Crit: On the naming of demons, maybe
James Eades
finishing but which has stalled for better or worse reasons. Since
the subject of demons and what to call them has been broached
recently, I thought I'd throw out part of a scene, taken from the
middle of the work,and ask for general comments.
(setup: old west - a shamaness has had to perform an exorcism)
- - - -
Cornsilk squatted and watched her daughter, hungry for this moment
when Yucca was not attacking or fleeing.
"Who did this?" she asked. "Who would dare?"
Her thoughts were interrupted by the stiffening of the hair at the
nape of her neck, the peculiar prickle of ants crawling. The dust
about her became agitated as though stirred by a multitude of insects,
and the whining voice became audible again.
"White-haired Mistress! Heed us!"
"What? How dare you intrude upon my privacy?" Cornsilk cried in smoky
wrath, "You have caused me enough sorrow! Prepare to pay!" As she
started a singsong chant, leaves on nearby bushes began to char into
frosty tatters.
"Wait!" cried the voice, "White-haired Mistress! Wait! Do not punish
us for doing our duty!"
"Your DUTY?!? What duty nearly costs me my daughter? What duty makes
you sicken my people and cause me to be banished? Who are you?"
Hesitation.
Then, tentatively, four different voices recited, "We are Fits,
Fevers, Staggers and Delusion."
Cornsilk blinked. The voices had spoken to her before, but they had
never given their names.
"Let me rephrase that," she snapped. "WHAT are you?"
"We are Imperial Servants, White-haired Mistress. We are the finest
guardians in all of Babylon."
"What? You claim to be servants of the King of Spain?"
"No, not Spain, glorious benefactor!" said one.
"Where is Spain?" asked a different voice, higher pitched.
"Somewhere to the west coast. Toward Atlantis," responded yet
another.
"I had forgotten! Oh, woe is us! Our homeland has gone forever!"
said the second.
"A moment of respect," sniffed the first. "Alas, Babylon is no
more...."
"You are ghosts or demons, and I am going to get rid of you, once and
for all!" Cornsilk thrust her gnarled hand into her shoulder bag and
withdrew a tiny clay pot, about the size and shape of a thimble, which
seemed to be leaking a strange green vapor, triggered by her chant.
"No! No, White-haired Mistress! We have bonded to you in order to
remain in this realm! We cannot be released until our service has
been completed! If you banish us, we will have to find another host,
and we have seen that you do not wish harm to come to any of your
people!"
Cornsilk lowered her hand as she snarled, "Stay with me if you will!
But if I cannot be rid of you, then I shall make you suffer!"
"Please, Mistress! We have to warn you! There is a danger
approaching!"
Suspicion darkened crafty eyes as she tried to glimpse the transparent
shapes flitting about in the shadows.
"Danger? Why should you care?"
"A terrible danger, Mistress! A horrible creature seeks to invade
your temple during a ceremony! This creature will destroy your idols
and trample upon your sacred relics!"
"You have no idea about what we consider holy!" growled Cornsilk,
"What is the matter, did you meet someone you could not frighten with
your gibbering and mewling?"
A pause.
"This is a most vicious creature, Mistress!"
"Humphhh. You cannot touch him, then!"
[...]
--------
While researching, I found a reference to several Babylonian demons
and swiped them for my story, using their names for the malaise they
cause humans: fits, fevers, staggars and delusion. Although I had no
idea what Babylonian demons are like (except for being nasty), I
happily appropriated them as stooges. (Oh, wait. I just realized
that might make my story fan-fiction. :-/ )
__
JamesE
James A. Donald
Presumably the one who forgot which millennium it was
today, and told Cornsilk "we are the finest guardians in
all of Babylon" is "the second". Why the second? You do not quite
succeed in making the demons distinguishable, and you should try
harder, or not try at all.
If you are going to distinguish between them, make two
male, two female, two immeasurably old and a bit
disoriented in time and space, two merely some thousands
of years old, and somewhat aware of local times and
culture, to about the extent that a competent vampire
is. A croaky old man's voice, a creaky old woman's
voice, a menacing thug's voice, and feminine succubus
voice. I would suggest "fevers" the thug, "delusion"
the succubus, "fits" the old man, and "staggers" the old
woman. But that is six characters in one scene, which
is a bit overwhelming.
A character with a name like "Cornsilk" might suffer
from ancient Babylonian demons, but is not going to
suffer from twentieth century postmodern cultural
relativism. She is going to say "You have no
comprehension of what is holy" or "Holiness is nothing
to you"
Not "holy to us", but rather "holy"
--
----------------------
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.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Charles Caplan
> finishing but which has stalled for better or worse reasons. Since
> the subject of demons and what to call them has been broached
> recently, I thought I'd throw out part of a scene, taken from the
> middle of the work,and ask for general comments.
For the most part an interesting read. Old west setting with magical
overtones isn't something I see much of. As for the daemons, I don't
know much about Babylonian demons either, but it would seem to me that
they would likely be the servants of one god or another. IIRC Babylon
was polytheistic in the Greek vein, or was it that that the Greeks was
polytheistic in the Babylonian vein? I'm not an expert on ancient
theology, but I believe they had a pantheon where some gods were better
or worse than others, but no specific good/evil dichotomy. If that's
the case the daemons could just be somewhat impartial plagues upon
humanity.
I do agree with James Donald though, there are too many voices in the
scene. I'd be happier if it was cut to only two daemons that speak and
others that do not.
Other than that, the name Cornsilk bothers me. I'd prefer to see it in
it's native pronunciation. Though finding Native American translations
can be somewhat difficult.
Brian M. Scott
<news:3b8gi257cpial6p2p...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> I have a project - call it a WIN (Work in Neglect) which needs
> finishing but which has stalled for better or worse reasons. Since
> the subject of demons and what to call them has been broached
> recently, I thought I'd throw out part of a scene, taken from the
> middle of the work,and ask for general comments.
I like it. Assuming that the overall tone is intended to be
a bit humorous, the scene is rather delightful. (If not,
there may be a tone problem.) For goodness' sake don't
reduce the number of voices: they contribute to the fun and
the rather childlike appeal of the demons.
[...]
Brian
James Eades
Yes, too much complexity at the campfire.
Here you have four characters who can't be seen. I felt it better to
refrain from identifying the demons as individuals and refer to them
by number or whatever Cornsilk deduces about them, since part of the
role they play in the story calls for them to be almost anonymous,
virtually interchangeable (except for the bits of personality which
leak through in their words).
Good observation. It would be interesting to consult with the old gal
to find if that's the way she thinks. :-)
I think of Cornsilk as a Native American mystic who got that way
through 'piezo-psychic' education - that is to say, her psyche was
bent, folded, spindled and warped by the demons until she developed
her own set of survival skills. She is very much of the opinion that
the demons are not of her tribe or people and I think she would point
out that difference.
Thanks for your notes!
__
JamesE
James Eades
<send_m...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> I have a project - call it a WIN (Work in Neglect) which needs
>> finishing but which has stalled for better or worse reasons. Since
>> the subject of demons and what to call them has been broached
>> recently, I thought I'd throw out part of a scene, taken from the
>> middle of the work,and ask for general comments.
>
>For the most part an interesting read. Old west setting with magical
>overtones isn't something I see much of. As for the daemons, I don't
>know much about Babylonian demons either, but it would seem to me that
>they would likely be the servants of one god or another. IIRC Babylon
>was polytheistic in the Greek vein, or was it that that the Greeks was
>polytheistic in the Babylonian vein? I'm not an expert on ancient
>theology, but I believe they had a pantheon where some gods were better
>or worse than others, but no specific good/evil dichotomy. If that's
>the case the daemons could just be somewhat impartial plagues upon
>humanity.
The demons/imps were supposedly lesser beings, not really belonging to
any one deity, sort of like someone's pets got loose and turned feral,
running around in a pack and tormenting people.
It's been almost ten years since I checked and research has evolved,
though, sadly, not always for the best. Going back, I find none of
the sources I found then - or, perhaps, they are lost underneath the
mass of non-pertinent roughage clogging the internet nowadays. I
simply don't know. Finding the reference was a happy accident that
started off a whole subplot which figures into the resolution and the
grand sorcerer battle. Just wish I could point to the book where I
first found it.
>
>I do agree with James Donald though, there are too many voices in the
>scene. I'd be happier if it was cut to only two daemons that speak and
>others that do not.
>
>Other than that, the name Cornsilk bothers me. I'd prefer to see it in
>it's native pronunciation. Though finding Native American translations
>can be somewhat difficult.
I can claim with some veracity that the name Cornsilk does not appear
in any compendium of Native American names that I have ever seen. I
just made it up cause it seemed to fit - real cornsilk is normally
limp and soft, while Cornsilk is anything but. :-)
__
JamesE
James Eades
Thanks. I definitely hoped it would be taken as humor. :-)
I confess to snickering while writing some of their scenes.
Once Cornsilk finds their weakness and tames them, they quit doing bad
things to the camp, but underneath it all, the demons are still
malicious, conniving and evil. They just aren't all that good at
carrying out their bad deeds - until the time is right and they
deliver with a deserved vengeance.
__
JamesE
James A. Donald
> setting with magical overtones isn't something I see
> much of. As for the daemons, I don't know much about
> Babylonian demons either, but it would seem to me that
> they would likely be the servants of one god or
> another. IIRC Babylon was polytheistic in the Greek
> vein, or was it that that the Greeks was polytheistic
> in the Babylonian vein? I'm not an expert on ancient
> theology, but I believe they had a pantheon where some
> gods were better or worse than others, but no specific
> good/evil dichotomy.
Most of the Babylonian Gods were incarnations of clearly
good things, such as justice. The original creators of
the world were demonic - and subsequently killed by the
good guy gods.
This is a rather more moralistic theology than Greek
theology, where the titans (the original creators of
mankind) were frequently good guys who were defeated by
gods of very dubious character - Prometheus tortured by
Zeus.
Babylonian theology resembles Greek theology in that the
original creators were not regular gods, but gigantic
progenitors of the gods, and resembles Hebrew theology
in that the gods represent moral order, unlike Greek
theology.
Therefore any nasty supernatural beings are in rebellion
against the major gods, just as criminals are in
rebellion against the king. A priest who makes
arrangements with such beings is up to no good.
Babylonian theology, like Christian theology, and unlike
Greek and Hebrew theology, is plentifully supplied with
demons. The good guy gods are not so supreme that they
can avoid serious opposition.
Both Greek and Hebrew theology contain large elements
derived from Babylonian theology, while Babylonian
theology is itself syncretic, composed of strands from
all the various groups absorbed into Babylon, or who
were conquered by Babylon, or who conquered Babylon.
Babylon was the first great city of mankind. Its walls
were 42 miles in circumference, enclosing about 200
square miles of city. It was the first commercial city,
living on commerce and manufacture, not merely tribute.
Babylon was the first city to have running water, indoor
plumbing, sewers and proper toilets. Slaves manned the
pumps that raised the water to tanks high enough to
provide flow. This technology was repeatedly forgotten
and regained, as civilization rose and fell more times
than anyone can easily keep track of.
Tina Hall
<snip some suggestion and thoughts given as commands and as if they were
facts>
(That alone makes it not worth listening to.)
> Yes, too much complexity at the campfire.
I disagree. It's not an opening after all.
> Here you have four characters who can't be seen. I felt it better to
> refrain from identifying the demons as individuals and refer to them
> by number or whatever Cornsilk deduces about them, since part of the
> role they play in the story calls for them to be almost anonymous,
> virtually interchangeable (except for the bits of personality which
> leak through in their words).
Which I guess are identifiable.
I'm someone who easily gets confused in a crowd of characters, starting
with two; if they're are only described and no names given I'll never know
who is who. (I also never know who they're talking about in TV crime
series because I can't remember the names of whoever they're talking
about. It takes about half a year until I know the names of the
detectives.)
Your demons, as a bunch of voices that come in a package, didn't confuse
me.
> I think of Cornsilk as a Native American mystic
The location did confuse me. First they talk about Babylon, then Spain.
Never thought it could be anywhere on the American contintent until
someone mentioned it. (But that might be because it's no opening. I assume
whatever comes before will explain where it takes place.)
Tina
--
WIP: Some Fantasy thing, untitled so far.
WISuspension: Seasons & Elements trilogy, a serial in three parts.
WISuspension: Magic Earth series, a serial in six parts.
Posted to Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.composition.
James A. Donald
> <snip some suggestion and thoughts given as commands
> and as if they were facts>
It is courteous to read the best intent into someone's
ambiguous phrasing, rather than the worst intent.
Commands are seldom preceded with "If you are going to",
nor concluded with "I would suggest".
Helen Hall
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
only added to the scene. I don't think you should clarify and
over-explain right now.
My only queries would be:
"Cornsilk cried in smoky wrath..."
This might just be because you took a chunk out of context, but I wasn't
sure if that "smoky" was literal or metaphorical. If literal, then
presumably the setup for the scene would explain it. If metaphorical, it
seemed a little overblown to me, but it might match the overall tone of
the story, so I only flag it as something that snagged my attention.
"Suspicion darkened crafty eyes as she tried to glimpse the transparent
shapes flitting about in the shadows."
That jolted me a little because I had thought we were quite tightly in
on Cornsilk's POV and suddenly we saw her from outside. It might be
better to stay tightly in on her viewpoint throughout. Alternatively,
pull back a little more gradually. But again it could merely be because
you took an extract out of context and really it's nothing to worry
about.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Charles Caplan
> I can claim with some veracity that the name Cornsilk does not appear
> in any compendium of Native American names that I have ever seen. I
> just made it up cause it seemed to fit - real cornsilk is normally
> limp and soft, while Cornsilk is anything but. :-)
Then keep it. =) I think the scene and premise are very interesting and
would like to see it developed. Unique goes a long way for me.
James Eades
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>Babylonian theology resembles Greek theology in that the
>original creators were not regular gods, but gigantic
>progenitors of the gods, and resembles Hebrew theology
>in that the gods represent moral order, unlike Greek
>theology.
>
>Therefore any nasty supernatural beings are in rebellion
>against the major gods, just as criminals are in
>rebellion against the king. A priest who makes
>arrangements with such beings is up to no good.
>Babylonian theology, like Christian theology, and unlike
>Greek and Hebrew theology, is plentifully supplied with
>demons. The good guy gods are not so supreme that they
>can avoid serious opposition.
The demons in question were the equivalent of street thugs harrassing
ordinary folk, too insignificant for the big gods to bother with.
However, for the purposes of this story, they did have a union.
The priest who made arrangements with them was, indeed, a dastardly
sort, as illustrated by the remainder of the scene, which I
shamelessly use this opportunity to enclose:
<from Cornsilk's vp>
"Yes, Mistress. We can stop his master, because his magic gives us
power, but this monster uses guile."
Cornsilk smiled one of her less pleasant smiles. "Tell me more about
this creature, and why you fear him," she said.
"His master summoned us to protect a treasure," the one she was
learning to call Fits spoke.
"You could not protect a bowl of stew," said Cornsilk.
"You would not think so, would you? You would err. We draw our
strength from the power of our enemies! The more powerful the
magician, the more perfect is our defense!"
"This magician is powerful, hmm?"
"He is despicable, a robber of tombs. We spit upon his memory!" said
Fits.
The second added slyly, "So, we did not warn him when he forgot to
exempt himself from our protection!"
"So, now he cannot retrieve it," gloated the one she guessed to be
Staggers.
"But he has sent his servant to fetch it," mourned the remaining
voice. "We can protect against a powerful magician; we reflect his
magic back upon him, but this vile creature knows no such force."
"Though he be created with magic, all he can do is use tools,"
explained Fits.
"But that is enough to make him dangerous," said the fourth one.
Cornsilk dismissed them with a wave. "You have given me much to think
about," she said. "Now, leave me! I wish to be alone with my
daughter!"
__
JamesE
James Eades
<use...@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>My only queries would be:
>
>"Cornsilk cried in smoky wrath..."
>
>This might just be because you took a chunk out of context, but I wasn't
>sure if that "smoky" was literal or metaphorical. If literal, then
>presumably the setup for the scene would explain it. If metaphorical, it
>seemed a little overblown to me, but it might match the overall tone of
>the story, so I only flag it as something that snagged my attention.
Definitely overblown metaphor. I was trying to exaggerate her
reaction for the benefit of the demons, who fear her anger. In
context, she has reason to be fuming.
>
>"Suspicion darkened crafty eyes as she tried to glimpse the transparent
>shapes flitting about in the shadows."
>
>That jolted me a little because I had thought we were quite tightly in
>on Cornsilk's POV and suddenly we saw her from outside. It might be
>better to stay tightly in on her viewpoint throughout. Alternatively,
>pull back a little more gradually. But again it could merely be because
>you took an extract out of context and really it's nothing to worry
>about.
Glad you caught this. This is something I'll have to work on -
looking back at the rest of the story (the writing of which started
over ten years ago, with a lot of starts and stops) I realize that I
do that rather often - go along for a while in the character's mind,
and then jump back to picture them from the outside as they react to a
situation. Whether it's considered acceptable to do so or not, I must
at least be consistent with my errors. :-)
__
JamesE
James Eades
wrote:
>James Eades <jee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> I think of Cornsilk as a Native American mystic
>
>The location did confuse me. First they talk about Babylon, then Spain.
>Never thought it could be anywhere on the American contintent until
>someone mentioned it. (But that might be because it's no opening. I assume
>whatever comes before will explain where it takes place.)
Plucking the scene from the middle of the work was probably unfair of
me. I wanted something about demons and names, so I just grabbed. :-)
To elaborate (too late): The scene is set in a Native American camp in
Northern Mexico, in the 1830s. The demons, called from the past by an
evil sorcerer, have entertained themselves by tormenting Cornsilk and
her group. It's about payback time. ;)
__
JamesE
Suzanne Blom
"James Eades" <jee...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3b8gi257cpial6p2p...@4ax.com...
> While researching, I found a reference to several Babylonian demons
> and swiped them for my story, using their names for the malaise they
> cause humans: fits, fevers, staggars and delusion. Although I had no
> idea what Babylonian demons are like (except for being nasty), I
> happily appropriated them as stooges.
I like it. I think the demons should be many & somewhat indefinite. I think
you've got that down. Also the bit of humor, yes.
Would want to see more.
James Eades
wrote:
>
>"James Eades" <jee...@swbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3b8gi257cpial6p2p...@4ax.com...
>>I have a project - call it a WIN (Work in Neglect) which needs
>> finishing but which has stalled for better or worse reasons. Since
>> the subject of demons and what to call them has been broached
>> recently, I thought I'd throw out part of a scene, taken from the
>> middle of the work,and ask for general comments.
[...]
>
>I like it. I think the demons should be many & somewhat indefinite. I think
>you've got that down. Also the bit of humor, yes.
>Would want to see more.
Thanks. The disparate nature of the demons appealed to me - sort of a
schizophrenic multiple personality invisible scary being that can be
thoughtful, pompous, insecure and whimisically evil at the same time.
This tale has been languishing, in part because of my own timidity and
lack of faith in it. Faith. Yeah, that's what I need. (Sometimes I
feel just as conflicted as my demons. ;)
__
JamesE
Tina Hall
> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>> James Eades <jee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> I think of Cornsilk as a Native American mystic
>>
>> The location did confuse me. First they talk about Babylon, then
>> Spain. Never thought it could be anywhere on the American contintent
>> until someone mentioned it. (But that might be because it's no
>> opening. I assume whatever comes before will explain where it takes
>> place.)
> Plucking the scene from the middle of the work was probably unfair of
> me.
Na, I knew it was the middle of the story, and didn't expect everything to
be explained. :)
And you did mention 'old west', I just have no idea what that's supposed
to be.
James Eades
wrote:
>James Eades <jee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> Tina...@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>>> James Eades <jee...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I think of Cornsilk as a Native American mystic
>>>
>>> The location did confuse me. First they talk about Babylon, then
>>> Spain. Never thought it could be anywhere on the American contintent
>>> until someone mentioned it. (But that might be because it's no
>>> opening. I assume whatever comes before will explain where it takes
>>> place.)
>
>> Plucking the scene from the middle of the work was probably unfair of
>> me.
>
>Na, I knew it was the middle of the story, and didn't expect everything to
>be explained. :)
>
>And you did mention 'old west', I just have no idea what that's supposed
>to be.
>
>Tina
Many USians (of which I am one) have been influenced by entertainment
that painted the western frontier as 'vast, unexplored territory,
untouched by (white) men'. We think of the old west as that land as
it was being 'tamed' and farmed, ranched or however made productive.
After all, we've been a nation for, what - over two hundred years?
Never mind Mexico, which has been around for going on five hundred.
'Old west' is a misnomer in this case. The action in the story takes
place in what Mexico might consider the 'uncivilized north' - parts
which later became Arizona.
__
JamesE
James A. Donald
> slight confusion only added to the scene. I don't
> think you should clarify and over-explain right now.
If the viewpoint character was confused by the
cacophonous multiplicity of demons, I would be more
comfortable with myself being confused.
Tina Hall
>> And you did mention 'old west', I just have no idea what that's
>> supposed to be.
> Many USians (of which I am one) have been influenced by entertainment
> that painted the western frontier as 'vast, unexplored territory,
> untouched by (white) men'.
It's called "wild west" here. :)
Alex Clark
James A. Donald wrote:
> Presumably the one who forgot which millennium it was
> today, and told Cornsilk "we are the finest guardians in
> all of Babylon" is "the second". Why the second? You do not quite
> succeed in making the demons distinguishable, and you should try
> harder, or not try at all.
>
> If you are going to distinguish between them, make two
I'll tell you how you shall know them: all he-devils has horns, and
all she-devils has clifts and cloven feet.
--
Alex Clark
Soft, baggy birds squatted on the rocks, snickering, "Saidso, saidso."
- _The Last Unicorn_, by Peter S. Beagle
Del Cotter
James Eades <jee...@swbell.net> said:
>Crit: On the naming of demons, maybe
The naming of imps is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your Hallowe'en games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you a pisky has *three different names*.
--
Del Cotter
NB Personal replies to this post will send email to d...@branta.demon.co.uk,
which goes to a spam folder-- please send your email to del3 instead.
James Eades
wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, in rec.arts.sf.composition,
>James Eades <jee...@swbell.net> said:
>>Crit: On the naming of demons, maybe
>
>The naming of imps is a difficult matter,
>It isn't just one of your Hallowe'en games;
>You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
>When I tell you a pisky has *three different names*.
"I've just one thing to tell yer," the gnome's face took on a
pugnacious expression as he cuffed the back of his neck, making his
bowler brim slide down upon his brow - the better to look ferocious, I
suppose.
"Imps are a pain and a bother. First, ye got to call them, then ye
got to git rid of 'em. If ye're lumpish enough to call one, use his
exact name or he won't never show up, and after ye call's 'em, you got
to uncall him. And hold yer temper! 'Cause if yer gets het up and
tells him off, ye're likely to call him another name and then ye have
a fine kettle of fish. Now ye got a pisked off imp runnin' amuck with
two names and ye got to uncall him using both names... In the same
order, mind you, only backwards."
"You certainly know a lot about that sort of thing," I noted. "Did you
make that mistake?"
"Sprats like ye orter keep yer whistles shut," he opined, and turned
in for the night.
__
JamesE
ghostwriter
Interesting, I would read it.
I got the impression of a jumble of almost indistingishable demons.
Babylonian mythology is heavily based on who is the servent of who.
Slavery was a a massive institution as I understand it. Babylonians
believed that if they enslaved a people that people's gods had to
become slaves to their gods. Thats gives a slightly different view on
why Bablyon enslaved the Jews and why when Babylon fell most of the
slaves were allowed to return home rather than being taken by the
victors or kept by the Babylonians. It is likley there were simply too
many slaves for any other civilization to be interested and it allowed
the victors to destroy a underpinning of an enemies religion.
Ghostwriter
ghostwriter
I like this dialogue quite a lot is it part of another work or the same
one?
Ghostwriter
James Eades
<ghostw...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
Improvised. I couldn't top 'a pisky with three names.' :-)
__
JamesE
James Eades
<ghostw...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>James Eades wrote:
>>[...]
>
>Interesting, I would read it.
Thanks! Several folks have been kind enough to say this, but I've
been reluctant to put it forward since it is part of a sprawling,
meandering tale (38 chapters, so far). If anyone is interested, I
have a url. It's fantasy, but not everyone might like it.
>I got the impression of a jumble of almost indistingishable demons.
>
>Babylonian mythology is heavily based on who is the servent of who.
>Slavery was a a massive institution as I understand it. Babylonians
>believed that if they enslaved a people that people's gods had to
>become slaves to their gods. Thats gives a slightly different view on
>why Bablyon enslaved the Jews and why when Babylon fell most of the
>slaves were allowed to return home rather than being taken by the
>victors or kept by the Babylonians. It is likley there were simply too
>many slaves for any other civilization to be interested and it allowed
>the victors to destroy a underpinning of an enemies religion.
>
>Ghostwriter
I'd think that in order for the Babylonians to enslave a god to their
gods, they would have to at least partially understand the gods of
their slaves - which would mean that they could accidentally open up
and accept one of those subject gods as their own.
Then, too, the Babylonians were considered to be very liberal in their
attitudes towards all sorts of earthly indulgences as well. (which is
probably how they attracted some subject races, I suppose)
In my tale, the demons use trickery to outwit the sorcerer who called
them, so that, in a manner of speaking, he has become subject to them.
It is a nice, twisted entanglement.
Again, thanks.
__
JamesE
ghostwriter
James Eades wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2006 12:57:46 -0700, "ghostwriter"
> <ghostw...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >James Eades wrote:
>
> >>[...]
>
> >
> >Interesting, I would read it.
>
> Thanks! Several folks have been kind enough to say this, but I've
> been reluctant to put it forward since it is part of a sprawling,
> meandering tale (38 chapters, so far). If anyone is interested, I
> have a url. It's fantasy, but not everyone might like it.
By all means, I would love to read more.
> >I got the impression of a jumble of almost indistingishable demons.
> >
> >Babylonian mythology is heavily based on who is the servent of who.
> >Slavery was a a massive institution as I understand it. Babylonians
> >believed that if they enslaved a people that people's gods had to
> >become slaves to their gods. Thats gives a slightly different view on
> >why Bablyon enslaved the Jews and why when Babylon fell most of the
> >slaves were allowed to return home rather than being taken by the
> >victors or kept by the Babylonians. It is likley there were simply too
> >many slaves for any other civilization to be interested and it allowed
> >the victors to destroy a underpinning of an enemies religion.
> >
> >Ghostwriter
>
> I'd think that in order for the Babylonians to enslave a god to their
> gods, they would have to at least partially understand the gods of
> their slaves - which would mean that they could accidentally open up
> and accept one of those subject gods as their own.
Very true actually, they butchered pigs on the altars of the Jewish
temple. They certainly would not have done so if they had not
understood exactly what that meant to the Jews.
James Eades
<ghostw...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>By all means, I would love to read more.
I emailed you with the information.
__
JamesE
Bill Swears
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, in rec.arts.sf.composition,
> James Eades <jee...@swbell.net> said:
>> Crit: On the naming of demons, maybe
>
> The naming of imps is a difficult matter,
> It isn't just one of your Hallowe'en games;
> You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
> When I tell you a pisky has *three different names*.
>
Such as Mxiplt, Genkis, Tenkatlik, Pestimo, or Grames,
Such as Meager or Grantasthan, or Grunt, or Fin Graley -
All of them frightening terrible names.
--
Ourdebate.com lifts free debate between writers and dilutes it with ads.
rec.arts.sf.composition is a USENET group, and can be accessed for free.
Ourdebate.com therefore sucks (the life from discourse),
and dribbles (deceit when integrity would have worked just as well).