explaining about how
evilness isn't inherent in the magic, that magic can be used to do evil,
but calling it "black magic" is just something that people that don't
really understand magic very well do, because there really is no such
thing, and the magic the murders use is the exact same magic he uses to
help catch them.
Which would explain the condescending tone of "been actually afraid to
go anywhere near a church", which is something you say when there is no
reason whatsoever to be afraid, but some dumb putz is being afraid
anyway -- what an idiot!
--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
James A. Donald
> himself, James is providing a definition, not arguing a proposition.
I am arguing an observable correlation: That the usual indications of
sword and sorcery that show up on the book cover indicate morally
loaded magic system within - if the book gets far enough to have a
book cover.
Of course, when one has starships and psionic powers, the definition
rather than the observable is more appropriate, since it is not
altogether clear what is magic, what is science, and what is mad
science.
Observe that Kzinti telepathy in the Niven universe is evil magic, for
not only is it used for evil purposes by evil people, but it also
drains the life force of the practitioners rather than the batteries
of the psigen. But, of course, when applying this proposition to
starships and psi, it becomes a mere definition, rather than an
observable.
James A. Donald
> > The back cover of "Operation Chaos" reads "in a war
> > waged against black magic ..."
> >
> > Similarly for "too many magicians" It is a lord
> > Darcy book, and the lord Darcy universe works by
> > moralistic magic. The problem is usually "black
> > magic" and murders are typically committed by "magic
> > most foul"
> >
> > Page 5 from "Lord Darcy", a book that contains
> > several Lord Darcy stories, among them "too many
> > magicians": "since he had taken up black magic as a
> > hobby, he had, she suspected been actually afraid to
> > go anywhere near a church"
> >
> > Now let me hear you admit error.
Michelle Bottorff
> I don't own these books, and it's been a while since I
> read my sister's copies, but I seem to recall Darcy's
> magical aide explaining about how evilness isn't
> inherent in the magic, that magic can be used to do
> evil, but calling it "black magic" is just something
> that people that don't really understand magic very
> well do, because there really is no such thing, and
> the magic the murders use is the exact same magic he
> uses to help catch them.
So I read on to page 8
Lair Duncan of Duncan opened the door and
wheeled himself out. He was followed by a
malodorous gust of vapor from the room he had
just left. Lady Duncan stared at him.
He looked older than he had last night, more
haggard and worn, and there was something in his
eyes she did not like. For a moment he said
nothing. Then he wet his lips with the tip of
his tongue. When he spoke, his voice sounded
dazed.
"there is nothing to fear any more", he said.
"Nothing to fear at all"
I am pretty sure that is *not* the exact same magic that
Lord Darcy uses.
James A. Donald
> > > > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a
> > > > true morality, but that true morality is in the
> > > > non human universe, not merely in the nature of
> > > > men.
"Brian M. Scott"
> > > Except, of course, in the ones in which there
> > > isn't.
"James A. Donald"
> > Provide an example of a book with morally neutral
> > magic and significant readership.
"Brian M. Scott"
> Modesitt's Recluce novels. And if you think that his
> order magic equates to good and his chaos magic to
> evil, ...
In the Recluse universe, using magic to destroy harms
the destroyer. Thus it is a moralistic universe.
In the Recluce universe, Chaos magic is used for
destruction. Order magic is used to strengthen, to
build, to resist destruction. Chaos magic drains the
life force of its users.
One could say that chaos magic is like dynamite. There
is nothing evil about dynamite, even though it is used
for destruction - but dynamite does not drain the life
force of its users.
If that is your example, you are mighty hard up for
examples.
James A. Donald
> > > > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a
> > > > true morality, but that true morality is in the
> > > > non human universe, not merely in the nature of
> > > > men.
"Brian M. Scott"
> > > Except, of course, in the ones in which there
> > > isn't.
James A. Donald:
> > Provide an example of a book with morally neutral
> > magic and significant readership.
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> Lyonesse, by Jack Vance.
The magic of Lyonesse is the magic of magical beings,
including that of magical objects which have minds of
their own, and these beings are clearly good or evil,
and motivated largely by desire to do good or to do
evil. Thus you don't just have healing magic. You have
some object that embodies a being that *desires* to
heal, and when someone is injured, will demand that you
use it.
Then he put the sneer back on. "You will see
the power of monsters and those who manage
them," he said. "And then you will be ashamed
you were so cheeky, but it will be too late"
"The power of monsters and those who manage them" is not
morally neutral magic.
Eric Ammadon
>"James A. Donald"
>> >> >> > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
>> >> >> > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
>> >> >> > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
>
>Eric Ammadon
>> >> Five-Twelfths Of Heaven, Melissa Scott (1985)
>
>Eric Ammadon
>> The geas is an evil application of morality-neutral magic, had it been
>> an application of evil-magic it would have been unbreakable except by
>> an evil practitioner.
>
>We are arguing about what kind of magic supposed superscience is in a
>universe of ftl travel and interstellar colonization. I doubt there
>is a meaningful answer to this question.
Then let's not.
Eric Ammadon
>In article <uderf5lrsrlj7lkc4...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>
>> For example, DDF's Salamander has what I'd consider properties of
>> operation, but if such a thing was sentient or near-sentient those
>> properties might involve whether it likes the practitioner or if
>> perhaps something about the wannabe practitioner pisses it off.
>
>And I think the implication, at least as I have written it, is that it
>is and that they do. Only one human has ever found an elemental and
>survived the experience, so far as we know.
The others must have been rude. <g>
Gerry Quinn
media.com>, dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says...
> In article <MPG.256645a1a...@news.indigo.ie>,
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > > Morally neutral magic is a bit pointless - it might as well be
> > > technology.
> >
> > Well, it has a different flavour at least, which may be what the author
> > is looking for.
> >
> At a slight tangent, it seems to me that people have a strong tendency
> to see technology as morally loaded, in one direction or another.
> Consider the popular conflation of nuclear reactors with nuclear bombs.
> Or, in the other direction, the emotional reaction of a
> technophile--myself, for instance--to some clever new gadget.
True enough. Though the moral conflation may often owe as much to
politics as to technological ignorance on the part of those keen to
promote the conflation.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> James A. Donald:
> > > Since shadow magic conceals, and light magic
> > > reveals, Light *should* be good, and shadow magic
> > > *should* be evil.
>
> Gerry Quinn
> > That is very much a viewpoint associated with a
> > particular philosophy of morality.
>
> A large part of what makes a story set in a magical
> universe entertaining is that human will, desire,
> expectations, and values have physical impact directly,
> and not merely through their effect on human actions.
> Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
> morality, but that true morality is in the non human
> universe, not merely in the nature of men.
This seems too great a generalisation. There are many magical
universes. Where is the morality inhering external to men in the
magical universes of Jack Vance, for example?
> > Bikinis reveal, while chadors conceal, and some find
> > the latter more moral.
>
> No one would suppose a woman standing in shadow is being
> less seductive than a woman standing in light. Indeed,
> when women are trying to be seductive, they
> instinctively head for shadow. It is a tell. The
> seduction community has a nerdly phrase for it, though I
> do not know the phrase. A woman stands in the shadows
> so that she can emit non verbal signals that only her
> target perceives.
>
> One of the theories underlying the chador is that
> women's bodies emit a magical radiation that drives men
> to madness
A not unreasonable hypothesis - but I doubt whether it underlies the
concept of the chador, whose materials seem to be chosen for their
power to block electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum, and
to have sufficient compressive strength to conceal the details of the
wearer's shape.
> Another theory is that women are apt to get up to
> mischief, and that the chador prevents them from
> emitting non verbal signals, consciously or
> unconsciously. Neither theory is concealment, except in
> the sense that a gag is concealment. A third theory is
> that by showing critical areas of skin, a woman is
> emitting a non verbal signal - which is close to being a
> concealment theory, but not quite.
Are there the theories of Jim Donald, or theories mooted by specific
chador designers or enthusiasts?
> > More generally, it's not at all obvious that bringing
> > all things into the open is morally beneficial or even
> > neutral, although some would claim it.
>
> If everything is in the open, the powerful can coerce
> the weak. If wealth is in the open, it will be
> attacked. But also, public opinion can coerce deviance.
> So even if putting everything in the open is bad, even
> if not only evil hides in the shadows, but also wealth
> and weakness, nonetheless evil hides in the shadows.
That is only to say that both good and evil will choose shadow or
light, as the situation demands.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> > > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
> > > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
> > > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
>
> "Brian M. Scott"
> > Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
>
> Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
> and significant readership.
Already answered - the books of Jack Vance, specifically Lyonesse and
the Dying Earth series. Magic comes from varying sources, but that
magic practiced by good and evil magicians (not that 'good' runs
rampant in the Dying Earth) is of a generally similar nature.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> James A. Donald:
> > > Provide an example of a book with morally neutral
> > > magic and significant readership.
>
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> > Lyonesse, by Jack Vance.
[Sorry, I reposted this example a moment ago, forgetting that I had
posted this.]
> The magic of Lyonesse is the magic of magical beings,
> including that of magical objects which have minds of
> their own,
Largely, this is correct.
> and these beings are clearly good or evil,
> and motivated largely by desire to do good or to do
> evil.
Far from true. In many cases, their minds appear to be such that
Earthly events are bizarre and incomprehensible to them, as they come
from dimensions where matters are organsided differently. [Admittedly
some of the apparent stupidities sandestins are prone to probably
derive from caprice, or resentment at their indentiture.]
> Thus you don't just have healing magic. You have
> some object that embodies a being that *desires* to
> heal, and when someone is injured, will demand that you
> use it.
There seems to be little explicit healing magic in Lyonesse, although
magicians evidently can access some powers that render them nearly
immortal. I recall nothing being mentioned about it though. Where
does the incident you refer to occur?
> Then he put the sneer back on. "You will see
> the power of monsters and those who manage
> them," he said. "And then you will be ashamed
> you were so cheeky, but it will be too late"
>
> "The power of monsters and those who manage them" is not
> morally neutral magic.
On the contrary - the above statement would be equally meaningful if it
referred to weapons, or ninja robot cats, rather to monsters. Thus
Nerulf: "Haha! Pleasure for he who holds the whip!"
- Gerry Quinn
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:c8gsf5tkhvf0vj9lg...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> In the Recluce universe, Chaos magic is used for
> destruction. Order magic is used to strengthen, to
> build, to resist destruction.
One could just as well point out that perfect order is
death, and that destruction is sometimes necessary.
> Chaos magic drains the life force of its users.
Not precisely, no.
As I suspected: you've missed the point. It probably won't
do any good, but you might consider Naclos and the druids.
[...]
Michelle Bottorff
> I am pretty sure that is *not* the exact same magic that
> Lord Darcy uses.
Lord Darcy isn't a magician.
James A. Donald
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
"James A. Donald"
> > Chaos magic drains the life force of its users.
>
> Not precisely, no.
>
> As I suspected: you've missed the point.
As usual, you make claims without evidence, cite something almost at
random as evidence, and then claim, without explanation, to have won
the argument.
In the Recluce universe, destroying people and things with chaos magic
is different from destroying stuff with dynamite in our universe - a
difference that makes the universe moralistic
James A. Donald
> > > > Provide an example of a book with morally neutral
> > > > magic and significant readership.
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> > > Lyonesse, by Jack Vance.
James Donald:
> > Then he put the sneer back on. "You will see
> > the power of monsters and those who manage
> > them," he said. "And then you will be ashamed
> > you were so cheeky, but it will be too late"
> >
> > "The power of monsters and those who manage them" is not
> > morally neutral magic.
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> On the contrary - the above statement would be equally meaningful if it
> referred to weapons, or ninja robot cats, rather to monsters.
And it would mean something completely different.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> In article <srjpf5d0ra6ovapoa...@4ax.com>,
> jam...@echeque.com says...
> > "James A. Donald"
> > > > Thus in a magical universe, not only is there a true
> > > > morality, but that true morality is in the non human
> > > > universe, not merely in the nature of men.
> >
> > "Brian M. Scott"
> > > Except, of course, in the ones in which there isn't.
> >
> > Provide an example of a book with morally neutral magic
> > and significant readership.
>
> Already answered - the books of Jack Vance, specifically Lyonesse and
> the Dying Earth series.
The magic of Lyonesse is unambiguously moralistic magic, in that it
comes from entities that have minds of their own, and are good or evil
- entities that wish to heal and help, or entities that can with great
difficulty be restrained from indiscriminate destruction.
Similarly in the dying earth series.
James A. Donald
> This seems too great a generalisation. There are many
> magical universes. Where is the morality inhering
> external to men in the magical universes of Jack
> Vance, for example?
To take the example of Lyonesse, magic comes from
magical beings, some of which are evil, some of which
are benign.
To take the example of dying earth:
Back cover "There is on earth, evil distilled by time"
Random sample inside: Gugel casts a spell:
"I commend this pebble to the attention of
Wiulio! I request that it protect me across
this dismal plain"
Later he invokes the protection of the pebble:
"Away with you. I carry a sacred object"
This is theomancy, invoking a beneficent deity.
Theomancy of benevolent deities is good magic, which
clues us that Cugel is a good person, since he is using
good magic.
Iolo, Cugels adversary, describes to Cugel his procedure
for gathering dreams, whereupon it is apparent that Iolo
is using black magic, consistent with Iolo being an evil
person.
On page 12 of "dying earth", it becomes apparent that
Pandelume is summoning demons - which immediately clues
us that his magic is evil, and therefore that the spell
he is going to teach Turjan is going to do Turjan no good.
> > Another theory is that women are apt to get up to
> > mischief, and that the chador prevents them from
> > emitting non verbal signals, consciously or
> > unconsciously. Neither theory is concealment,
> > except in the sense that a gag is concealment. A
> > third theory is that by showing critical areas of
> > skin, a woman is emitting a non verbal signal -
> > which is close to being a concealment theory, but
> > not quite.
> Are there the theories of Jim Donald, or theories
> mooted by specific chador designers or enthusiasts?
As part of my study of evil and madness, I have studied
Islam as well as communism, and yes, these are my
paraphrases of genuine Islamic justifications of the
Chador, though the original phrasing was more colorful
and less scientific sounding. I never attempted to
reproduce Islamic phrasing, though I probably should
learn to do so.
> > If everything is in the open, the powerful can
> > coerce the weak. If wealth is in the open, it will
> > be attacked. But also, public opinion can coerce
> > deviance. So even if putting everything in the open
> > is bad, even if not only evil hides in the shadows,
> > but also wealth and weakness, nonetheless evil hides
> > in the shadows.
> That is only to say that both good and evil will
> choose shadow or light, as the situation demands.
Evil will not choose the light. Good usually does, and
blows a trumpet as well.
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > This seems too great a generalisation. There are many
> > magical universes. Where is the morality inhering
> > external to men in the magical universes of Jack
> > Vance, for example?
>
>
> Back cover "There is on earth, evil distilled by time"
This is a blurb, in now way endorsed by Vance.
> Random sample inside: Gugel casts a spell:
> "I commend this pebble to the attention of
> Wiulio! I request that it protect me across
> this dismal plain"
>
> Later he invokes the protection of the pebble:
>
> "Away with you. I carry a sacred object"
>
> This is theomancy, invoking a beneficent deity.
> Theomancy of benevolent deities is good magic, which
> clues us that Cugel is a good person, since he is using
> good magic.
LOL. Cugel is to some considerable degree a sociopath. Originally he
had little heed for the stone, but having been made aware that it may
indeed have some protective powers, of course he attempts to maximise
their utility.
> Iolo, Cugels adversary, describes to Cugel his procedure
> for gathering dreams, whereupon it is apparent that Iolo
> is using black magic, consistent with Iolo being an evil
> person.
LOL again... while Iolo is clearly no more ethical than Cugel, there is
no indication that his dream-gathering causes harm to any,
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> In article <gphuf59rp2gbl5of2...@4ax.com>,
> jam...@echeque.com says...
James A. Donald:
> > This is theomancy, invoking a beneficent deity.
> > Theomancy of benevolent deities is good magic, which
> > clues us that Cugel is a good person, since he is using
> > good magic.
Gerry Quinn
> LOL. Cugel is to some considerable degree a sociopath.
Cugel is a good guy, both because he uses the magic of benevolent
spirits, and because he repeatedly saves Iolo and others even though
it is not in his interests to do so.
> Originally he
> had little heed for the stone, but having been made aware that it may
> indeed have some protective powers, of course he attempts to maximise
> their utility.
In the Jack Vance universe good guys invoke benevolent spirits, which
generally have benevolent effects. Bad guys traffic with demons. The
magic of the people who work with demons is apt to backfire, and
people who work with demons do bad things to the people who work with
benevolent spirits.
> > Iolo, Cugels adversary, describes to Cugel his procedure
> > for gathering dreams, whereupon it is apparent that Iolo
> > is using black magic, consistent with Iolo being an evil
> > person.
> LOL again... while Iolo is clearly no more ethical than Cugel, there is
> no indication that his dream-gathering causes harm to any,
There is no indication that does harm, but because it is obviously
black magic, this predicts that Iolo will double cross Cugel.
Gerry Quinn
ger...@indigo.ie says...
> > To take the example of dying earth:
> >
> > Back cover "There is on earth, evil distilled by time"
>
> This is a blurb, in now way endorsed by Vance.
More precisely, it's a fair description of *some* entities, such as the
demon in the library. But it hardly generalises.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:17:22 -0000, <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > In article <gphuf59rp2gbl5of2...@4ax.com>,
> > jam...@echeque.com says...
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > This is theomancy, invoking a beneficent deity.
> > > Theomancy of benevolent deities is good magic, which
> > > clues us that Cugel is a good person, since he is using
> > > good magic.
>
> Gerry Quinn
> > LOL. Cugel is to some considerable degree a sociopath.
>
> Cugel is a good guy, both because he uses the magic of benevolent
> spirits, and because he repeatedly saves Iolo and others even though
> it is not in his interests to do so.
Are you reading the same book? Cugel engages in what amounts to rape
more than once. On one occasion he kills a humanoid creature out of
petulance after being drenched in cold water. Probably he would balk
at murdering someone in cold blood, but that's hardly enough to make
him a good guy.
He saves Iolo at little risk to himself. Indeed, the one occasion
where he briefly takes a risk (attempting to defend the pilgrim
Garstang) stands out for its novelty.
He generally neither knows nor cares where magic comes from, and in
fact I recall no occasion on which a benevolent spirit was the source,
and more than one in which the source was demonic.
> In the Jack Vance universe good guys invoke benevolent spirits, which
> generally have benevolent effects. Bad guys traffic with demons. The
> magic of the people who work with demons is apt to backfire, and
> people who work with demons do bad things to the people who work with
> benevolent spirits.
> > > Iolo, Cugels adversary, describes to Cugel his procedure
> > > for gathering dreams, whereupon it is apparent that Iolo
> > > is using black magic, consistent with Iolo being an evil
> > > person.
>
> > LOL again... while Iolo is clearly no more ethical than Cugel, there is
> > no indication that his dream-gathering causes harm to any,
>
> There is no indication that does harm, but because it is obviously
> black magic, this predicts that Iolo will double cross Cugel.
Rogues, whether possessed of magic or not, have a tendency to double-
cross each other in Vance's universe.
- Gerry Quinn
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:69fuf51mpc63p9um3...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:00:31 -0500, "Brian M. Scott"
> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> "James A. Donald"
>>> Chaos magic drains the life force of its users.
>> Not precisely, no.
>> As I suspected: you've missed the point.
> As usual, you make claims without evidence, cite something
> almost at random as evidence, and then claim, without
> explanation, to have won the argument.
No randomness is involved. Either you've read only the
first few novels in the series, or you've missed a major
point. The characters depicted most favorably in the series
are those who can manipulate both chaos and order and have
learned the importance of using them in a balanced fashion.
Once again: consider the druids of Naclos. Oh, and the grey
mages.
I do tend to be terse in correcting your errors, because I
don't choose to waste much time on an unpleasant, ignorant
blowhard. But I'm feeling excessively patient this morning.
> In the Recluce universe, destroying people and things with
> chaos magic is different from destroying stuff with
> dynamite in our universe -
No, it isn't. Using stored chaos, as in the Cyadoran
lances, isn't in any way different. It's true that having
the innate ability to manipulate chaos is usually a mixed
blessing, since the easiest ways to do so reduce one's
lifespan, but it's made clear in the story of Cerryl that
chaos can with more care and effort be manipulated at much
less cost.
> a difference that makes the universe moralistic
Moral questions are central to the series, but the universe
is far from moralistic. Indeed, one of the themes is that
such questions have no simple answers. (This is true of
Modesitt's works in general.)
James A. Donald
> > Cugel is a good guy, both because he uses the magic
> > of benevolent spirits, and because he repeatedly
> > saves Iolo and others even though it is not in his
> > interests to do so.
Gerry Quinn
> Are you reading the same book? Cugel engages in what
> amounts to rape more than once.
Your concept of rape is considerably more elastic than
mine, and more elastic than that of Jack Vance. Also
considerably more elastic than that of the ladies
depicted.
> He saves Iolo at little risk to himself.
Iolo is fighting a creature that is fully capable of
killing Iolo, and losing. Therefore, Cugel takes a
considerable risk for a stranger.
Cugel meets a stranger. Cugel heroically does good.
Stranger (Iolo) returns evil for good, thereby giving
the hero the duty and obligation to return evil for
evil. Adventure ensues, the standard formula of manly
heroic good.
Were you raised without a real father? You read heroic
good confronting treacherous demon worshipping evil
depicted in glaring black and white, and yet fail to
recognize it. You read manliness and think it
psychopathy.
Cugel is a straightforward good guy, and the universe in
which he lives cares, unlike our coldly indifferent
universe.
> He generally neither knows nor cares where magic comes
> from, and in fact I recall no occasion on which a
> benevolent spirit was the source, and more than one in
> which the source was demonic.
I just quoted him using the theomancy, and when someone
purports to be good, but has traffic with demons or
demonic magic, Cugel automatically disbelieves him,
which incredulity invariably turns out to be well
founded.
> Rogues, whether possessed of magic or not, have a
> tendency to double- cross each other in Vance's
> universe.
Cugel invariably has a heroically sound and
righteous motivation for double crossing someone. His
adversaries do not.
James A. Donald
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:33:00 +1000, "James A. Donald"
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
> <news:69fuf51mpc63p9um3...@4ax.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:00:31 -0500, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
"James A. Donald"
> >>> Chaos magic drains the life force of its users.
Brian Scott:
> > > Not precisely, no.
> > >
> > > As I suspected: you've missed the point.
James A.Donald:
> > As usual, you make claims without evidence, cite something
> > almost at random as evidence, and then claim, without
> > explanation, to have won the argument.
Brian Scott:
> No randomness is involved. Either you've read only the
> first few novels in the series, or you've missed a major
> point. The characters depicted most favorably in the series
> are those who can manipulate both chaos and order and have
> learned the importance of using them in a balanced fashion.
In the universe, the effectual way to strike down bad guys is by chaos
magic, so naturally heroes use chaos magic too - but they use it with
appropriate caution and reserve. He who sups with the devil uses a
long spoon.
> I do tend to be terse in correcting your errors, because I
> don't choose to waste much time on an unpleasant, ignorant
> blowhard.
Which of us is the person who spatters his posts with irrelevant
insults and unsubstantiated boasts?
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> James A. Donald:
> > > Cugel is a good guy, both because he uses the magic
> > > of benevolent spirits, and because he repeatedly
> > > saves Iolo and others even though it is not in his
> > > interests to do so.
>
> Gerry Quinn
> > Are you reading the same book? Cugel engages in what
> > amounts to rape more than once.
>
> Your concept of rape is considerably more elastic than
> mine, and more elastic than that of Jack Vance. Also
> considerably more elastic than that of the ladies
> depicted.
For the prosecution, we have Derwe Coreme, the girl from the village in
the mountains of Magnatz, and Captain Soldinck's three daughters.
Derwe Coreme:
"Their first couching had been both eventful and taxing... [her]
arrogance had altered to a new and wakeful appreciation of reality."
[Subsequently Cugel steals her valuables and sells her as a slave.]
Marlinka from the village of Vull:
" 'Then you must behave towards me as I expect' ".
Weeping, the girl obeyed... Cugel chuckled.
There are also the daughters of Soldinck, who appear to have taken
Cugel's demands in their stride, but who hardly would have chosen to
bed him had he not hijacked their ship.
Seems clear enough to me, although Cugel could doubtless have have
provided rationalisations for his behaviour. Derwe Coreme had tried to
kill him. Marlinka was technically married to him, but very clearly
unwilling. Soldinck's daughters had done him no wrong.
> > He saves Iolo at little risk to himself.
>
> Iolo is fighting a creature that is fully capable of
> killing Iolo, and losing. Therefore, Cugel takes a
> considerable risk for a stranger.
I don't have that book to hand, but as I recall there was not much risk
involved, as the pelgrane was preoccupied with Iolo.
> Cugel meets a stranger. Cugel heroically does good.
> Stranger (Iolo) returns evil for good, thereby giving
> the hero the duty and obligation to return evil for
> evil. Adventure ensues, the standard formula of manly
> heroic good.
<sigh>
And the sea creature he kills for a prank? I notice you snipped that
part of my post, doubtless because you have no answer to it.
> Were you raised without a real father? You read heroic
> good confronting treacherous demon worshipping evil
> depicted in glaring black and white, and yet fail to
> recognize it. You read manliness and think it
> psychopathy.
>
> Cugel is a straightforward good guy, and the universe in
> which he lives cares, unlike our coldly indifferent
> universe.
I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone, however eccentric,
could hold the views you express. Cugel is a plainly an unprincipled
rogue; in our society he would certainly be accounted something
of a sociopath.
Furthermore, your characterisation of the universe of the _Dying Earth_
stories is utterly inverted. As the sun gutters to its end, human
morality has been eroded and only style and bravado have meaning.
Indeed, were one to try to make a case excusing the behaviour of Cugel,
it might well rest on the nature of his society.
> > He generally neither knows nor cares where magic comes
> > from, and in fact I recall no occasion on which a
> > benevolent spirit was the source, and more than one in
> > which the source was demonic.
>
> I just quoted him using the theomancy, and when someone
> purports to be good, but has traffic with demons or
> demonic magic, Cugel automatically disbelieves him,
> which incredulity invariably turns out to be well
> founded.
In one minor incident, he drops pebbles on cairns (or something like
that) because he has been told it is a charm against monsters. Afyer
he scamps this duty, and subsequently hears what he suspects to be a
monster, he adheres more carefully to the ritual, which to him is
meaningless. Theomancy? What nonsense.
And he willingly brings forth demons from the amulet found at Cil. And
releases the demon Phampoun on a city. He also summons a demon to
convey Iocuino to a distant place, though a misplaced pervulsion
results in Cugel himself being transported. Cugel's traffic with
demons greatly exceeds this incident of alleged "theomancy".
> > Rogues, whether possessed of magic or not, have a
> > tendency to double- cross each other in Vance's
> > universe.
>
> Cugel invariably has a heroically sound and
> righteous motivation for double crossing someone. His
> adversaries do not.
Cugel might agree with the first sentence: the motivation would be "the
interests of Cugel".
In general though, I have never seen literary analyses so bizarrely
unrelated to reality as yours outside the realm of postmodern critical
theorists.
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> > Your concept of rape is considerably more elastic
> > than mine, and more elastic than that of Jack Vance.
> > Also considerably more elastic than that of the
> > ladies depicted.
Gerry Quinn
> Marlinka from the village of Vull:
>
> " 'Then you must behave towards me as I expect' ".
> Weeping, the girl obeyed... Cugel chuckled.
> [...]
> Seems clear enough to me,
The only one that is "clear enough" is the marital rape
of Marlinka - which was recently legal in our society,
and is still legal in most societies, and has been legal
through all of history until recently - indeed,
illegalizing it seems to have had the unforeseen effect
of breaking down marriage - that is to say, suspending a
wife's obligations had the effect of men becoming
disinclined to accept obligation. In retrospect, it is
not apparent that suspending's a wife's obligation to
sleep with her husband was such a good idea for women or
men.
All the other cases were not rape, but rather seduction
under circumstances of unequal power, which was recently
legal, and should be legal again.
> > Iolo is fighting a creature that is fully capable of
> > killing Iolo, and losing. Therefore, Cugel takes a
> > considerable risk for a stranger.
> I don't have that book to hand, but as I recall there
> was not much risk involved, as the pelgrane was
> preoccupied with Iolo.
There was a risk that it might have abruptly ceased to
be preoccupied
> > Cugel meets a stranger. Cugel heroically does good.
> > Stranger (Iolo) returns evil for good, thereby
> > giving the hero the duty and obligation to return
> > evil for evil. Adventure ensues, the standard
> > formula of manly heroic good.
> And the sea creature he kills for a prank?
I kill non human creatures also.
> > Cugel is a straightforward good guy, and the
> > universe in which he lives cares, unlike our coldly
> > indifferent universe.
> I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone,
> however eccentric, could hold the views you express.
Were you raised by your natural father?
> Cugel is a plainly an unprincipled rogue;
Cugel harms those that deserve it, and shows no
inclination whatsoever to harm those that do not
deserve it.
> > Cugel invariably has a heroically sound and
> > righteous motivation for double crossing someone.
> > His adversaries do not.
> Cugel might agree with the first sentence: the
> motivation would be "the interests of Cugel".
And when did Cugel mistreat someone who did not
wrong him?
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Eric Ammadon
>Cugel is a straightforward good guy, and the universe in
>which he lives cares, unlike our coldly indifferent
>universe.
What tells you that "the universe in which he lives cares"?
What tells you that ours does not?
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
I would class the Derwe Coreme incident as rape too; so I interpret the
phrase "their first couching was taxing and eventful". With regard to
Soldinck's daughters I would accept that your description is tenable.
> > And the sea creature he kills for a prank?
>
> I kill non human creatures also.
Harmless humanoid sea creatures that talk?
> > Cugel is a plainly an unprincipled rogue;
>
> Cugel harms those that deserve it, and shows no
> inclination whatsoever to harm those that do not
> deserve it.
The story begins with Cugel as a seller of fake amulets; thus he is
willing to harm random members of the public for profit. When this
proves nevertheless unprofitable, he sets out to burglarise the manse
of a magician with whom he is completely unacquainted. (Before this
Fianoster observes Cugel 'casing the joint' of Fianosther's shop, but
deters him with threats.) This is our *introduction* to the
"heroically sound and righteous" hero. A little later, in Smolod, he
at first expects he will have to kill one of the inhabitants to claim a
demon cusp, and shows no concern other than for the practicalities of
the matter.
> > > Cugel invariably has a heroically sound and
> > > righteous motivation for double crossing someone.
> > > His adversaries do not.
>
> > Cugel might agree with the first sentence: the
> > motivation would be "the interests of Cugel".
>
> And when did Cugel mistreat someone who did not
> wrong him?
As I said, selling fake amulets is his first recorded act; a minor
mistreatment, perhaps, but real. He later burgles the manse of
Iucouna, who he is not acquainted with, and who has done nothing to
mistreat him. (Iucouna might well agree with the sentiments expressed
in your sig.) He mistreated atleast two inhabitants of Grodz and
Smolod, neither of which had harmed him. His violence in response to
the sea creature's trick was disproportionate. I could easily go on.
And also, as I've pointed out, your whole thesis is vitiated anyway
because Cugel uses demonic magic as much as any other sort; near the
end of _The Eyes of the Overworld_ he is (without any application of
the force majeure which might be used to partially excuse many of his
depredations) studying a spell whose express purpose is to command
passing demons as a taxi service.
(You might think to turn it around, indeed, and point to Cugel's
sociopathic nature as well as his association with demonic magics. But
first, your absurd misreading of the stories leaves you without any
argumentative force, and secondly, Cugel's character improves somewhat
as the tale progresses, though never does he become anything like the
paragon you describe.)
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> > Cugel is a straightforward good guy, and the
> > universe in which he lives cares, unlike our coldly
> > indifferent universe.
Eric Ammadon
> What tells you that "the universe in which he lives
> cares"?
It is a universe with demons and beneficent spirits, and
the magic derived from these sources has the
characteristics from whence it came. The demons are
actively malevolent, not merely beings whose purposes
are in conflict with human purposes. They are sometimes
propitiated with human sacrifice. Good spirits are
actively beneficent.
> What tells you that ours does not?
Our God has been uncommunicative and inactive for some
considerable time, unlike the beings in Cugel's
universe, who meddle at the drop of an invocation or
incantation.
James A. Donald
> The story begins with Cugel as a seller of fake
> amulets; thus he is willing to harm random members of
> the public for profit. When this proves nevertheless
> unprofitable, he sets out to burglarise the manse of a
> magician with whom he is completely unacquainted.
> (Before this Fianoster observes Cugel 'casing the
> joint' of Fianosther's shop, but deters him with
> threats.) This is our *introduction* to the
> "heroically sound and righteous" hero. A little
> later, in Smolod, he at first expects he will have to
> kill one of the inhabitants to claim a demon cusp, and
> shows no concern other than for the practicalities of
> the matter.
If he is preying on a group, the entire group is first
shown to be morally unattractive. Stories about a rogue
in a decadent society are written to a trope, a formula,
and this formula is deeply moralistic, as moralistic as
a formula story about a cowboy on the frontier. The
pleasure we derive from this formula is in large part
the pleasure of seeing wickedness receive its come
uppance.
And when this formula is set in a magical universe, not
only do the people follow this formula, but also the
magic follows this formula.
This is a formula story. Morality is central to the
formula. We see Cugel spontaneously and bravely do good
to Iolo. We see Iolo dishonorably and ungratefully do
evil to Cugel. And immediately we know that Cugel is
going cleverly get the better of Iolo, and we keep
turning the pages to see him do it.
In due course, Iolo gets his come uppance. Then Cugel
has a run in with someone else. Rinse and repeat.
We want to see Iolo swindled by Cugel because he
*deserves* to be. Cugel is a formula good rogue,
swindling formula villains. That is what makes the
story fun, and that is what makes all the other stories
written to the same formula by all the other authors
about all the other hero rogues swindling all the other
decadent villains fun also.
In this case the formula (rogue in decadent society) is
set in a magical universe. The formula has villains and
good guys, therefore the universe has demons and
beneficent deities. Since the formula has considerably
more villains than good guys, the universe has
considerably more demons than beneficent deities.
Inevitably, the magic in a universe with demons and
beneficent deities is moralistic magic.
Peter Knutsen
> How about banishing shadows to reveal anyone else hiding in them?
With the traditional four element spells, Earth, Water, Fire and Air, it
indeed ought to be possible to reduce or destroy the element with its
own spell, e.g. Extinguish Fire is perfectly valid as a Fire spell.
I'm just not very sure that that goes for the non-traditional elements
of Frost, Light and Shadow, though. It seems to me that a Destroy Shadow
or Suppress Shadow spell is inappropriate, according to my intuitive
model, and that instead one should use a Light spell, given that light
opposes Shadow.
It looks like it'll only be Suppress Light and Create Shadow, then, in
Johan's arm ring, although possible two different-strength versions of
Suppress Light.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Eric Ammadon
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> > Cugel is a straightforward good guy, and the
>> > universe in which he lives cares, unlike our coldly
>> > indifferent universe.
>
>Eric Ammadon
>> What tells you that "the universe in which he lives
>> cares"?
>
>It is a universe with demons and beneficent spirits, and
>the magic derived from these sources has the
>characteristics from whence it came. The demons are
>actively malevolent, not merely beings whose purposes
>are in conflict with human purposes. They are sometimes
>propitiated with human sacrifice. Good spirits are
>actively beneficent.
>
>> What tells you that ours does not?
>
>Our God has been uncommunicative and inactive for some
>considerable time, unlike the beings in Cugel's
>universe, who meddle at the drop of an invocation or
>incantation.
I guess mileage varies.
Bill Swears
you arrange to make the shadow specific to the observer? I.e, a bowman
wants to kill me, but my partner needs to find me, so I cast a shadow
that covers me, but only in the sight of my enemy?
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> It looks like it'll only be Suppress Light and Create Shadow, then, in
>> Johan's arm ring, although possible two different-strength versions of
>> Suppress Light.
>>
> I guess my first suggestions were off point. Sorry about that. Could
Well, �rth's magic system is fairly detailed, and other people's
suggestions will often not fit within the framework. No need to apologize.
So far the result seems to be one medium strength Suppress Light spell
that can work at very long range and can be cast quite quickly, and also
a very versatile Control Shadows spells which can create shadows but can
also do many other things (as opposed to a Create Shadows spell which
can only create shadows and nothing more). Both item-spells are fairly
safe to use, since Johan has become cautious about magical mishaps.
> you arrange to make the shadow specific to the observer? I.e, a bowman
> wants to kill me, but my partner needs to find me, so I cast a shadow
> that covers me, but only in the sight of my enemy?
No, Shadow spells affect physical light, and Illusion spells affect
everyone that can perceive the affected sense(s).
The only reason I won't say they're "physical too", is that Illusion
Magic can never create any real effects, e.g. illuminate an unlighted
area or cause someone direct harm (as opposed to creating the illusion
of illumination based on the illisionist's recollection or knowledge of
the area, or fooling the victim into believing there's a bridge that
goes over the canyon when there isn't). Nevertheless they are phenomena
in the world, not phenomena in people's heads.
To make different people see different things, assuming they have 100%
identical sensory capabilities, you'd need Thought Magic and do a
temporary "brainwash", and Johan hasn't looked into that yet, and
probably never will, since by Enchanting his Focus item the way it is,
spending all his Essence on the project, he has wedded himself to those
magics that the Focus item is a Focus for.
Johan stealing an item that is a Thought Magic Focus, from someone,
cannot be ruled out, but that would be a huge endavour. Spellcasters go
to great lengths to guard their Focus items against theft, and react
with Gollum-like fervor if they're stolen anyway. Then again, Johan is
rather more capable than getting away with stelaing a Focus item than most.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> So far the result seems to be one medium strength Suppress Light spell
> that can work at very long range and can be cast quite quickly, and also
> a very versatile Control Shadows spells which can create shadows but can
> also do many other things (as opposed to a Create Shadows spell which
> can only create shadows and nothing more). Both item-spells are fairly
> safe to use, since Johan has become cautious about magical mishaps.
The fun part now is to figure out what a Control Shadows spell can do
that a Create Shadows spell can't.
Obviously the stuff Eric Ammadon sugested, "twiddling shadows", but it
also has to be able to do *much* more than just that.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
James A. Donald
> > > What tells you that our [universe] does not
> > > [care]?
James A. Donald
> >Our God has been uncommunicative and inactive for
> >some considerable time, unlike the beings in Cugel's
> >universe, who meddle at the drop of an invocation or
> >incantation.
Eric Ammadon
> I guess mileage varies.
Gerry Quinn will not tell me if he was raised by his
natural father. Will you tell me if god speaks to you
or intervenes?
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > The story begins with Cugel as a seller of fake
> > amulets; thus he is willing to harm random members of
> > the public for profit. When this proves nevertheless
> > unprofitable, he sets out to burglarise the manse of a
> > magician with whom he is completely unacquainted.
> > (Before this Fianoster observes Cugel 'casing the
> > joint' of Fianosther's shop, but deters him with
> > threats.) This is our *introduction* to the
> > "heroically sound and righteous" hero. A little
> > later, in Smolod, he at first expects he will have to
> > kill one of the inhabitants to claim a demon cusp, and
> > shows no concern other than for the practicalities of
> > the matter.
>
> If he is preying on a group, the entire group is first
> shown to be morally unattractive. Stories about a rogue
> in a decadent society are written to a trope, a formula,
> and this formula is deeply moralistic, as moralistic as
> a formula story about a cowboy on the frontier. The
> pleasure we derive from this formula is in large part
> the pleasure of seeing wickedness receive its come
> uppance.
By _Dying Earth_ standards, the society of Grodz and Smolod is pretty
unexceptionable - and since they harm nobody, it seems rather
unreasonable to describe them as wicked.
But that is beside the point. Your original claim was that Cugel is a
heroic individual, and that this alleged heroism obeys some sort of
literary rule you have invented which proposes that this is because
Cugel, unlike others, uses 'white' magic and avoids trafficking with
demons.
To anyone who actually reads the books, this thesis of yours is
laughably imbecile, since it is trivially established that (i) Cugel is
a swindler, a thief, a burglar, a rapist, and a callous killer, and
(ii) he utilises demonic magical artifacts and teaches himself a spell
to command demons.
There seems no point wasting further time disposing of your idiotic
assertions.
- Gerry Quinn
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon
>> > > What tells you that our [universe] does not
>> > > [care]?
>
>James A. Donald
>> >Our God has been uncommunicative and inactive for
>> >some considerable time, unlike the beings in Cugel's
>> >universe, who meddle at the drop of an invocation or
>> >incantation.
>
>Eric Ammadon
>> I guess mileage varies.
>
>Gerry Quinn will not tell me if he was raised by his
>natural father.
Gerry Quinn is not my problem, his views and privacies are his own,
and you are unlikely to win him to your desires through petulance
expressed to third-parties.
> Will you tell me if god speaks to you
>or intervenes?
If I could tell you that I would not hide it from you, but to say that
God (or "a god") interacts with me or even exists is not possible for
the simple reason that I am too stupid to know how to identify "a god"
with certainty and I am of the opinion that even "God" cannot know
that He is the ultimate being thus The 'God'.
Prefaced by that disclaimer, what I can tell you is that in a way
similar to the deviations of Uranus from its calculated orbit prior to
the discovery of Neptune, the actual events of my life differ from the
model proffered by modern society and science by an amount
sufficiently significant to make the postulation of a previously
unseen factor seem reasonable.
The characteristics of this postulated factor could be seen in a way
similar to the way DDF describes the Salamander, as partway between a
sentient being and a natural force. If one felt the need to
anthromorphise, it could reasonably (within the context of
anthropomorphisation) be considered a god, perhaps even God.
Eric Ammadon
The term "twiddle" leaves much to the imagination... God could be said
to have "twiddled" the void to create light and darkness etc.
One of the things that I find less than totally enthralling about
Fantasy worlds is their (typically) excessively limited views of magic
and what is magical. Someone can start a fire and that's the end of
it, or someone can consort with demons to cause a hurricane, or
whatever. The typical Fantasy Mage has a very limited view of the
magical world, the strictures of the author's pen bind him to walk
down only a narrow corridor through magic's maze, when its walls are
scaleable and of finite height.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> By _Dying Earth_ standards, the society of Grodz and Smolod is pretty
> unexceptionable - and since they harm nobody, it seems rather
> unreasonable to describe them as wicked.
In every confrontation, we identify with and sympathize with Cugel,
because he is a morally better person than those he mistreats. This
is the standard formula not only of this group of stories, but of the
entire class of tales of which "Dying Earth" is one example by one
author, and the Terran Empire tales by Keith Laumer another example.
Most stories about a guileful protagonist in a decadent society work
by this formula.
And on of the many things used to label Cugel as the good guy is that
he uses the magic of benign deities, while his opponents associate
with demons. When Cugel uses demonic magic, he cheating or
mistreating the demon. When his adversaries use demonic magic, they
have some kind of relationship going with the demon, and may well
intend to pay for what they are getting by sacrificing Cugel to the
demon.
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:jokbg5le74li7d9n2...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:39:29 -0000, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> wrote:
>> By _Dying Earth_ standards, the society of Grodz and
>> Smolod is pretty unexceptionable - and since they harm
>> nobody, it seems rather unreasonable to describe them
>> as wicked.
> In every confrontation, we identify with and sympathize
> with Cugel, because he is a morally better person than
> those he mistreats.
He isn't, and some of us don't.
> This is the standard formula not only of this group of
> stories, but of the entire class of tales of which "Dying
> Earth" is one example by one author, [...]
Six examples, actually. One wonders whether you've actually
read them: as a group they fit your standard formula very
poorly indeed.
[...]
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:39:29 -0000, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> wrote:
> > By _Dying Earth_ standards, the society of Grodz and Smolod is pretty
> > unexceptionable - and since they harm nobody, it seems rather
> > unreasonable to describe them as wicked.
>
> In every confrontation, we identify with and sympathize with Cugel,
> because he is a morally better person than those he mistreats.
Nonsense. He is not a morally good person at all, and cetainly not
better than many of those he mistreats. His repeated behaviour:
swindling, theft, rape, and killing makes this clear.
The stories are humorous; we would be unlikerly to identify with such a
character in a serious story.
> And on of the many things used to label Cugel as the good guy is that
> he uses the magic of benign deities, while his opponents associate
> with demons. When Cugel uses demonic magic, he cheating or
> mistreating the demon.
First you say he doesn't use it, now you admit he does. Then you claim
that he is cheating or mistreating the demons, when the demonic magic
he uses is *exactly* the same as that used by others.
> When his adversaries use demonic magic, they
> have some kind of relationship going with the demon, and may well
> intend to pay for what they are getting by sacrificing Cugel to the
> demon.
Cugel presses the buttons on the amulet he finds near Cil, but he does
not know the names of the demons evoked and so cannot control them.
When its owner eventually recovers it and controls the demons, he does
not sacrifice Cugel, but lets him depart alive as promised. There is
no indication that the demons require sacrifices anyway.
The spell he tries to learn to command demons as a taxi service is
exactly the same spell used by Iucouna.
[And there is no indication whatsoever that Iolo consorts with demons.]
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> > In every confrontation, we identify with and sympathize with Cugel,
> > because he is a morally better person than those he mistreats.
Gerry Quinn
> Nonsense. He is not a morally good person at all, and cetainly not
> better than many of those he mistreats. His repeated behaviour:
> swindling, theft, rape, and killing makes this clear.
Every "rape" Cugel commits was legal when I was a kid, and legal at
the time Jack Vance first published the "dying earth" stories. You are
judging Cugel by an official state imposed morality that no one really
believes, and no one really practices. Cugel's behavior is righteous
by the timeless standards of fairy tales and old novels. Compared to
Xenophon and his ten thousand, or the characters of Homer, Cugel is a
softy. Xenophon believed that if people were reluctant to buy and
sell stuff or permit innocent passage, then pillage, rape and massacre
was appropriate. Sounds reasonable to me, and any eighteenth century
British colonialist agreed with Xenophon. Xenophon or Sir Stamford
Raffles would have thought Cugel a softy.
You are judging Cugel by standards that are extremely recent, and that
our society has does not really practice, and has not sincerely
internalized.
James A. Donald
> > In every confrontation, we identify with and
> > sympathize with Cugel, because he is a morally
> > better person than those he mistreats.
Gerry Quinn
> Nonsense. He is not a morally good person at all, and
> cetainly not better than many of those he mistreats.
Sir Thomas Raffles proposed to destroy the city of
Malacca and get rid of its former inhabitants, turning
the area permanently into a wilderness. He changed his
mind as result of solicitations by the inhabitants,
which solicitations very likely involved a gigantic
bribe.
When Raffles conquered Djocjocarta , he found himself
short of funds with which to pay the soldiers, and so
gave the city to the sack.
Until very recently Raffles was universally considered
an upstanding and morally upright man. How do you think
he compares with Gugel?
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> James A. Donald:
> > > In every confrontation, we identify with and sympathize with Cugel,
> > > because he is a morally better person than those he mistreats.
>
> Gerry Quinn
> > Nonsense. He is not a morally good person at all, and cetainly not
> > better than many of those he mistreats. His repeated behaviour:
> > swindling, theft, rape, and killing makes this clear.
>
> Every "rape" Cugel commits was legal when I was a kid, and legal at
> the time Jack Vance first published the "dying earth" stories. You are
> judging Cugel by an official state imposed morality that no one really
> believes, and no one really practices.
Far from it; I am simply using the ordinary definition of rape as non-
consensual sexual intercourse. The various legal definitions employed
by US jurisprudences over the period during which the stories were
written, and indeed the likely more various legal definitions employed
by such jurisdictions as may exist in the 21st Aeon, are not relevant.
Indeed, Cugel's only 'legal' problems stemming from his sexual
behaviour related to the deflowering of some virgins whose status he
was employed to guard; and no indication is given of any non-consensual
element here. (Though one may add dereliction of duty to Cugel's
catalogue of crimes.)
The above said, it seems to me that the implied rape of Derwe Coreme
would fall under the categories employed by most jurisdictions. WAnd
that of Marlinka, while Cugel might point to a marriage of questionable
legal status, is still rape, regardless of any laws that might or might
not apply.
Your hero is a rapist: deal with it. Nor is rape the worst of his
crimes; as I've also noted, he could probably make arguments in his
defence. Derwe Coreme had, after all, attempted to kill him.
> Cugel's behavior is righteous
> by the timeless standards of fairy tales and old novels. Compared to
> Xenophon and his ten thousand, or the characters of Homer, Cugel is a
> softy. Xenophon believed that if people were reluctant to buy and
> sell stuff or permit innocent passage, then pillage, rape and massacre
> was appropriate. Sounds reasonable to me, and any eighteenth century
> British colonialist agreed with Xenophon. Xenophon or Sir Stamford
> Raffles would have thought Cugel a softy.
Comparisons between the conduct of Cugel and that of Xenophon, Raffles,
or for that matter Phampoun are irrelevant to the debate [I will not
waste time responding to your digression on Raffles, a historical
figure of whom I know little; neither of them, in any case, had life
histories much resembling Cugel's, so the relevance of your comparisons
is not obvious.]
> You are judging Cugel by standards that are extremely recent, and that
> our society has does not really practice, and has not sincerely
> internalized.
I am not judging Cugel, just describing him. He is certainly a
swindler who also cheats at cards (resentment at the latter, at least,
tends to be well-internalised). He is a burglar and a thief; your sig
file attests that you at least have internalised the notion of property
rights, perhaps to a stronger degree than most. He is a casual killer,
if not quite a murderer. We need not focus on rape to determine him
deficient in moral character.
Candidly, your reading of these novels is bizarre. Don't take my word
for it; search for reviews and see what others, whose internalised
morality is presumably that of our times, think. [You remind me of an
English teacher in my early schooldays, whom I could not persuade that
Oliver Goldsmith's 'Elegy on the Death of a Mad Dog' was satirical in
intent...]
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> > Every "rape" Cugel commits was legal when I was a kid, and legal at
> > the time Jack Vance first published the "dying earth" stories. You are
> > judging Cugel by an official state imposed morality that no one really
> > believes, and no one really practices.
Gerry Quinn
> Far from it; I am simply using the ordinary definition of rape as non-
> consensual sexual intercourse.
There is a lot of gray in consent. They all consented by what counted
as consent at the time the book was published - though mostly at the
very edge of what counted as consent.
> The various legal definitions employed
> by US jurisprudences over the period during which the stories were
> written, and indeed the likely more various legal definitions employed
> by such jurisdictions as may exist in the 21st Aeon, are not relevant.
They are relevant in that the legal definitions employed over the
previous thousand years are probably a better guide to what people
feel in their hearts than the wholly unprecedented laws governing
sexual relations that exist today.
> Indeed, Cugel's only 'legal' problems stemming from his sexual
> behaviour related to the deflowering of some virgins whose status he
> was employed to guard; and no indication is given of any non-consensual
> element here. (Though one may add dereliction of duty to Cugel's
> catalogue of crimes.)
His employer breached contract first, by misrepresenting job status
and conditions, causing us, once again, to recognize Cugel as the good
guy.
> The above said, it seems to me that the implied rape of Derwe Coreme
> would fall under the categories employed by most jurisdictions.
From what we are told, one might suspect, but the matter is left
ambiguous.
> And
> that of Marlinka, while Cugel might point to a marriage of questionable
> legal status, is still rape, regardless of any laws that might or might
> not apply.
That proposition would have astonished people not very long ago.
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> James A. Donald:
> > > Every "rape" Cugel commits was legal when I was a kid, and legal at
> > > the time Jack Vance first published the "dying earth" stories. You are
> > > judging Cugel by an official state imposed morality that no one really
> > > believes, and no one really practices.
>
> Gerry Quinn
> > Far from it; I am simply using the ordinary definition of rape as non-
> > consensual sexual intercourse.
>
> There is a lot of gray in consent. They all consented by what counted
> as consent at the time the book was published - though mostly at the
> very edge of what counted as consent.
I don't think that applies to Derwe Coreme, and the application to
Marlinka is very questionable. Quite possibly a jury would let him off
even if the evidence were established, on the basis that Cugel had good
reasons for vengeance in both cases. But revenge rape is hardly the
act of a gentleman; or even the act of a vagabond of good character.
> > The various legal definitions employed
> > by US jurisprudences over the period during which the stories were
> > written, and indeed the likely more various legal definitions employed
> > by such jurisdictions as may exist in the 21st Aeon, are not relevant.
>
> They are relevant in that the legal definitions employed over the
> previous thousand years are probably a better guide to what people
> feel in their hearts than the wholly unprecedented laws governing
> sexual relations that exist today.
I do not think that most people would in their hearts approve of
Cugel's actions, in this regard or in others, nowadays or in the past.
> > Indeed, Cugel's only 'legal' problems stemming from his sexual
> > behaviour related to the deflowering of some virgins whose status he
> > was employed to guard; and no indication is given of any non-consensual
> > element here. (Though one may add dereliction of duty to Cugel's
> > catalogue of crimes.)
>
> His employer breached contract first, by misrepresenting job status
> and conditions, causing us, once again, to recognize Cugel as the good
> guy.
Did he? I don't remember. But if he did, it would be of a piece with
the numerous swindles conducted by Cugel. Bottom line: if you think
Cugel is a good guy, then you, Sir, are an idiot.
- Gerry Quinn
David Harmon
mbot...@lshelby.com (Michelle Bottorff) wrote,
>I don't own these books, and it's been a while since I read my sister's
>copies, but I seem to recall Darcy's magical aide explaining about how
>evilness isn't inherent in the magic, that magic can be used to do evil,
>but calling it "black magic" is just something that people that don't
>really understand magic very well do, because there really is no such
>thing, and the magic the murders use is the exact same magic he uses to
>help catch them.
I have to disagree with that. Here is the passage I found, where Master
Sean explains:
"Very well, my lord," said the Master Sorcerer. "Perhaps, to begin
with, I had best make it clear to you that the line between what we call
'Black' magic and what we call 'White' magic is not as clearly defined
as many people suppose. We say, for instance, that the practice of the
Healing Art is White Magic, and that the use of curses to cause illness
or death is Black Magic. But, one may ask, is it White Magic to cure a
homicidal maniac of a broken leg so that he may go out and kill again?
Or, contrariwise, is it Black Magic to curse that same maniac so that he
dies and kills no more? Well, in both cases-yes. It can be so proven by
the symbological mathematics of the Theory of Ethics. I won't bore you
with the analogy equations themselves; suffice it to say that, in such
widely diverse cases, the Theory of Ethics is quite clear.
"This is summed up in the aphorism that every first-year apprentice
sorcerer knows by heart: Black Magic is a matter of symbolism and
intent."
Therefore, while there are gray areas, there is also Black and White,
and a clear distinction to those people who really do understand magic
very well.
James A. Donald
> > > > Every "rape" Cugel commits was legal when I was a kid, and legal at
> > > > the time Jack Vance first published the "dying earth" stories. You are
> > > > judging Cugel by an official state imposed morality that no one really
> > > > believes, and no one really practices.
Gerry Quinn
> > > Far from it; I am simply using the ordinary definition of rape as non-
> > > consensual sexual intercourse.
James A. Donald:
> > There is a lot of gray in consent. They all consented by what counted
> > as consent at the time the book was published - though mostly at the
> > very edge of what counted as consent.
Gerry Quinn
> I don't think that applies to Derwe Coreme.
That is deliberately left ambiguous. The coupling, we are told, was
"strenuous". I have done some fairly strenuous and forceful
seductions myself. Some women like to be physically subdued. I did
not get any complaints afterwards. Women tend to put men through
tests, some of them being tests of strength and physical dexterity,
Dancing is one such. There are other more primitive tests of strength
and dexterity. Observe cats. Women's preferences are not always so
different from that of cats. Most mating patterns that we see in non
humans, we also see in humans, as one would expect of a species of
generalists. With cats, if you let the female cat out, it is usually
hard to tell the difference between persuasion and extremely brutal
rape, but the difference becomes obvious when you try to keep the
female cat inside when the male cat is calling.
In every confrontation, we are invited to sympathize with Cugel. How
does the author load the deck in favor of Cugel to win our sympathy?
By having Cugel do good, and fair things, and be met with a wicked and
unfair response.
Then Cugel gets back at the malefactor in some way that is usually
sneaky, underhanded, violent, and drastic, and to the considerable
benefit of Cugel.
But the reader is first invited to sympathize with Cugel by Cugel's
good, fair, and brave conduct, and to dislike Cugel's victim by the
victims wrongful, unfair, and contemptible conduct. This is not only
the formula of "Dying Earth" it is the formula of a pile of books.
> > They are relevant in that the legal definitions employed over the
> > previous thousand years are probably a better guide to what people
> > feel in their hearts than the wholly unprecedented laws governing
> > sexual relations that exist today.
> I do not think that most people would in their hearts approve of
> Cugel's actions, in this regard or in others, nowadays or in the past.
But the book works because we *do* approve of Cugel's actions. The
author rigs the circumstances to get us to approve of Cugel. All is
fair in love and war. If we did not approve of Cugel, would not enjoy
the book.
Circumstances alter cases. We also approve of Sir Stanford Raffles
threatening to destroy the city of Malaria and turn the area into an
uninhabited wilderness, even though the inhabitants have done nothing
wrong to Raffles or the company, and are pleased when Raffles has some
chats with the inhabitants of Malaria and finds a mutually agreeable
(and evidently highly lucrative) solution. We approve when Raffles,
running low on means to reward the troops, invites them to collect
their own reward. Or at least I approve, and obviously so did most
people of that time. Dutch historians depict Raffles as the spy,
conspirator, pirate and brigand that he was, while British historians
depict him as the bland bureaucrat and mild mannered vaguely
progressive social reformer that he also was, but even the Dutch and
Javanese historians find it hard to dislike him. All is fair in love
and war.
Raffles upheld private property rights and freedom of trade - firstly
for himself of course, secondly for the company, though evidently a
fairly distant second, and thirdly for everyone, even his enemies.
Sometimes, in the course of protecting freedom of trade, it was
necessary to massacre people for peacefully trading while under the
protection of empire that opposed freedom of trade. Sometimes, in the
course of upholding private property rights, it was necessary to
reward successful troops by indulging them with a bit of rape and
pillage.
We like the real life Raffles, and in real life, people of the time
liked the real life Raffles, at least after the fires died down and
the looting stopped. And we like the fictional Cugel.
> Did he? I don't remember. But if he did, it would be of a piece with
> the numerous swindles conducted by Cugel. Bottom line: if you think
> Cugel is a good guy, then you, Sir, are an idiot.
Must be a lot of idiots purchased the book.
Your arguments that Cugel is a bad guy are also arguments that Raffles
is a bad guy. Raffles set up a lot of innocent people to murdered
while presenting a smiling face to them, and then paid and fed the
troops that murdered them, yet obviously most people of the time, and
for a long time afterwards, regarded Raffles as a good guy.
Eric Ammadon
I'm sorry, I've been following this argument for what seems like
forever, and although I know the author is Jack Vance, I don't
recognize the book. What's it's title, please?
Ric Locke
[nibble]
>
> I'm sorry, I've been following this argument for what seems like
> forever, and although I know the author is Jack Vance, I don't
> recognize the book. What's it's title, please?
The Dying Earth, by Jack Vance.
This is one of the cases where JAD is correct but advocates more than is
justifiable. Cugel, the protag, is an extreme case of the "lovable
rogue", as classically depicted by James Dean. He doesn't repent at the
end, though. The general pattern is found throughout Vance, more often
as spear-carriers to the villains than as primary characters.
I've never found that particular type of rogue lovable. The behavior
pattern is a great way to get sex, though. I don't think all women are
attracted to it, but enough are.
Regards,
Ric
Eric Ammadon
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:53:36 -0700, Eric Ammadon wrote:
>[nibble]
>>
>> I'm sorry, I've been following this argument for what seems like
>> forever, and although I know the author is Jack Vance, I don't
>> recognize the book. What's it's title, please?
>
>The Dying Earth, by Jack Vance.
Thanks, Ric. I went to my shelves to look for it, and found not a
single title by Vance. I know I've read his work before. It's
curious. Well, in earlier times I discarded ten times the books I
kept.
>This is one of the cases where JAD is correct but advocates more than is
>justifiable.
Some generalists are more radical in their extrapolations than others.
<g>
> Cugel, the protag, is an extreme case of the "lovable
>rogue", as classically depicted by James Dean. He doesn't repent at the
>end, though. The general pattern is found throughout Vance, more often
>as spear-carriers to the villains than as primary characters.
>
>I've never found that particular type of rogue lovable. The behavior
>pattern is a great way to get sex, though. I don't think all women are
>attracted to it, but enough are.
I'm all for the fellow with a roguish twinkle in his eye, or the
fellow who's a rogue by day and hero by night during his infiltration
of evil's web, but that's about the extent of it for me as I find
there to be a fairly solid line between the cantankerous and the
mean-hearted. While I can get behind a con-man who's emptying the
purses of the powerful using the lever of their own greed, I cannot
abide one who'd take from the weak because they're dim or fearful, and
any man who'd take a woman by force should be fortunate enough to take
his pleasure from the likes of Lorena Bobbit.
Gerry Quinn
warric...@gmail.com says...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:53:36 -0700, Eric Ammadon wrote:
> [nibble]
> >
> > I'm sorry, I've been following this argument for what seems like
> > forever, and although I know the author is Jack Vance, I don't
> > recognize the book. What's it's title, please?
>
> The Dying Earth, by Jack Vance.
No, it is _The Eyes of the Overworld_, and its sequel _Cugel's Saga_.
> This is one of the cases where JAD is correct but advocates more than is
> justifiable. Cugel, the protag, is an extreme case of the "lovable
> rogue", as classically depicted by James Dean. He doesn't repent at the
> end, though. The general pattern is found throughout Vance, more often
> as spear-carriers to the villains than as primary characters.
On the contrary, he hardly seems to have read them, and it appears you
haven't either.
> I've never found that particular type of rogue lovable. The behavior
> pattern is a great way to get sex, though. I don't think all women are
> attracted to it, but enough are.
The degree of attraction felt by the women mentioned in the thread
seems to have had little bearing on events.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> James A. Donald:
> > > > > Every "rape" Cugel commits was legal when I was a kid, and legal at
> > > > > the time Jack Vance first published the "dying earth" stories. You are
> > > > > judging Cugel by an official state imposed morality that no one really
> > > > > believes, and no one really practices.
>
> Gerry Quinn
> > > > Far from it; I am simply using the ordinary definition of rape as non-
> > > > consensual sexual intercourse.
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > There is a lot of gray in consent. They all consented by what counted
> > > as consent at the time the book was published - though mostly at the
> > > very edge of what counted as consent.
>
> Gerry Quinn
> > I don't think that applies to Derwe Coreme.
>
> That is deliberately left ambiguous. The coupling, we are told, was
> "strenuous".
No we aren't. We are told:
"Their first couching had been both eventful and taxing... [her]
arrogance had altered to a new and wakeful appreciation of reality."
> I have done some fairly strenuous and forceful
> seductions myself. Some women like to be physically subdued. I did
> not get any complaints afterwards.
Let us hope that in such matters you are less self-deceiving than
Vance's character.
> In every confrontation, we are invited to sympathize with Cugel. How
> does the author load the deck in favor of Cugel to win our sympathy?
> By having Cugel do good, and fair things, and be met with a wicked and
> unfair response.
>
> Then Cugel gets back at the malefactor in some way that is usually
> sneaky, underhanded, violent, and drastic, and to the considerable
> benefit of Cugel.
>
> But the reader is first invited to sympathize with Cugel by Cugel's
> good, fair, and brave conduct, and to dislike Cugel's victim by the
> victims wrongful, unfair, and contemptible conduct. This is not only
> the formula of "Dying Earth" it is the formula of a pile of books.
It may be the formula of a pile of books, possibly a steaming pile -
but it is not the formula of these particular books. I invite you to
check out reviews on Amazon or some such site, and see what readers
think of Cugel. If you genuinely believe what you are posting here
(which I find hard to credit) you willl be surprised.
> > > They are relevant in that the legal definitions employed over the
> > > previous thousand years are probably a better guide to what people
> > > feel in their hearts than the wholly unprecedented laws governing
> > > sexual relations that exist today.
>
> > I do not think that most people would in their hearts approve of
> > Cugel's actions, in this regard or in others, nowadays or in the past.
>
> But the book works because we *do* approve of Cugel's actions. The
> author rigs the circumstances to get us to approve of Cugel. All is
> fair in love and war. If we did not approve of Cugel, would not enjoy
> the book.
Speak for yourself. I find myself well able to enjoy books with anti-
heroes. Again, if the books were not comedies it would be more
difficult.
If we like Cugel and/or approve of his actions (not at all the same
thing), it is because we have chosen to set at bay moral
considerations. Thus we are unperturbed by the fact that he is a
cheat, a robber, a burglar, a rapist, and a callous and petulant
killer. And he is all of these.
> > Did he? I don't remember. But if he did, it would be of a piece with
> > the numerous swindles conducted by Cugel. Bottom line: if you think
> > Cugel is a good guy, then you, Sir, are an idiot.
>
> Must be a lot of idiots purchased the book.
Read a few readers' reviews. Lots of people like the book; few if any
share your bizarre perception of the main character as virtuous.
> Your arguments that Cugel is a bad guy are also arguments that Raffles
> is a bad guy. Raffles set up a lot of innocent people to murdered
> while presenting a smiling face to them, and then paid and fed the
> troops that murdered them, yet obviously most people of the time, and
> for a long time afterwards, regarded Raffles as a good guy.
I don't know much about Raffles, or what people thought of him, or
whether they based their opinions on information analagous to third
person omni viewpoint (this last in particular seems unlikely). None
of your observations about Raffles or Xenephon are remotely relevant.
- Gerry Quinn
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:3ljog55pdincmh3jm...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> But the reader is first invited to sympathize with Cugel
> by Cugel's good, fair, and brave conduct, and to dislike
> Cugel's victim by the victims wrongful, unfair, and
> contemptible conduct.
I doubt that many readers share your view.
> This is not only the formula of "Dying Earth" it is the
> formula of a pile of books.
This is so far from being the formula of the Dying Earth
stories as a whole that I find it hard to believe that
you've read them.
[...]
James A. Donald
> author rigs the circumstances to get us to approve of Cugel. All is
> fair in love and war. If we did not approve of Cugel, would not enjoy
> the book.
>
> Circumstances alter cases. We also approve of Sir Stanford Raffles
> threatening to destroy the city of Malaria and turn the area into an
> uninhabited wilderness, even though the inhabitants have done nothing
> wrong to Raffles or the company,
That should of course have read "threatening to destroy the city of
Malacca", not "city of Malaria". I allowed my spelling checker to run
amuck.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> If we like Cugel and/or approve of his actions (not at all the same
> thing), it is because we have chosen to set at bay moral
> considerations. Thus we are unperturbed by the fact that he is a
> cheat, a robber, a burglar, a rapist, and a callous and petulant
> killer. And he is all of these.
>
>
> I don't know much about Raffles, or what people thought of him, or
> whether they based their opinions on information analagous to third
> person omni viewpoint (this last in particular seems unlikely). None
> of your observations about Raffles or Xenephon are remotely relevant.
The relevance of Raffles and Xenophon is that you are judging Cugel by
standards that are very recent, and would be considered quite strange
throughout most of human history. Raffles killed a lot of people,
most of them probably innocent, and lied to a lot of people, took
gigantic bribes and paid out gigantic bribes, but all is fair in love
and war. Was it petulant of Raffles to publicly mutilate the body of
the man who killed his friend, or have a man who lied to him blown out
of the mouth of a cannon?
We forgive Cugel because the author contrives the situation to be one
where drastic measures are appropriate - recall Xenophon's
justification for raping, burning and looting his way across asia.
Xenophon was right, and Raffles was right.
We don't set aside moral considerations when judging Raffles, and
Raffles, a rather stuffy Georgian gentleman, would doubtless be
shocked at the thought that we might set aside moral considerations,
for he undoubtedly impressed everyone else, as he impressed himself,
as a very upright gentleman.
James A. Donald
> > But the reader is first invited to sympathize with
> > Cugel by Cugel's good, fair, and brave conduct, and
> > to dislike Cugel's victim by the victims wrongful,
> > unfair, and contemptible conduct.
Brian M Scott:
> I doubt that many readers share your view.
"James A. Donald"
> > This is not only the formula of "Dying Earth" it is
> > the formula of a pile of books.
Brian M Scott:
> This is so far from being the formula of the Dying
> Earth stories as a whole that I find it hard to
> believe that you've read them.
I clicked on "read inside this book" and plucked out the
first thing I saw:
Here we see the setup that precedes Cugel ripping off
Doctor Lalanke and Varmous in "Tales of Dying Earth".
Who is it that holds the moral high ground?
Cugel has been hired as caravan guard by Varmous and has
been misinformed about the destination:
: : "It is not my road! I journey south to
: : Almery."
: :
: : "Just so." Doctor Lalanke turned away and
: : Cugel was left alone at his vigil. He looked
: : around for the mimes, half-wishing that they
: : would return and enliven the tedium, but they
: : were engaged in a new and amusing game,
: : tossing small objects down at the farlocks,
: : which, when so struck, whisked high their
: : tails.
: :
: : Cugel resumed his watch. To the south, the
: : rocky hillside, ever more steep. To the
: : north, the Ildish Waste, an expanse streaked
: : in subtle colors: dark pink, hazy black-gray,
: : maroon, touched here and there with the
: : faintest possible bloom of dark blue and
: : green.
: :
: : Time passed. The mimes continued their game,
: : which the teamsters and even the passengers
: : also seemed to enjoy; as the mimes tossed
: : down bits of stuff, the teamsters and
: : passengers jumped down to retrieve the
: : objects.
: :
: : Odd, thought Cugel. Why was every one so
: : enthusiastic over a game so trifling?... One
: : of the objects glinted of metal as it fell.
: : It was, thought Cugel, about the size and
: : shape of a terce. Surely the mimes would not
: : be tossing terces to the teamsters? Where
: : would they have obtained such wealth?
: :
: : The mimes finished their game. The teamsters
: : called up from below: "More! Continue the
: : game! Why stop now?" The mimes performed a
: : crazy' gesticulation and tossed down an empty
: : pouch, then went off to rest.
: :
: : Peculiar! thought Cugel. The pouch in some
: : respects resembled his own, which of course
: : was safely tucked away' in his tent. He
: : glanced down casually, then looked once again
: : more sharply.
: :
: : The pouch was nowhere to be seen.
: :
: : Cugel ran raging to Doctor Lalanke, where he
: : sat on the hold conversing with Clissum.
: : Cugel cried out: "Your wards made off with my
: : pouch! They threw my terces down to the
: : teamsters, and my other adjuncts as well,
: : including a valuable pot of boot dressing,
: : and finally the pouch itself!"
: :
: : Doctor Lalanke raised his black eyebrows.
: : "Indeed'? The rascals! I wondered what could
: : hold their attention SO long."
: :
: : "Please take this matter seriously!"
And, of course Doctor Lalanke does not take this matter
seriously
Then, in due course, Varmous reprimands Cugel for
screwing up, by raising a false alarm, when in fact he
has done a good job.
Then Cugel once again approaches Doctor Lalanke and
Varmous asking for redress, and then ....
Similarly, by the time we see Raffles proposing to
destroy the city of Malacca, we are sympathetic to
his situation.
Similarly, before we see Cugel cheat Lodermulch at dice,
we see Lodermulch assault Cugel.
Brian M. Scott
wrote in q59ug557m37andlro...@4ax.com:
> "James A. Donald"
>> > But the reader is first invited to sympathize with Cugel by Cugel's
>> > good, fair, and brave conduct, and to dislike Cugel's victim by the
>> > victims wrongful, unfair, and contemptible conduct.
> Brian M Scott:
>> I doubt that many readers share your view.
> "James A. Donald"
>> > This is not only the formula of "Dying Earth" it is the formula of a
>> > pile of books.
> Brian M Scott:
>> This is so far from being the formula of the Dying Earth stories as a
>> whole that I find it hard to believe that you've read them.
> I clicked on "read inside this book" and plucked out the first thing I
> saw:
> Here we see the setup that precedes Cugel ripping off Doctor Lalanke and
> Varmous in "Tales of Dying Earth". Who is it that holds the moral high
> ground?
> Cugel has been hired as caravan guard by Varmous and has been
> misinformed about the destination:
Cugel doesn't appear in _The Dying Earth_. The stories are 'Turjan of
Miir', 'Mazirian the Magician', 'T'sais', 'Liane the Wayfarer', 'Ulan
Dhor', and 'Guyal of Sfere'. When he wrote the Cugel stories, he'd lost
the touch: they've little in common with the real thing. If memory
serves, the three novellas that make up _Rhialto the Marvellous_ are
better again.
James A. Donald
> > Here we see the setup that precedes Cugel ripping off Doctor Lalanke and
> > Varmous in "Tales of Dying Earth". Who is it that holds the moral high
> > ground?
Brian M. Scott.
> Cugel doesn't appear in _The Dying Earth_.
He does, however, appear in "Tales of the Dying Earth"
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> Here we see the setup that precedes Cugel ripping off
> Doctor Lalanke and Varmous in "Tales of Dying Earth".
> Who is it that holds the moral high ground?
>
> Cugel has been hired as caravan guard by Varmous and has
> been misinformed about the destination:
Note that one component of the caravan is the flying ship, which - if I
recall correctly - has been stolen by Cugel from an innocent third
party.
Lalanke - again to my recollection - is a passenger on the ship, and
has no particular relationship to Varmous.
We also see him cheat quite innocent parties. Quoting from memory, it
was something like: "After a time Cugel managed to introduce his own
cards into the game, and his luck improved."
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> Books with morally neutral magic are seldom written,
> if written, seldom published, if published, fail to
> sell.
>
> Magic cares about morality, will, desire and
> intention.
>
> Evil sorcerers of the dark league use dark magic and
> control creatures of darkness. The evil empire does
> not use blasters that shoot dark plasma
Which assertion led to several alleged counter examples.
Most of these alleged counter examples were obviously
wrong - for example Lord D'Arcy explains that black
magic is still black, and therefor apt to turn the magic
user ill, evil, and insane, even when the magic user is
a good person using it for good purpose, as when a good
magician uses black magic to incapacitate an evil man,
similarly for chaos magic in the Recluse universe. Even
though the good guys in recluse regularly use chaos
magic to harm bad guys and destroy bad things, it is
still apt to harm the user, as in Lord D'Arcy's
hypothetical example of a good guy using black magic.
However, it has been a while since I read Jack Vance, so
the argument on Jack Vance's universe was inconclusive.
Recently, however, I reread some Jack Vance stories, and
found that the magic in Jack Vance's universe works as I
recollected it.
In the Jack Vance universe:
Page 583 of "Tales of Dying Earth": Magic works mainly
by invoking magical beings, demons, frits, spirits,
elementals, gods, etc.
In particular, by invoking demons. Demons are
condensations of human evil "evil distilled by time"
Page 127 of "Tales of Dying Earth":
: : his origin, together with all the demons, frits, and
: : winged glowing-eyed creatures that infest latter day
: : earth. Blikdak, like the others, is from the mind
: : of man. The sweaty condensation, the stench and
: : vileness, the cloacal humors, the brutal delights,
: : the rapes and sodomies, the scatophilac whims, the
: : manifold tittering lubricities that have drained
: : through humanity formed a vast tumor."
Using demonic magic has all the usual problems that one
would expect.
The Cugel arc is a collection of random short stories
linked together by Cugel's conflict with Iucounu the
laughing magician.
Cugel the clever is always being taken advantage of by
people cleverer than he is, particularly attractive
young ladies.
Iucounu uses demonic magic. His physical appearance
indicates this is not good for his health, and it
regularly backfires on him with disastrous consequences
for himself and others. His jests and his laughter are
demonic.
At the end of the Cugel arc, Cugel has settled his
obligations to Iucounu, and has a demonic item
that Iucounu very much desires, and Iucounu is
determined to take it from Cugel without paying the
princely sum it is worth.
Iucounu keeps "accidentally" meeting Cugel and
attempting to do him favors, which favors Cugel refuses
- the implication being that if Cugel owes him, then
Iucounu will be able to work magic against Cugel as he
had done earlier in the story - a clear example of
morality mattering to magic.
: : Cugel came upon a cross-roads; here waited a fine
: : double-sprung carriage drawn by four white
: : wherioms. High on the coachman's bench sat a pair of
: : maidens with long orange hair, complexions of dusky
: : tan and eyes of emerald green. They wore a livery of
: : umber and oyster white and, after quick side-glances
: : toward Cugel, stared haughtily ahead.
: :
: : Iucounu threw open the door. "Hola, Cugel! By chance
: : I came this route and behold! I perceive my friend Cugel
: : striding along at great rate! I had not expected to
: : find you so far along the way!"
: :
: : "I enjoy the open road," said Cugel. "I march at
: : quick-step be I intend to arrive at Taun Tassel
: : before dark. Forgive me if again, I cut our
: : conversation short."
: :
: : "Unnecessary! Taun Tassel is on my way. Step into
: : the carriage; we will talk as we ride."
: :
: : Cugel hesitated, looking first one way, then
: : another, and Iocounu became impatient. "Well then?"
: : he barked. "What now?"
: :
: : Cugel attempted an apologetic smile. "I never take
: : without giving in return. This policy averts
: : misunderstandings."
: :
: : Iucounu's eyelids drooped at the corners in moist
: : reproach. "Must we quibble over minor points? Into
: : the carriage with you, Cugel; you may enlarge upon
: : your qualms as we ride."
: :
: : "Very well," said Cugel. "I will ride with you to
: : Taun Tassel, but you must accept these three terces
: : in full, exact, final, comprehensive and complete
: : compensation for the ride and every other aspct,
: : adjunct, by-product and consequence, either direct
: : or indirect, of the said ride, renouncing every
: : other claim, now, and forever, including all times
: : of the past and future, without exception, and
: : absolving me, in part and in whole, from any and all
: : further obligations."
: :
: : Iucounu held up small balled fists and gritted his
: : teeth toward the sky. "I repudiate your entire
: : paltry philosophy! I find zest in giving!
: :
: : I now offer you in title full and clear this
: : excellent carriage, inclusive of wheels, springs and
: : upholstery, the four wheriots with twenty-six ells
: : of gold chain and a pair of matched maidens. The
: : totality is yours! Ride where you will!"
Needless to say, Cugel refuses this favor, though it is
very much out of character for Cugel to refuse a pair of
matched maidens.
Eventually, Iucounu tricks Cugel into accepting a favor,
thereby getting Cugel into his power, extorts the
demonic item from Cugel, immediately uses it - and is
promptly consumed by the demon.
Eric Ammadon
<snip>
> and is promptly consumed by the demon.
Poll questions:
1. Is resurrecting this particular thread an act of dark necromancy?
2. Of the possible reasons for its resurrection, are the bulk of them
morally neutral?
3. Am I being an absolute shit by asking these poll questions?
(That one's a giveaway, of coarse I am!)
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> However, it has been a while since I read Jack Vance, so
> the argument on Jack Vance's universe was inconclusive.
>
> Recently, however, I reread some Jack Vance stories, and
> found that the magic in Jack Vance's universe works as I
> recollected it.
>
> In the Jack Vance universe:
>
> Page 583 of "Tales of Dying Earth": Magic works mainly
> by invoking magical beings, demons, frits, spirits,
> elementals, gods, etc.
Correct.
> In particular, by invoking demons. Demons are
> condensations of human evil "evil distilled by time"
No, not in particular at all. It is pointed out that only the greatest
magicians can fully control 'dybbuk' (also known as gods and demons)
and such magicians do not appear in the stories. Lesser magicians can
use some demons temporarily (Iocunno and even Cugel manage to use them
for transport), but it may be that these are lesser demons. Perhaps
they are frits, or some other glowing eyed flying species.
In the stories concerning powerful magicians, i.e. Rhiallto the
Marvellous and the Lyonesse trilogy, the main forces employed by a
master magician are the sandestins, which are a powerful class of
magical beings, but not at all demonic.
> Page 127 of "Tales of Dying Earth":
> : : his origin, together with all the demons, frits, and
> : : winged glowing-eyed creatures that infest latter day
> : : earth. Blikdak, like the others, is from the mind
> : : of man. The sweaty condensation, the stench and
> : : vileness, the cloacal humors, the brutal delights,
> : : the rapes and sodomies, the scatophilac whims, the
> : : manifold tittering lubricities that have drained
> : : through humanity formed a vast tumor."
The library dude. Note that no magicians was using *him*.
> Using demonic magic has all the usual problems that one
> would expect.
>
> The Cugel arc is a collection of random short stories
> linked together by Cugel's conflict with Iucounu the
> laughing magician.
Well, the stories are episodic, but I don't think you could call them
random - they all advance the plot, if only by getting Cugel a little
further on his journey.
> Cugel the clever is always being taken advantage of by
> people cleverer than he is, particularly attractive
> young ladies.
>
> Iucounu uses demonic magic. His physical appearance
> indicates this is not good for his health, and it
> regularly backfires on him with disastrous consequences
> for himself and others. His jests and his laughter are
> demonic.
The only time we see Iocuuno using specifically demonic magic is when
he summons a demon to carry Cugel to a distant destination. Cugel uses
this spell too (though improperly) and also invokes demons from an
amulet. The spells that backfired on Iocuuno involved the use of mind-
controlling beings from a moon of Achernar, and remnants of an
overworld being, in some senses the opposite of a demon. The eye cusps
in the first book were demon-created, of course: it is Cugel who gets
the most use out of these.
> At the end of the Cugel arc, Cugel has settled his
> obligations to Iucounu, and has a demonic item
> that Iucounu very much desires, and Iucounu is
> determined to take it from Cugel without paying the
> princely sum it is worth.
No, it is an overworld item.
> Iucounu keeps "accidentally" meeting Cugel and
> attempting to do him favors, which favors Cugel refuses
> - the implication being that if Cugel owes him, then
> Iucounu will be able to work magic against Cugel as he
> had done earlier in the story - a clear example of
> morality mattering to magic.
He is, as Cugel understands perfectly, trying to inveigle Cugel to his
manse where Cugel will be parted from the item. Cugel failed to rob
Iucounu, and the latter eventually recovered his manse after Cugel
gained a temporary advantage over him. Cugel now intends to use the
Spatterlight to kill Iucouno, and is merely baiting the trap.
> : : Cugel came upon a cross-roads; here waited a fine
> : : double-sprung carriage drawn by four white
> : : wherioms. High on the coachman's bench sat a pair of
> : : maidens with long orange hair, complexions of dusky
> : : tan and eyes of emerald green. They wore a livery of
> : : umber and oyster white and, after quick side-glances
> : : toward Cugel, stared haughtily ahead.
> : :
> : : Iucounu threw open the door. "Hola, Cugel! By chance
> : : I came this route and behold! I perceive my friend Cugel
> : : striding along at great rate! I had not expected to
> : : find you so far along the way!"
> : :
> : : "I enjoy the open road," said Cugel. "I march at
> : : quick-step be I intend to arrive at Taun Tassel
> : : before dark. Forgive me if again, I cut our
> : : conversation short."
> : :
> : : "Unnecessary! Taun Tassel is on my way. Step into
> : : the carriage; we will talk as we ride."
[--]
> Eventually, Iucounu tricks Cugel into accepting a favor,
> thereby getting Cugel into his power, extorts the
> demonic item from Cugel, immediately uses it - and is
> promptly consumed by the demon.
Which was Cugel's intention; thus it is in fact being used by Cugel.
Cugel has already used it to kill several other creatures. I will note
again that Sadlark (whose central nexus this item is) is not in any
case a demon at all. He probably came to Earth to fight demons, in
fact.
Try actually reading the books.
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> The only time we see Iocuuno using specifically demonic magic is when
> he summons a demon to carry Cugel to a distant destination. Cugel uses
> this spell too (though improperly) and also invokes demons from an
> amulet. The spells that backfired on Iocuuno involved the use of mind-
> controlling beings from a moon of Achernar,
Which beings, though corporeal and not identified as demons, are evil,
and their evil backfires on the caster attempting to use and control
them - such backfiring clearly being an occupational hazard for
Iocuuno
> and remnants of an
> overworld being, in some senses the opposite of a demon.
These remnants are regularly identified as demon scales, therefore,
like the monster in the library, human evil distilled by time.
> The eye cusps
> in the first book were demon-created, of course: it is Cugel who gets
> the most use out of these.
Both arcs are driven by Iucounu's desire for demonic artifacts.
> > At the end of the Cugel arc, Cugel has settled his
> > obligations to Iucounu, and has a demonic item
> > that Iucounu very much desires, and Iucounu is
> > determined to take it from Cugel without paying the
> > princely sum it is worth.
> No, it is an overworld item.
It is identified as a demon scale.
> > Iucounu keeps "accidentally" meeting Cugel and
> > attempting to do him favors, which favors Cugel refuses
> > - the implication being that if Cugel owes him, then
> > Iucounu will be able to work magic against Cugel as he
> > had done earlier in the story - a clear example of
> > morality mattering to magic.
> He is, as Cugel understands perfectly, trying to inveigle Cugel to his
> manse where Cugel will be parted from the item.
If that was the case, why is Cugel fine with accepting the ride
provided Cugel pays Iocuounu fair price for the ride, and why does
Cugel refuse the offer of horses and women, both of which he could
ride to wherever he chose?
Gerry Quinn
jam...@echeque.com says...
> Gerry Quinn
> > The only time we see Iocuuno using specifically demonic magic is when
> > he summons a demon to carry Cugel to a distant destination. Cugel uses
> > this spell too (though improperly) and also invokes demons from an
> > amulet. The spells that backfired on Iocuuno involved the use of mind-
> > controlling beings from a moon of Achernar,
>
> Which beings, though corporeal and not identified as demons, are evil,
> and their evil backfires on the caster attempting to use and control
> them - such backfiring clearly being an occupational hazard for
> Iocuuno
There's nothing especially evil about them - like many such beings in
Vance's work they find life on Earth a bit confusing. They are not
good either; their morality owes nothing to Earthly concerns. They
seem to love each other. Anyway the main point is: they are natural
organisms, not demons.
> > and remnants of an
> > overworld being, in some senses the opposite of a demon.
>
> These remnants are regularly identified as demon scales, therefore,
> like the monster in the library, human evil distilled by time.
They aren't so identified any time I can recall. And the Overworld is
clearly in some real sense the opposite of the demon worlds; it is to
this world as this world is to a demon world. This is why the cusps
are objects of desire.
> > The eye cusps
> > in the first book were demon-created, of course: it is Cugel who gets
> > the most use out of these.
>
> Both arcs are driven by Iucounu's desire for demonic artifacts.
Iucouno's desire for demonic, and later Overworld, artefacts is part of
the plot. But arguably the main plot driver is Cugel's attempt to rob
Iucouno's manse, which puts him into Iucouno's power, and allows
Iucouno to send him on a dangerous mission to distant parts. That
journey forms a string on which Vance can place his episodic pearls.
> > > At the end of the Cugel arc, Cugel has settled his
> > > obligations to Iucounu, and has a demonic item
> > > that Iucounu very much desires, and Iucounu is
> > > determined to take it from Cugel without paying the
> > > princely sum it is worth.
>
> > No, it is an overworld item.
>
> It is identified as a demon scale.
Where? By whom? It is the central nexus of Sadlark, an Overworld
being.
> > > Iucounu keeps "accidentally" meeting Cugel and
> > > attempting to do him favors, which favors Cugel refuses
> > > - the implication being that if Cugel owes him, then
> > > Iucounu will be able to work magic against Cugel as he
> > > had done earlier in the story - a clear example of
> > > morality mattering to magic.
>
> > He is, as Cugel understands perfectly, trying to inveigle Cugel to his
> > manse where Cugel will be parted from the item.
>
> If that was the case, why is Cugel fine with accepting the ride
> provided Cugel pays Iocuounu fair price for the ride, and why does
> Cugel refuse the offer of horses and women, both of which he could
> ride to wherever he chose?
For plausibility. Iucounu's suspiciouns would be roused if Cugel were
too cooperative.
- Gerry Quinn
James A. Donald
> > Which beings, though corporeal and not identified as
> > demons, are evil, and their evil backfires on the
> > caster attempting to use and control them - such
> > backfiring clearly being an occupational hazard for
Gerry Quinn
> There's nothing especially evil about them
With tentacles and pincers, do you need a black hat as
well?
They are hideously horrible looking sentient parasites
that devour humans from inside and look like the sort of
sentient being that would devour humans from inside.
> - like many such beings in Vance's work they find life
> on Earth a bit confusing. They are not good either;
> their morality owes nothing to Earthly concerns.
When the author depicts a revolting parasite with
tentacles and talons, he is not aiming to depict beings
that are above earthly good and evil.
> > These remnants are regularly identified as demon
> > scales, therefore, like the monster in the library,
> > human evil distilled by time.
> They aren't so identified any time I can recall. And
> the Overworld is clearly in some real sense the
> opposite of the demon worlds;
OK. Not composed of human evil distilled by time. But
whatever he is, he eats people. If that is not a demon,
it will do for one.
> > > He is, as Cugel understands perfectly, trying to
> > > inveigle Cugel to his manse where Cugel will be
> > > parted from the item.
> > If that was the case, why is Cugel fine with
> > accepting the ride provided Cugel pays Iocuounu fair
> > price for the ride, and why does Cugel refuse the
> > offer of horses and women, both of which he could
> > ride to wherever he chose?
>
> For plausibility.
If that was all it was, Iucounu would gladly have
accepted the three terces.
: : "Very well," said Cugel. "I will ride with you to
: : Taun Tassel, but you must accept these three terces
: : in full, exact, final, comprehensive and complete
: : compensation for the ride and every other aspct,
: : adjunct, by-product and consequence, either direct
: : or indirect, of the said ride, renouncing every
: : other claim, now, and forever, including all times
: : of the past and future, without exception, and
: : absolving me, in part and in whole, from any and all
: : further obligations."
: :
: : Iucounu held up small balled fists and gritted his
: : teeth toward the sky. "I repudiate your entire
: : paltry philosophy! I find zest in giving!
: :
: : I now offer you in title full and clear this
: : excellent carriage, inclusive of wheels, springs and
: : upholstery, the four wheriots with twenty-six ells
: : of gold chain and a pair of matched maidens. The
: : totality is yours! Ride where you will!"
And if that was all it was Cugel would have accepted the
matched maidens.
But once Cugel *does* accept a favor from Iucounu, he is
in Iucounu's power.
Iucounu wants Cugel under a debt, and Cugel does not
want to be under a debt.
We see the same byplay in "Lyonesse", page 209, where
Druhn suspects that if he eats an apricot, he will be
enslaved and/or eaten. The monster who owns the
apricots is immensely frustrated when Druhn fails to eat
the apricots, because this means he cannot enslave
Druhn.