horn of valere -> ter'angreal?
SMF User
and i was just wondering if the horn of valere
itself is a ter'angreal. it seems to have all
the properties of one such as linking and affecting
things in TAR (such as bring dead people out of there).
this isn't in the FAQ so i thought I would bring it up.
-sandip "fel" mehta
hupert deborah r
That's an interesting question. I don't think that the Horn is a
ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
D.H.
M Kadi
: i was just wondering if the horn of valere itself is a ter'angreal.
Could be. Then again, it could be a non'angreal-magical-weird-thing,
along the lines of a Portal Stone.
Either way, it functions as a Special (plot) Device.
-- Mae
John Novak
>That's an interesting question. I don't think that the Horn is a
>ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
>lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
As someone once remarked, "The writing on it is written in the
Old Tongue." Probably, this bears a certain relevance. Until
then, I had always assumed it was something more than just a
gadget built by the Age of Legends Aes Sedai. Now, I'm not so
sure.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
Carolyn Fusinato
>
>In <Pine.Sola.3.91.95042...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> hupert deborah r <hup...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>>That's an interesting question. I don't think that the Horn is a
>>ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
>>lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
>
>As someone once remarked, "The writing on it is written in the
>Old Tongue." Probably, this bears a certain relevance. Until
>then, I had always assumed it was something more than just a
>gadget built by the Age of Legends Aes Sedai. Now, I'm not so
>sure.
I realize the Horn doesn't seem to be able to be harmed, but "they could
do wonders in the Age of Legends." It's possible that the phrase
was added to it during that Age. My main reason for thinking the Horn
couldn't have just been created in the AoL is the fact that Birgitte
has lived so many lives in so many turns that she can't even remember.
And so far we only know that she was alive around the Trolloc Wars and
in the Age of Legends (and now). Rand thinks in TGH, "He knew them.
Men, not all in armor, and women. Their clothes and their weapons
came from every Age, but he knew them all." Artur Hawkwing says to
Hurin, "It takes more than bravery to bind a man to the Horn." So they
are clearly bound to the Horn.
Carolyn "Dr. Piglet! Practise your art!!" Fusinato /
c.fus...@mail.utexas.edu
WoT Fan Club Page: <http://bongo.cc.utexas.edu/~moiraine/wotclub.html>
Massachusetts Darkfriends - e-mail <WBP...@prodigy.com> for DFS info
So. California Darkfriends - e-mail <Robi...@aol.com> " " "
Texas Darkfriends - e-mail <sel...@mail.utexas.edu> " " "
ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN
}In <Pine.Sola.3.91.95042...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> hupert deborah r <hup...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
}
}>That's an interesting question. I don't think that the Horn is a
}>ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
}>lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
}
}As someone once remarked, "The writing on it is written in the
}Old Tongue." Probably, this bears a certain relevance. Until
}then, I had always assumed it was something more than just a
}gadget built by the Age of Legends Aes Sedai. Now, I'm not so
}sure.
}
Well, I said that most recently (I doubt I was the first). I'm
not sure it really proves anything. It *could* be some "legendary"
thing that just is, like the portal stones. I do think it was
created by channelers. If not, where did it come from? An eternal
"get free of teh DO free" card? That is conveniently lost in Ages
when it's not needed, and found in others? I doubt it.
Dylan
Wikedpinto
>i was just re-reading the entire story again,
>and i was just wondering if the horn of valere
>itself is a ter'angreal. it seems to have all
>the properties of one such as linking and affecting
>things in TAR (such as bring dead people out of there).
>this isn't in the FAQ so i thought I would bring it up.
Yes makes sense, is ter'angreal that doesn't need channeling, it
works like the roaming grove of the green man, when sufficient need arises
in the pattern it will work as long as it is to the lips of a person.
Good job
Doug.
Wikedpinto
>along the lines of a Portal Stone.
Portal stone is a crude terangreal made long before the age of
legends (crude compared to and insti gateway) it is a ter' angreal just a
WAY different kind. How can you have a non ter'angreal that NEEDS the one
power?
Doug.
Wikedpinto
>ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
>lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
>
>D.H.
Ter' angreal are like angreal only they are designed for a specific
purpose with the power. . .I think that is an exact quote.
A ter' angreal is a catch all phrase, while angreal is more
specific, and Sa'Angreal is Way specific (how about Angreal means subject
in the in the old tongue, and Ter = general and Sa = Specific(that is a
joke)) So anything that is forged with the one power that performs a
specific task is a ter' angreal
Doug.
John Novak
>I realize the Horn doesn't seem to be able to be harmed, but "they could
>do wonders in the Age of Legends." It's possible that the phrase
>was added to it during that Age. My main reason for thinking the Horn
>couldn't have just been created in the AoL is the fact that Birgitte
>has lived so many lives in so many turns that she can't even remember.
>And so far we only know that she was alive around the Trolloc Wars and
>in the Age of Legends (and now). Rand thinks in TGH, "He knew them.
>Men, not all in armor, and women. Their clothes and their weapons
>came from every Age, but he knew them all." Artur Hawkwing says to
>Hurin, "It takes more than bravery to bind a man to the Horn." So they
>are clearly bound to the Horn.
What exactly is all that supposed to prove?
ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN
}
}I realize the Horn doesn't seem to be able to be harmed, but "they could
}do wonders in the Age of Legends." It's possible that the phrase
There's no real reason to believe the Horn can't be harmed.
}was added to it during that Age. My main reason for thinking the Horn
}couldn't have just been created in the AoL is the fact that Birgitte
}has lived so many lives in so many turns that she can't even remember.
}And so far we only know that she was alive around the Trolloc Wars and
}in the Age of Legends (and now). Rand thinks in TGH, "He knew them.
}Men, not all in armor, and women. Their clothes and their weapons
}came from every Age, but he knew them all." Artur Hawkwing says to
}Hurin, "It takes more than bravery to bind a man to the Horn." So they
}are clearly bound to the Horn.
Sure, now they are. I suspect the Horn is a very strange ter'angreal
that was made to take advantage of the fact that there are "heroes"
who are "bound to teh Wheel" and are constantly reborn when they aren't
waiting in T'A'R, the cosmic waiting room.
IMO, the Horn was created to take advantage of a natural phenomenon.
So where could the Horn have come from?
1. The Creator made it when he made the world, it always exists.
I seriously doubt this. We don't have *any* evidence of the Creator
making *anything* other than the Universe itself.
2. It's a ter'angreal, made in the AOL. Maybe. Why did they make it?
Why didn't they use it in the AOl? (Maybe they did?) Another possiblity
is it was made *before* the AOL, but still by the Power. So who made
it? Where was it during our time? Who found it and figured out what
it does?
3. <drum roll> It's a *finn artifact that someone bargained for. Nice
tie in with Mat if it's true.
Dylan
Andrea Lynn Leistra
ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN <dfa...@vms1.tamu.edu> wrote:
>In article <3o0sug$g...@cegt201.bradley.edu>, j...@cegt201.bradley.edu (John Novak) writes...
>}In <Pine.Sola.3.91.95042...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> hupert deborah r <hup...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>}
>}>ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
>}>lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
>}
>}Old Tongue." Probably, this bears a certain relevance. Until
>}then, I had always assumed it was something more than just a
>}gadget built by the Age of Legends Aes Sedai. Now, I'm not so
>}sure.
>
>Well, I said that most recently (I doubt I was the first). I'm
>not sure it really proves anything. It *could* be some "legendary"
>thing that just is, like the portal stones. I do think it was
>created by channelers. If not, where did it come from? An eternal
>"get free of teh DO free" card? That is conveniently lost in Ages
>when it's not needed, and found in others? I doubt it.
>
problematic...if it was created at a given time, that could be a fairly
large change in the Pattern that time around. Not that that isn't
possible, but it is a consideration.
The fact that the Horn has carvings in the Old Tongue proves nothing. The
AS of that time period could simply have carved on it after rediscovering
the thing. (Irrelevant Real Life Example: The Sphinx in Egypt was buried
for several centuries and re-discovered, still in ancient times, by
someone who had no idea what it was for and put up a stone in front of it
saying basically "I found this...")
Andrea
mmike
> IMO, the Horn was created to take advantage of a natural phenomenon.
I'd buy that.
> So where could the Horn have come from?
>
> 1. The Creator made it when he made the world, it always exists.
> I seriously doubt this. We don't have *any* evidence of the Creator
> making *anything* other than the Universe itself.
Dylan, reread that point. Now try an explain to me how the Creator
couldn't have made the Horn of Valere. Without the huge gaping hole in
your logic. :)
> 3. <drum roll> It's a *finn artifact that someone bargained for. Nice
> tie in with Mat if it's true.
One word: When?
--
mmike murphy: "Our love is God. Let's go get a slushee."
ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN
}(ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN) wrote:
}> IMO, the Horn was created to take advantage of a natural phenomenon.
}
}I'd buy that.
}
}> So where could the Horn have come from?
}>
}> 1. The Creator made it when he made the world, it always exists.
}> I seriously doubt this. We don't have *any* evidence of the Creator
}> making *anything* other than the Universe itself.
}
}Dylan, reread that point. Now try an explain to me how the Creator
}couldn't have made the Horn of Valere. Without the huge gaping hole in
}your logic. :)
:P You know what I meant. It's too specific. Why would the Creator
make it? (No, I don't want answers.)
}
}> 3. <drum roll> It's a *finn artifact that someone bargained for. Nice
}> tie in with Mat if it's true.
}
}One word: When?
Before TEOTW. Hell, I don't know. The same AS that had the Horn had
the doorway ter'angreal. Maybe they went through and asked for a
device to <fill in appropriate request string that the Horn would
fit under>. Why this? Maybe they said, "give me something to help
the Dragon win the Last Battle in the next Age." Voila. Or it could
have been aquired early in the war, for the same reasons.
Dylan
Will Smit
>In <3o2qqe$6...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> c.fus...@mail.utexas.edu (Carolyn Fusinato) writes:
>>I realize the Horn doesn't seem to be able to be harmed, but "they could
>>do wonders in the Age of Legends." It's possible that the phrase
>>was added to it during that Age. My main reason for thinking the Horn
>>couldn't have just been created in the AoL is the fact that Birgitte
>>has lived so many lives in so many turns that she can't even remember.
>>And so far we only know that she was alive around the Trolloc Wars and
>>in the Age of Legends (and now). Rand thinks in TGH, "He knew them.
>>Men, not all in armor, and women. Their clothes and their weapons
>>came from every Age, but he knew them all." Artur Hawkwing says to
>>Hurin, "It takes more than bravery to bind a man to the Horn." So they
>>are clearly bound to the Horn.
>What exactly is all that supposed to prove?
The heroes antedate the AOL. (from existence in every age)
The heroes are, and, presumably, have always been bound to the Horn.
Ergo, the Horn antedates the AOL.
I agree that the heroes antedate the Age of legends, but I'm not
sure that the heroes have been bound to the Horn for _all_ of their
existence. It is logically possible that the Horn is a later innovation
not necessary to the existence of the heroes.
I'm inclined to believe this because in Jordan's reality the Wheel and
the Pattern exist _now_, and some of the heroes, such as Arthur, have
wandered through, but I've not yet seen good evidence of a Horn :-)
--
William Smit (will...@ugcs.caltech.edu)
"North away," he said: "to the swords, and the siege, and the walls of
defence - that yet for a while in Beleriand rivers may run clean, leaves
spring, and birds build their nests, ere Night comes." -Morgoth's Ring
Rebecca Slitt (MC 1997)
Distribution: world
mmike (mmur...@cc.swarthmore.edu) wrote:
: (ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN) wrote:
: > So where could the Horn have come from?
: > 3. <drum roll> It's a *finn artifact that someone bargained for. Nice
: > tie in with Mat if it's true.
: One word: When?
One more word: Who? It's a cool idea though...
Becky/Nynaeve
--
Becky Slitt "I disagree with what you say, but
rsl...@minerva.cis.yale.edu I will defend to the death your
Most Superlative Woman on the Net right to say it" - Voltaire
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmLONG LIVE MAGEVET AND THE MIDDLE AGESmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmike
>(mmike) writes...
> }Dylan typed:
> }> 3. <drum roll> It's a *finn artifact that someone bargained for. Nice
> }> tie in with Mat if it's true.
> }
> }One word: When?
>
>
My problem w/ all that is that I had the feeling that the Heroes have been
tied to the Horn throughout the Ages. If they've always been tied to the
Horn, how could it have been created after they've been tied to it? On
the other hand, they may only be tied to the Wheel, then the Horn _could_
have been created (relatively) recently.
I'm sure there's something in tGH that will give us some hints as to what
the true case is. I'll have my hands on the book tonight, so i'll do a
little research.
John Novak
>The heroes antedate the AOL. (from existence in every age)
>The heroes are, and, presumably, have always been bound to the Horn.
>Ergo, the Horn antedates the AOL.
They've been bound to the Wheel for as long as anyone remembers.
This is not the same as being bound to the Horn for the same
length of time.
>I agree that the heroes antedate the Age of legends, but I'm not
>sure that the heroes have been bound to the Horn for _all_ of their
>existence. It is logically possible that the Horn is a later innovation
>not necessary to the existence of the heroes.
It tends to imply that the Horn has existed for as long as the
Wheel, which brings us back to the question, "Who made the Horn?"
Chad R Orzel
>}> So where could the Horn have come from?
>}>
>}> I seriously doubt this. We don't have *any* evidence of the Creator
>}> making *anything* other than the Universe itself.
>}
>}Dylan, reread that point. Now try an explain to me how the Creator
>}couldn't have made the Horn of Valere. Without the huge gaping hole in
>}your logic. :)
>
>:P You know what I meant. It's too specific. Why would the Creator
>make it? (No, I don't want answers.)
>
that there needed to be a wild card in this eternal struggle between the
Light and the Shadow. Something to allow one side or the other to
prevail against impossible odds, by calling dead heroes back from the
grave.
I've always been kind of fond of the explanation given in GG Kay's
_Fionavar Tapestry_ for the Horn that appears in those books. There's
no clear reason to apply it here, but I do like it.
>}> 3. <drum roll> It's a *finn artifact that someone bargained for. Nice
>}> tie in with Mat if it's true.
>}
>}One word: When?
>
{Rationalizing deleted}
I don't like this one- I don't mind the *elfinn having some source of Power
that isn't the One Power, but I don't really like the idea of them being
able to tinker with the Pattern to the degree implied by having the Horn be
one of their toys. Essentially, this is the same problem I have with the
idea of the AoL Aes Sedai making the Horn, though Moggy's ability to cast
Birgitte out of T'A'R bodily might suggest that they had the power needed
to do this.
Dunno. Personally, I like to think that the Creator made it. In which case,
the exact wording of the inscription is something of a moot point, no? He's
the bloody Creator, He can have it say whatever he damn well pleases.
Later,
OilCan
Programmeringsteori
: >Could be. Then again, it could be a non'angreal-magical-weird-thing,
: Doug.
As far as i remember, the AS in AOL did not know anything about portal
stones, exept how they could be used with the OP. I do not think they
could make another.
Hilsen
Morten.
Andrea Lynn Leistra
John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In <3o4lo7$6...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> will...@avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (Will Smit) writes:
>>I agree that the heroes antedate the Age of legends, but I'm not
>>sure that the heroes have been bound to the Horn for _all_ of their
>>existence. It is logically possible that the Horn is a later innovation
>>not necessary to the existence of the heroes.
Yes, though we _do_ know that the Horn has been blown in previous Ages,
and the implication is that it has been blown in previous Ages with a
Dragon: Artur Hawkwing's comment about "We come to the Horn, but we must
follow the Dragon" implies that they have been called before, which goes
beyond his memories of fighting alongside or against the Dragon many
times, which in and of itself implies no such thing.
>It tends to imply that the Horn has existed for as long as the
>Wheel, which brings us back to the question, "Who made the Horn?"
>
Why, Bela, of course.
Wikedpinto
>My problem w/ all that is that I had the feeling that the Heroes have
been
>tied to the Horn throughout the Ages. If they've always been tied to the
>Horn, how could it have been created after they've been tied to it?
The heroes aren't tied to the horn, in the way that you mention, they
are tied to the wheel and the horn calls them forth from TAR out of time,
place and birth, When the horn is blown they stop waiting and are able to
affect the World.
Doug.
Wikedpinto
>that there needed to be a wild card in this eternal struggle between the
>Light and the Shadow. Something to allow one side or the other to
>prevail against impossible odds, by calling dead heroes back from the
>grave.
The Creator made the rules, and man, and the DO, the creator is the
king of all power so the Creator has no need to make anything, the creator
seems to be playing a game of "how close ca I come to losing" Throwing in
the forsakken allowing the DO physical power over the world. The creator
has stacked the deck in the first place, so there is no need for the
Creator to step forward and say "HEY!!! I have this GREAT Idea!!! How
about I make a horn, and attach all of these people too it!!!!" No, the
horn is a product of the OP.
Doug.
J.R.F.
:(Will Smit) writes:
:>I agree that the heroes antedate the Age of legends, but I'm not
:>sure that the heroes have been bound to the Horn for _all_ of their
:>existence. It is logically possible that the Horn is a later innovation
:>not necessary to the existence of the heroes.
I'd agree here, but I'm not quite sure what exactly Birgette has said
about it all. She has said she's tied to the Wheel; has she ever said
that she's tied to the Horn in the same way i.e. for all time? I don't
remember. But if not, then we can at least guess that the Horn was
created after the Heroes were tied to the Wheel. How and by who are the
questions.
:It tends to imply that the Horn has existed for as long as the
:Wheel,
How does it imply that? The heroes are (1) tied to the Wheel and (2) tied
to the Horn right now. AFAIK, we have no evidence saying that the heroes
have always been tied to the Horn. So we don't need to assume that the
Heroes have always been tied to both.
: which brings us back to the question, "Who made the Horn?"
The same people who made the portal stones probably. Now if you answer
"who made the Portal Stones?" you've probably got the right answer to the
Horn question.
I tend to think that the Horn was created before the AoL and that the AS
of ole just etched in something. Just IMO, of course.
Brian Gibbons
: As someone once remarked, "The writing on it is written in the
: Old Tongue." Probably, this bears a certain relevance. Until
: then, I had always assumed it was something more than just a
: gadget built by the Age of Legends Aes Sedai. Now, I'm not so
: sure.
I've always taken the fact that the writing is almost Old Tongue, but not
quite, to show that the Horn is pre-AOL. (It's either that, or a Creator
mistake.) Considering the statements made by the Heroes, I would have to
assume that they've been around before, indicating at least First Age
creation.
--
Brian Gibbons | I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like
bgib...@inmind.com | to see more and more planets fall under the
| ruthless domination of our solar system.
Wikedpinto
!: legends (crude compared to and insti gateway) it is a ter' angreal
just a
!: WAY different kind. How can you have a non ter'angreal that NEEDS the
one
!: power?
!
!: Doug.
!
!As far as i remember, the AS in AOL did not know anything about portal
!stones, exept how they could be used with the OP. I do not think they
!could make another.
!
!Hilsen
!
!Morten.
The AOL AS didn't know much, they didn't make them but they had a
fair bit of knowledge of it, what was the name of the book?"mirrors of
something or other?
Anyway, the AOL AS may not have known much of them but that doesn't
mean that the portal stones aren't ter'angreals, as far as I know the way
to make ter'angreal was _lost_ at the end of the AOL but as far as when it
was discovered there is no reference, so if the portal stones _need_ the
OP then they are ter'angreal, as is the Horn.
Doug.
Jon Sloman
>
> In <Pine.Sola.3.91.95042...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> hupert deborah r <hup...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
> >That's an interesting question. I don't think that the Horn is a
> >ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
> >lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
>
> Old Tongue." Probably, this bears a certain relevance. Until
> then, I had always assumed it was something more than just a
> gadget built by the Age of Legends Aes Sedai. Now, I'm not so
> sure.
I've been intrigued by this for a while. I did try asking about the
Horn's provenance a while back, but nobody wanted to play.
The discrepancies between the EOTW Old Tongue on the Horn and more
recent examples have been covered in the FAQ; the usual explanation
is that RJ just hadn't got the language figured out properly at that
point. If I were him, I'd be tempted to say that the Horn script is
written in an ancestor of the Old Tongue (Older Tongue ?), so (1)
needn't follow the exact same gramattical rules, and (2) predates the
AOL.
Also, there's no necessity for the script on the Horn to be original.
It may be a later addition. I don't think it is a ter'angreal; its
functionality doesn't seem to follow the usual pattern of uses of the
OP. Given what it does, it _should_ be more than just an AOL gadget.
Jon (demonstrating that he can write posts other than denying
Berelain is a DF)
Chad R Orzel
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> wrote:
{Twice-quoted text is mine. Do try to get some kind of attribution working.}
1) You seem to have become overheated again, and the slobber factor is
climbing. Try to rein this in, as it's making a mess of the carpet. This
stream-of-consciousness, I-wanna-be-Hunter-Thompson style of throwing
everything you have (or think you have) at the rest of the Net in rapid
succession is not really much of an argument. And it's damned hard to
read.
2) There doesn't seem to be any connection between the sentences above.
Explain to me the link between "Throwing...world", "...stacked the deck...
'attach all of these people too [sic] it!!!!" and "No, the horn is a
product of the OP." If anything, the first sentence would seem to flatly
contradict the last, making the whole paragraph gibberish.
3) "Proof by Blatant Assertion" is a bit sketchy, even on Usenet. You
might have the beginnings of a valid point buried in there, but you need
to make some kind of coherent case for it
Later,
OilCan
(Paraphrasing: "Four exclamation marks, the sure sign of an unstable mind.")
Wikedpinto
called unclear, so. . .I will clarify.
> The Creator made the rules, and man, and the DO,
He did, the Creator made all.
> the creator is the king of all power
if the Creator can make the sources of all the power then he likely
has more power than any person, force or Idea in Randland
>so the Creator has no need to make anything,
He made the world, the OP the DO _everything
>the creator seems to be playing a game of "how close ca I come to losing"
illustrated with the below examples. the creator made all, why not
destroy it? because it is a game of sorts.
>Throwing in the forsakken allowing the DO physical power over the world.
The
The problems to the wheel, which were created by (cooky) the Creator
>creator has stacked the deck in the first place, so there is no need for
the
>Creator to step forward and say "HEY!!! I have this GREAT Idea!!! How
>about I make a horn, and attach all of these people too it!!!!"
simply stating that there is now reason for the Creator to make the
horn. If the creator can make the OP itself, the DO, and LTT why make a
horn that calls heroes back from the dead? And that if the Creator really
had a chance of being destroyed the creator would do something about it,
and he/she/it could do a better job than any man.
> No, the horn is a product of the OP.
If it wasn't made by the Creator, it was the OP, and I don't think it
is the OP.
BTW that posting was not a rant, the phrase in quotations was a
ridiculous little quote that may have come from the Creator had he/she/it
came up with the idea of the horn. it was to demonstrate how lame it
would have been.
doug.
mmike
(Wikedpinto) wrote:
~ [the Creator] made the world, the OP the DO _everything
Did the Creator make the Dark One? I'd never assumed so. Is there
anything in the books saying that?
~ the creator made all, why not
~destroy it? because it is a game of sorts.
But the Dark One is the destroyer, not the Creator. The Creator just
kicks back and (presumably) watches has his creation contends with the DO.
~Throwing in the forsakken allowing the DO physical power over the world.
I thought that the Forsaken et. all went over to the Dark One out of their
own free will and/or were turned by the DO. The Creator didn't *make*
them do anything.
I always though of RJ's Creator as a Deistic God: a kind of "clockmaker"
God that assembled everything, got it started, and then stepped back and
either silently observed creation or ignored it.
It's the Dark One who is active in the world, intent on destroying it.
I'm not suggesting that the Creator _never_ directly effects the world.
I'm suggesting that he very rarely does, maybe once every seven Ages or
something like that.
And Doug? (Wikedpinto that is, not you Dad) Thank you for being clearer.
It is much appreciated.
Wikedpinto
IN<mmurphy3-060...@mac11.marylyona.swarthmore.edu>
MMurphy wrote in relation to a previous poting of mine
>~ the creator made all, why not
>~destroy it? because it is a game of sorts.
>
>But the Dark One is the destroyer, not the Creator. The Creator just
>kicks back and (presumably) watches has his creation contends with the
DO.
lets forget the DO now. The only reason I tossed that in was to
show the power of the Creator. It _was_ an opinion, based on most
traditional religions, where there is "One True God" and that god makes
the evil in the world.
_but_ like I said, the entire posting was to refute that the Creator
made the Horn of Valere. . .and like I said, there is no reason for the
creator to do it, given the history in all. It was a product of man,
so. . . . .if the Creator "kicks back" then the Creator is unlikely to
have Created the horn, which, in my opinion, is a very active motion in
the history of Randland.
Doug
Chad R Orzel
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> wrote:
>IN <3o8nca$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, I made a posting that is being
>called unclear, so. . .I will clarify.
>
>> The Creator made the rules, and man, and the DO,
>
> He did, the Creator made all.
>
else as well, but I'm not sure I would say that the Creator made the DO.
Again, I've always kind of liked the explanation given in Donaldson's
first series of Thomas Covenant books (anybody who jumps in here with a
"Covenant was a sexist rapist pig and must DIE DIE DIE" will have their
brain fried with Compulsion and be given to Dylan for use as a sex toy.
You have been warned.): The Creator and the Dark One (or Lord Foul in the
Covenant mythos) _both_ existed before the creation of the world, and
have battled each other for all time. When the world was created, the DO
was imprisoned within creation (either by the Creator, just to get rid
of him, or because the DO jumped into it, just to piss the Creator off),
and can't get out.
The battle is then fought through proxies. The Dark One's goal is to get
free of the Prison and smash the world, returning to the "outside" to
fight the Creator directly; the Creator's goal is to keep him penned up
where he can't touch the Pattern directly. The catch is that the Creator
can't touch the Pattern _directly_- that would be cheating, and would
possibly destroy the world in the bargain. Instead, the Creator is forced
to act through avatars- the Dragon, by whatever name- and through indirect
means- ta'veren, and that sort of thing. The Horn would fall into the
latter category: it's a powerful tool, and can serve as the deus ex machina
to bail out the side of the Light if need be. But, just to be fair, it
will work for anyone.
If you take this view (which, IMNAAHO, serves pretty well), then the rest
of your objections to this fall to pieces.
>>Throwing in the forsakken allowing the DO physical power over the world.
>The
> The problems to the wheel, which were created by (cooky) the Creator
>
Er- no.
The Forsaken are humans who _of_their_own_free_will_ have gone over to the
Dark One. They were not "made" except in the sense that all souls were
"made"- and even that has very little bearing on things. See Sammael's
remarks about Ishy in LoC.
>>creator has stacked the deck in the first place, so there is no need for
>the
>>Creator to step forward and say "HEY!!! I have this GREAT Idea!!! How
>>about I make a horn, and attach all of these people too it!!!!"
>
> simply stating that there is now reason for the Creator to make the
>horn. If the creator can make the OP itself, the DO, and LTT why make a
>horn that calls heroes back from the dead? And that if the Creator really
>had a chance of being destroyed the creator would do something about it,
>and he/she/it could do a better job than any man.
>
But maybe there is a good reason why the Creator _can't_ directly act to
stop the Dark One...
>> No, the horn is a product of the OP.
>
> If it wasn't made by the Creator, it was the OP, and I don't think it
>is the OP.
>
Huh???
Presumably, that last "OP" was meant to be "Creator," otherwise you've
lost me...
Anyway, it could just as well have been made by the *elfinn, who may or
may not use the OP to power their gadgets. This is, of course, a flamewar
of another color.
The other argument that I occasionally like to apply is the one given in
GGKay's Fionavar Tapestry regarding the Horn and the Wild Hunt in those
books. It works in pretty much the same way as the above; again, you need
to assume some reason or another why the Creator will not or can not
intervene directly, but that's not hard to do.
Later,
OilCan
("It has been said that God does not play dice with the Universe. Instead,
He plays an ineffable game of His own devising which, from the point of
view of any of the other players (i.e. everyone) is rather like a complex
variant of poker, played with blank cards in a pitch dark room with a
dealer who won't tell you the rules and who smiles _all_the_time._")
mmike
~> The Creator just
~>kicks back and (presumably) watches
Doug/Wikedpinto wrote:
~ _but_ like I said, the entire posting was to refute that the Creator
~made the Horn of Valere. . .and like I said, there is no reason for the
~creator to do it, given the history in all. It was a product of man,
~so. . . . .if the Creator "kicks back" then the Creator is unlikely to
~have Created the horn, which, in my opinion, is a very active motion in
~the history of Randland.
You misunderstand my argument. I see RJ's Creator as a Deisitc god,
someone who made creation, and then stepped back, had a cold brew, and
decided not to directly intervene in his creation. The DO is the
Adversary of the Creator, who somehow entered creation and is now trying
to destroy it.
However, none of this argues against the theory that the Creator made the
Horn of Valere. It just says that if the Creator did this, the Creator
must have done it at the same time that the rest of creation was made.
I'm not saying that the Horn was definitely made by the Creator. I'm just
saying that it's a possibility, and so far there has been no evidence that
the Creator _couldn't_ have made the Horn.
--
"If God dropped acid, would he see people?" - Steven Wright
mmike murphy
John Novak
> simply stating that there is now reason for the Creator to make the
>horn. If the creator can make the OP itself, the DO, and LTT why make a
>horn that calls heroes back from the dead? And that if the Creator really
>had a chance of being destroyed the creator would do something about it,
>and he/she/it could do a better job than any man.
Why make heroes that stick around in a cosmic waiting room?
Why make ta'veren to bend the Pattern, rather than making the
Pattern a little more graceful and elegant?
Why do anything?
The Creator is, almost by definition, ineffable.
mmike
~Why make heroes that stick around in a cosmic waiting room?
~Why make ta'veren to bend the Pattern, rather than making the
~Pattern a little more graceful and elegant?
~
~Why do anything?
~The Creator is, almost by definition, ineffable.
Let me guess: you're not all that fond of philosophy, are you?
John Novak
>~The Creator is, almost by definition, ineffable.
>Let me guess: you're not all that fond of philosophy, are you?
Some, yes.
But some forms of philosophical inquiry drive me absolutely
batshit. Trying to figure out why an infinite being does what it
does, with no resources other than a finite brain, is usually one
of them.
I content myself with philosophies of human action.
Wikedpinto
wrote in reply to <3ogcub$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,(which was from me :
) (getting better y'all?)
>The other argument that I occasionally like to apply is the one given in
>GGKay's Fionavar Tapestry regarding the Horn and the Wild Hunt in those
>books. It works in pretty much the same way as the above; again, you need
>to assume some reason or another why the Creator will not or can not
>intervene directly, but that's not hard to do.
>
>Later,
>OilCan
I admit that almost the entire posting was simply an opinion, so if
I am wrong fine.
and in this posting you mad the statement concerning a _why_ the
creator fails to act. . . .and in the first book as rand is standing in
tarwins gap, with the smell of burning trollocs in the air, he hears a
voice. . .the voice is vague in its meanings for rand, but there is a
comment that is something like this , " I cannot intervene, it is for the
one chosen to decide, that is the heart of the covenant" I think that I
thoroughly mutilated the last part of the quote, but I am close anyway.
Apparently the Creator is keeping himself apart so that man can grow on
his own. either that or there is a cosmic bet on who will win. but I
remember that quote.
Doug.
Bill Garrett
} mmur...@cc.swarthmore.edu (mmike) writes:
} >Novak wrote:
} >~The Creator is, almost by definition, ineffable.
} >Let me guess: you're not all that fond of philosophy, are you?
}
} Some, yes.
} But some forms of philosophical inquiry drive me absolutely
} batshit. Trying to figure out why an infinite being does what it
} does, with no resources other than a finite brain, is usually one
} of them.
Explaining the _actions_ of an infinite being is a matter of religion,
not philosophy. And most religions include, as one of their tenets, the
belief that no finite being can fully understand or explain an infinite
being.
--
Bill Garrett "These are my principles, and if you don't
gar...@cs.unc.edu like them, I have others." -Groucho Marx
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> wrote:
>references:<3ogcub$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com><<wiked...@aol.com>>
>
>IN<mmurphy3-060...@mac11.marylyona.swarthmore.edu>
>MMurphy wrote in relation to a previous poting of mine
>
>>But the Dark One is the destroyer, not the Creator. The Creator just
>>kicks back and (presumably) watches has his creation contends with the
>DO.
>
> lets forget the DO now. The only reason I tossed that in was to
>show the power of the Creator. It _was_ an opinion, based on most
>traditional religions, where there is "One True God" and that god makes
>the evil in the world.
>
> _but_ like I said, the entire posting was to refute that the Creator
>made the Horn of Valere. . .and like I said, there is no reason for the
>creator to do it, given the history in all. It was a product of man,
>so. . . . .if the Creator "kicks back" then the Creator is unlikely to
>have Created the horn, which, in my opinion, is a very active motion in
>the history of Randland.
>
Hmm.
The Creator created everything. Therefore the Creator could not have
created the Horn of Valere.
Am I missing anything?
Why couldn't the Horn have been created at the same time as everything
else, and _then_ the Creator "kick back"? Admittedly, it does imply
slightly more involvement on the part of the Creator than just "writing
Maxwell's equations and letting it go from there", but it's still easily
possible for a Deistic type of creator.
Andrea
Wikedpinto
Andrea Lynn Leistra
rote in reply to <3oj7rj$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> (I just snagged her references, and
included hers, is that okay?)
:>references:<3ogcub$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com><<wiked...@aol.com>>
:>
:>IN<mmurphy3-060...@mac11.marylyona.swarthmore.edu>
:>MMurphy wrote in relation to a previous poting of mine
:>
:
:>>But the Dark One is the destroyer, not the Creator. The Creator just
:>>kicks back and (presumably) watches has his creation contends with the
:>DO.
:>
:> lets forget the DO now. The only reason I tossed that in was to
:>show the power of the Creator. It _was_ an opinion, based on most
:>traditional religions, where there is "One True God" and that god makes
:>the evil in the world.
:>
:> _but_ like I said, the entire posting was to refute that the
Creator
:>made the Horn of Valere. . .and like I said, there is no reason for the
:>creator to do it, given the history in all. It was a product of man,
:>so. . . . .if the Creator "kicks back" then the Creator is unlikely to
:>have Created the horn, which, in my opinion, is a very active motion in
:>the history of Randland.
:>
:Hmm.
:The Creator created everything. Therefore the Creator could not have
:created the Horn of Valere.
:
:Am I missing anything?
I meant in an Origin sense. The Creator made everything in the
beginning, so why would the creator (who obviously has all sorts of cosmic
power) find the need to creat something as roundabout as the horn? If the
creator can make the horn then the creator (who apparently is eternal, if
taken in a godlike sense) couls just go "BAMF" and summon the heroes when
needed? or just make those heroes eternal in the first place? the DO can
do it why not the Creator? I am just saying that there are easier ways
for the Creator to do something to help mankind that are far more simple
than making the horn.
Doug
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> wrote:
>IN: <3omnp4$h...@elaine19.Stanford.EDU>
>Andrea Lynn Leistra
>rote in reply to <3oj7rj$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> (I just snagged her references, and
>included hers, is that okay?)
>
>:>references:<3ogcub$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com><<wiked...@aol.com>>
>:>
>:>IN<mmurphy3-060...@mac11.marylyona.swarthmore.edu>
>:>MMurphy wrote in relation to a previous poting of mine
>:>
>:
>:>>But the Dark One is the destroyer, not the Creator. The Creator just
>:>>kicks back and (presumably) watches has his creation contends with the
>:>DO.
>:>
>:Hmm.
>:The Creator created everything. Therefore the Creator could not have
>:created the Horn of Valere.
>:
>:Am I missing anything?
>
> I meant in an Origin sense. The Creator made everything in the
>beginning, so why would the creator (who obviously has all sorts of cosmic
>power) find the need to creat something as roundabout as the horn? If the
>creator can make the horn then the creator (who apparently is eternal, if
>taken in a godlike sense) couls just go "BAMF" and summon the heroes when
>needed? or just make those heroes eternal in the first place? the DO can
>do it why not the Creator? I am just saying that there are easier ways
>for the Creator to do something to help mankind that are far more simple
>than making the horn.
>
Are you just going out of your way for an argument, Doug?
In the portion of my post that I cut, I said that the creation of the Horn
can easily be reconciled with a Deistic type of Creator, if you have the
Horn created at the moment of creation. This does require slightly more
involvement by the Creator at the outset than just starting the Big Bang
would, but you can still say that after the world was created the creator
just sat back to watch.
Andrea
mmike
(Wikedpinto) wrote:
In response to a long convoluted discussion over how it is possible that a
Deistic Creator could have made the Horn at the moment of Creation:
~ If the
~creator can make the horn then the creator (who apparently is eternal, if
~taken in a godlike sense) couls just go "BAMF" and summon the heroes when
~needed?
You're forgetting the Creator's "hand's off" rule. The Creator never
directly intervenes, instead the Creator works through agents such as the
Dragon Reborn, Bela, and the Horn.
BTW, it's damn annoying that the English language doesn't have good neuter
pronouns. Normally i can work around it by using words like "their",
"someone", and "one". Kind of difficult in this thread, though, and i'm
getting tired to typing "the Creator" every time i want to refer to the
Creator (like right now). Just wondering: are other languages better at
this? More ways of conveniently dealing with neuter nouns?
Wikedpinto
Andrea wrote in reply to <3onqe5$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> (written
by me : )
<my post hacked>
>Are you just going out of your way for an argument, Doug?
>
No, I am not. I was just saying that it is hard for me to consign
myself to
an all powerfull Creator, that likes to meddle in mans affairs without
taking a more active stance.
>In the portion of my post that I cut, I said that the creation of the
Horn
>can easily be reconciled with a Deistic type of Creator, if you have the
>Horn created at the moment of creation. This does require slightly more
>involvement by the Creator at the outset than just starting the Big Bang
>would, but you can still say that after the world was created the creator
>just sat back to watch.
>
>Andrea
I guess it is possible, but if the horn was created at the time of
creation, how could there be anyone tied to it, if the people that are
tied to the horn aren't yet created? Creates a bit of a paradox, eh?
As for the deistic type of creator. If the creator is like the old
roman and greek gods, it would be _more_ active in mans affairs, hell if
the Creator were
like Zeus, the Creator would have been the one to nail Rands mother.
I am not working at an argument, (well I am _giving_ one) I just
wanted to state why I have a problem with the Creator, creating the horn.
Doug (is this one okay? errr, posting I mean)
Will Smit
>In<3opidb$s...@amy29.Stanford.EDU>
>Andrea wrote in reply to <3onqe5$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> (written
>by me : )
><my post hacked>
>>In the portion of my post that I cut, I said that the creation of the
>Horn
>>can easily be reconciled with a Deistic type of Creator, if you have the
>>Horn created at the moment of creation. This does require slightly more
>>involvement by the Creator at the outset than just starting the Big Bang
>>would, but you can still say that after the world was created the creator
>>just sat back to watch.
>>
>>Andrea
> I guess it is possible, but if the horn was created at the time of
>creation, how could there be anyone tied to it, if the people that are
>tied to the horn aren't yet created? Creates a bit of a paradox, eh?
Artur Hawkwing tells Hurin that "sometimes the Wheel adds to our
number". It is entirely probable that all the Heroes became heroes
in this way -- they were ordinary people (at least in the sense of
non-Heroes) who distinguished themselves by courage or bravery
enough to be linked to the Horn. Possibly Artur Hawkwing/King
Arthur was one of the first heroes, and has thus had time to
develop into the ultra-hero he has become. So the Horn could have
had no heroes at the time of its Creation. The new heroes may be
the core of the slow changes to the Wheel at each turning.
> As for the deistic type of creator. If the creator is like the old
>roman and greek gods, it would be _more_ active in mans affairs, hell if
>the Creator were
>like Zeus, the Creator would have been the one to nail Rands mother.
>
According to my online webster, Deism is:
a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing
morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference
of the Creator with the laws of the universe
A Deistic creator, by usage, is one who sets up the universe, with
all its natural laws, all the starting conditions, and then lets
it run without interference -- the analogy often made compares
him to a watchmaker.
I think we can agree that a deistic creator would not, in fact,
have nailed Rand's mother. :-)
> I am not working at an argument, (well I am _giving_ one) I just
>wanted to state why I have a problem with the Creator, creating the horn.
> Doug (is this one okay? errr, posting I mean)
No problems I can see.
--
William Smit (will...@ugcs.caltech.edu)
"North away," he said: "to the swords, and the siege, and the walls of
defence - that yet for a while in Beleriand rivers may run clean, leaves
spring, and birds build their nests, ere Night comes." -Morgoth's Ring
mmike
(Wikedpinto) wrote:
~ I guess it is possible, but if the horn was created at the time of
~creation, how could there be anyone tied to it, if the people that are
~tied to the horn aren't yet created? Creates a bit of a paradox, eh?
No, not really. The Horn summons the Heros tied to the Wheel. A pretty
useless artifact until there _are_ heros tied to the Wheel, but not the
source of a paradox. You just have to wait until there are Heroes to
summon, is all.
~ As for the deistic type of creator. If the creator is like the old
~roman and greek gods, it would be _more_ active in mans affairs, hell if
~the Creator were
~like Zeus, the Creator would have been the one to nail Rands mother.
But the Creator isn't. Every descrpition that I've read (mostly from
Moiraine and Verin) suggest that he is non-interventionalist, aka,
Deistic.
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> wrote:
>In<3opidb$s...@amy29.Stanford.EDU>
>Andrea wrote in reply to <3onqe5$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> (written
>by me : )
>
><my post hacked>
>
>>
> No, I am not. I was just saying that it is hard for me to consign
>myself to
>an all powerfull Creator, that likes to meddle in mans affairs without
>taking a more active stance.
>
the Horn of Valere without meddling in the affairs of people. It could
simply be a part of the equation from the beginning.
>>In the portion of my post that you cut, I said that the creation of the Horn
>>can easily be reconciled with a Deistic type of Creator, if you have the
>>Horn created at the moment of creation. This does require slightly more
>>involvement by the Creator at the outset than just starting the Big Bang
>>would, but you can still say that after the world was created the creator
>>just sat back to watch.
>
> I guess it is possible, but if the horn was created at the time of
>creation, how could there be anyone tied to it, if the people that are
>tied to the horn aren't yet created? Creates a bit of a paradox, eh?
Well, they wouldn't be tied to it at the moment of creation, obviously,
but added later. Artur Hawkwing says that new Heroes are added
to the Horn at various times. Presumably _all_ of them could be added in
this way.
> As for the deistic type of creator. If the creator is like the old
>roman and greek gods, it would be _more_ active in mans affairs, hell if
>the Creator were
>like Zeus, the Creator would have been the one to nail Rands mother.
I _strongly_ suggest you look up "Deistic" in a dictionary. The word has
been used since the beginning of this thread, and you only now object to
it? THe "Deistic" conception of a Creator is of one that just starts the
universe off and then lets it run on its own. The classic description is
that of a watchmaker.
Andrea
Hohn Cho
> As for the deistic type of creator. If the creator is like the old
>roman and greek gods, it would be _more_ active in mans affairs, hell if
>the Creator were
>like Zeus, the Creator would have been the one to nail Rands mother.
No offense, but your second sentence above seems like a bit of a non
sequitur. Do you know the definition of Deism?
--
Sincerely, | "What though the field be lost?
Hohn Cho | All is not lost; the unconquerable Will,
hoh...@uclink2.berkeley.edu | And study of revenge, immortal hate,
The Deepest Man on the Net | And courage never to submit or yield."
john bollinger
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> wrote [without proper attribution]:
>>That's an interesting question. I don't think that the Horn is a
>>ter'angreal, but it may have been forged by the One Power in the AoL like
>
>>lots of other things were. Comments, anyone?
>>
>
> Ter' angreal are like angreal only they are designed for a specific
>purpose with the power. . .I think that is an exact quote.
No, it is a misleading paraphrase. The following is a quote from the LoC
glossary about ter'angreal: "Remnants of the Age of Legends that use the
One Power. _Unlike_ angreal and sa'angreal, each ter'angreal was made to
do a specific thing...." (emphasis mine).
[General vs. specific *angreal analogy deleted.]
> So anything that is forged with the one power that performs a
>specific task is a ter' angreal
This is manifestly untrue. We discussed this a few months ago, in
reference to power-forged weapons. As the quote above specifies,
ter'angreal must use the OP. As several of us argued, and as RJ confirmed
by letter -- hope that wasn't a hoax; I've been away -- power-forged
blades do not use the OP and are therefore not ter'angreal.
Perhaps you mean to exclude things like the swords by your definition of a
"specific task." If so, it would be better to be clear and accurate to
begin with.
John Bollinger
jobo...@indiana.edu
john bollinger
mmike <mmur...@cc.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>BTW, it's damn annoying that the English language doesn't have good neuter
>pronouns. Normally i can work around it by using words like "their",
>"someone", and "one". Kind of difficult in this thread, though, and i'm
>getting tired to typing "the Creator" every time i want to refer to the
>Creator (like right now). Just wondering: are other languages better at
>this? More ways of conveniently dealing with neuter nouns?
English has quite a few very nice neuter pronouns, several of which you
have listed. [Although "their" doesn't only half counts; its usage as a
neuter, third-person, singular, possessive pronoun is grammatically
incorrect.] To expand your list I submit the ever-handy "it."
Many other languages cleverly avoid the problem by not having neuter
nouns. French is a good example, and I assume that the rest of the
romance languages follow suit. Past practice in English was to use the
masculine pronouns for neuter nouns and for those of indeterminate
gender, but certain activist forces have influenced society to the
extent that such usage is no longer considered fashionable. In other
words, you can blame your problem on the feminists. ;-)
Ducking and running,
John Bollinger
jobo...@indiana.edu
john bollinger
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com> wrote:
> and in this posting you mad the statement concerning a _why_ the
>creator fails to act. . . .and in the first book as rand is standing in
>tarwins gap, with the smell of burning trollocs in the air, he hears a
>voice. . .the voice is vague in its meanings for rand, but there is a
>comment that is something like this , " I cannot intervene, it is for the
>one chosen to decide, that is the heart of the covenant" I think that I
>thoroughly mutilated the last part of the quote, but I am close anyway.
>Apparently the Creator is keeping himself apart so that man can grow on
>his own. either that or there is a cosmic bet on who will win. but I
>remember that quote.
I will be nice.
Please supply the reference, if not the exact quote. I don't remember any
quote even vaguely resembling this. There IS a voice in tEotW that speaks
in all caps, and that seems to not be the Dark One, but it didn't refer to
itself, didn't say anything about intervening, and didn't to my
recollection say anything about a covenant.
John Bollinger
jobo...@indiana.edu
Michael Gerard Chamberlain
: can easily be reconciled with a Deistic type of Creator, if you have the
: Horn created at the moment of creation. This does require slightly more
: involvement by the Creator at the outset than just starting the Big Bang
: would, but you can still say that after the world was created the creator
: just sat back to watch.
I've been re-reading TEOTW, and this morning noticed something which caught
my attention due to this thread. Around the time everybody meets in
Caemlyn, Moiraine says something to the effect of "If I didn't know better,
I'd say the Creator was taking a hand". Now although we've seen before that
just because Aes Sedai think something doesn't mean it is true, the way it
was said seems to mean there is some (reasonably strong) evidence that he
can't- and Moiraine (IMHO) is a better judge than many of the other Aes
Sedai.
--
______________________________
| Michael Chamberlain |
| 1st year Comp. Sci. |
| RMIT, Australia |
Wikedpinto
jobo...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (john bollinger) wrote
In reply to <3oklvv$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Wikedpinto <wiked...@aol.com>(dassmee)
<my posting munched>
>Please supply the reference, if not the exact quote. I don't remember
any
>quote even vaguely resembling this. There IS a voice in tEotW that
speaks
>in all caps, and that seems to not be the Dark One, but it didn't refer
to
>itself, didn't say anything about intervening, and didn't to my
>recollection say anything about a covenant.
Sorry I would have if I could (supply an _exact reference) but
I can't (lent the book to a bud) But there is a statement along the
lines of (and damn near an exact quote) "it is not for me to interfere
that is for the chosen one to. . . .." the exact quote isn't necessary.
I think that we can safely assume that if the DO didn't set up IShy at
the end of TEotW then it was the creator. or rand going fricken bonkers.
Doug
Chad R Orzel
>john bollinger (jobo...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Many other languages cleverly avoid the problem by not having neuter
>: nouns. French is a good example, and I assume that the rest of the
>: romance languages follow suit. Past practice in English was to use the
>: masculine pronouns for neuter nouns and for those of indeterminate
>: gender, but certain activist forces have influenced society to the
>: extent that such usage is no longer considered fashionable. In other
>: words, you can blame your problem on the feminists. ;-)
>
>and how it has brought positive social change for members of both sexes
>and hermaphrodites.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But they've made a bloody mess of the language in recent years.
Well, OK, they had help for that, but still...
Getting completely off track, there's a great line in the Connie Willis
story "Even the Queen" about how "Even after [the Big Change du story-
I forget what they called it] 'herstory' remains a blight on the semantic
landscape."
In other words, you can blame the problem on
>anal-retentive 19th century British linguistic scholars.
>
Awww... We can't blame the French? Are you sure we can't blame the
French?
I mean, ultimately, the fault will be found to lie with Mike Holmes, but
it'd be nice if we could implicate the French along the way...
Anyway, to wrench this thing back on track, the whole argument is pretty
pointless in the RJ context. Both the Creator and the Dark One are
explicitly referred to as "He" in the books, so use that. I don't see
where the confusion lies...
And, for the record, "He/she/it" as a portmanteau pronoun is also a blight
on the semantic landscape. Pick one of the three as your pronoun for
persons of indeterminate gender, and use it the same way all the time.
This "build-your-own-pronoun" stuff is bullshit... People are just a wee
bit hypersensitive to this crap.
Later,
OilCan
(And "she/he/it" (or "s/he/it") is even worse... That one always comes out
as "excrement" in Hillbillyspeak...)
John Novak
>And, for the record, "He/she/it" as a portmanteau pronoun is also a blight
^^^^^^^^^
You mispelled s/h/it.
Hope this helps.
>(And "she/he/it" (or "s/he/it") is even worse... That one always comes out
>as "excrement" in Hillbillyspeak...)
And even UsenetSpeak.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
Most Easily Annoyed TA on the Net.
Tshen
: In article <3ovcet$d...@calliope.wln.com>, Tshen <tshe...@rs6a.wln.com> wrote:
: >Glad to see the smiley. It stopped a 500-line rant in defense of feminism
: >and how it has brought positive social change for members of both sexes
: >and hermaphrodites.
: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
: But they've made a bloody mess of the language in recent years.
: Well, OK, they had help for that, but still...
"For every over-action, there is an equal and opposite over-reaction."
: In other words, you can blame the problem on
: >anal-retentive 19th century British linguistic scholars.
: >
: Awww... We can't blame the French? Are you sure we can't blame the
: French?
Hey the French are hard enough time trying to keep their language from
being "polluted" by foreign borrowings and Franglais. This is of course
futile and tres stupide.
: And, for the record, "He/she/it" as a portmanteau pronoun is also a blight
: on the semantic landscape. Pick one of the three as your pronoun for
: persons of indeterminate gender, and use it the same way all the time.
: This "build-your-own-pronoun" stuff is bullshit... People are just a wee
: bit hypersensitive to this crap.
That's why there's support for "their". Genderless, numberless, odorless.
--Tshen
Qodaxti Institute, 87th stratum
Saint Erroneous
John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>Why make heroes that stick around in a cosmic waiting room?
>Why do anything?
>The Creator is, almost by definition, ineffable.
>John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
And why, by the Light, does Da Creator wear Dat Hat?
Ineffable indeed.
-michael (mainly) Erroneous
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. What's that noise? Oh... don't worry. It's not the sound of
the atom splitting. It's the sound of Michael falling apart.
------------Saint michael (mainly) Erroneous m...@st-andrews.ac.uk------------
Ford
+ It's odd because I just asked her the other day if it was o.k. for me to
+ use "their" as a gender neutral, 3rd person, singular pronoun for
+ non-gender-specific ("feminist") reasons. She said that it is becoming an
+ acceptable practice and as long as I try not to abuse it, she'd let it slide.
Err... did you leave out the word "possesive" between "singular" and
"pronoun" above? I've never heard of using "their" for neutral, 3rd,
singular (non-possesive) pronoun before... What would one use for that,
anyways, if one didn't want to resort to "it"?
_________________________________________________________________________
| Daniel "Ford" Sohl |"Being flamed is the equivalent of a drive- |
| Fort...@brown.edu | by shooting. It's unpleasant, but on the |
| <http://128.148.114.5> | Internet, there's no blood. You live to use|
|The ____est Man on the Net| cyberspace another day." -- Douglas Adams |
Tshen
: Err... did you leave out the word "possesive" between "singular" and
: "pronoun" above? I've never heard of using "their" for neutral, 3rd,
: singular (non-possesive) pronoun before... What would one use for that,
: anyways, if one didn't want to resort to "it"?
"They"
HTH.
M Kadi
or not the Creator *could* create the Horn of whether or not He (cf. RJ)
*did* create the Horn? If the latter, why does the only other option
seem to be that the Horn was created (and/or continues to use) the OP?
Personally, I've always placed the Horn in the Portal Stone category.
Weird objects that do weird things which weren't necessarily created by AS
(AoL or otherwise). Granted, the Horn does not require the OP to operate
- unless you want to get into the Mat-can-channel debate - while the
Stones do require the OP, but the Creator vs. OP option seems rather
limiting to my mind.
-- Mae
M Kadi
: Ford (Fort...@brown.edu) wrote:
: : Err... did you leave out the word "possesive" between "singular" and
: : "pronoun" above? I've never heard of using "their" for neutral, 3rd,
: : singular (non-possesive) pronoun before... What would one use for that,
: : anyways, if one didn't want to resort to "it"?
: "They"
Yes I left it ("possesive") out. Sorry. And yes on the "they" thing too.
um, lemme think of an example.
OK, I can't think up one right now. I know I've used it before,
somewhere. Frankly, I find that you can usually get around having to use
a gendered pronoun while still being grammatically correct. But, like I
said, I've got an editor (a human, not a program) to help me with these
sticky situations.
-- Mae
Lancelot
>Tshen (tshe...@rs6a.wln.com) wrote:
>OK, I can't think up one right now. I know I've used it before,
>somewhere. Frankly, I find that you can usually get around having to use
>a gendered pronoun while still being grammatically correct. But, like I
>said, I've got an editor (a human, not a program) to help me with these
>sticky situations.
"Each of the children got their cookies and milk."
"When a writer is seeking non-gender-specific pronouns, they
might try using "they.""
>
>-- Mae
/
:@-) Scott
\
M Kadi
: "Each of the children got their cookies and milk."
: "When a writer is seeking non-gender-specific pronouns, they
: might try using "they.""
Good examples. Exactly what I had in mind.
However, when I told my editor/friend that I'd quoted her (name obviously
withheld) about the 'their/they' thing, she said, "But you *know* that
pisses me off." So, for the record, my editor/friend does *not* approve
of this - but she will allow it.
What she *really* hates is my deplorable spelling and comma abuse. What
*I* really hate is Greek/Latin students (her BA). NO one should know
that much grammar. It's almost as weird as math. ;)
-- Mae