Origin of phrase "Children of a Lesser God"?

[Paul Ciszek]

Yes, it is the title of a play and a movie, but it sure sounds like
a Famous Quote. One fan used the phrase in reference to Tolkien's
dwarves, created by one of The Creator's creations, rather than by
The Creator Himself as elves and humans were. If an analagous
situation exists in any non- Tolkien mythology or religion, I am
unaware of it. Anyway, did the phrase originate as the title of the
play, or is it a quote from somewhere?

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 9/6/12 2:06 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> Yes, it is the title of a play and a movie, but it sure sounds like
> a Famous Quote. One fan used the phrase in reference to Tolkien's
> dwarves, created by one of The Creator's creations, rather than by
> The Creator Himself as elves and humans were. If an analagous
> situation exists in any non- Tolkien mythology or religion, I am
> unaware of it. Anyway, did the phrase originate as the title of the
> play, or is it a quote from somewhere?
>

The origin is credited to a modification of a phrase in Tennyson's
"Idylls of the King":

"For why is all around us here
As if some lesser god had made the world,
But had not force to shape it as he would?"



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Butch Malahide]

On Sep 6, 1:06 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Yes, it is the title of a play and a movie, but it sure sounds like
> a Famous Quote.  One fan used the phrase in reference to Tolkien's
> dwarves, created by one of The Creator's creations, rather than by
> The Creator Himself as elves and humans were.  If an analagous
> situation exists in any non- Tolkien mythology or religion, I am
> unaware of it.  Anyway, did the phrase originate as the title of the
> play, or is it a quote from somewhere?

Perhaps the title of the play was a reference to Tennyson's use of the
phrase "some lesser god" in "Idylls of the King"?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Idylls_of_the_King

"O me! for why is all around us here

As if some lesser god had made the world,

But had not force to shape it as he would,
Till the High God behold it from beyond,
And enter it, and make it beautiful?"

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k2aon7$jij$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Yes, it is the title of a play and a movie, but it sure sounds like
>a Famous Quote. One fan used the phrase in reference to Tolkien's
>dwarves, created by one of The Creator's creations, rather than by
>The Creator Himself as elves and humans were.

Well, sort of. The Vala (~= planetary angel) Aule made the
Dwarves of stone, because he wanted to have living creatures to
whom he could teach his crafts. He did this *before* Eru Iluvatar
(= God) had awakened the Elves. But the Dwarves were only
puppets, that moved only according to Aule's will.

Then, says the Silmarillion:

"The voice of Iluvatar said to him: 'Why hast thgou done this"
Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy
power and thine authority? For thou hast from me as a gift thy
own being only, and no more; and therefore the creatures of thy
hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou
thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing
idle. Is that thy desire?'

"Then Aule answered: 'I did not desire such lordship. I desired
things other than I am, to love and to teach them, so that they
too might perceive the beauty of Ea, which thou hast caused to
be. For it seemed to me that there is great room in Arda for
many things that might rejoice in it, yet it is for the most part
empty still, and dumb. And in my impatience I have fallen into
folly. Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own
making by thee; and the child of little understanding that makes
a play of the deeds of his father may do so without thought of
mockery, but because he is the son of his father. But what shall
I do now, so that thou be not angry with me for ever? As a child
to his father, I offer to thee these things, the work of the
hands which thou hast made. Do with them what thou wilt. But
should I not rather destroy the work of my presumption?'

"Then Aule took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he
wept. But Iluvatar had compassion upon Aule and his desire,
because of his humility; and the Dwarves shark from the hammer
and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for
mercy. And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: 'Thy offer I
accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these
things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own
voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor
from any command of thy will.' Then Aule cast down his hammer
and was glad, and he gave thanks to Iluvatar, saying: 'May Eru
bless my work and amend it!' "

Aule made the bodies of the Dwarves, but Eru Iluvatar gave them
life.

He also commanded Aule to let the Fathers of the Dwarves sleep,
until after the Elves awakened, since he had chosen that they
would be the first-born of the Children of Iluvatar.

> If an analagous
>situation exists in any non- Tolkien mythology or religion, I am
>unaware of it. Anyway, did the phrase originate as the title of the
>play, or is it a quote from somewhere?

Google is your friend. It's from Tennyson, _Idylls of the King_:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_a_Lesser_God

"O me! for why is all around us here
As if some lesser god had made the world,
But had not force to shape it as he would,
Till the High God behold it from beyond,
And enter it, and make it beautiful?"

Whether Tolkien got the idea of the Vala Aule making creatures,
and Iluvatar giving them life, from Tennyson is anybody's guess.


--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Richard R. Hershberger]

On Sep 6, 2:44 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <k2aon7$ji...@reader1.panix.com>,

There is also an echo here of the story of Abraham and Isaac.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <e99e1687-401f-406e...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Oh, the father who, either because he has no choice or because he
doesn't recognize him (or the son doesn't recognize the father
and attacks), kills his son, is a very old theme. Cuchulain.
Sohrab and Rustum. Hildebrant. Those are the ones I can think
of at this hour of the morning. Oh yes, and in _Il Trovatore._

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <M9zL9...@kithrup.com>,

The story of Abraham and Isaac, however, has some other themes.
One of the things God kept telling the Jewish people all through
their history, beginning with Abraham, is "Whatever your pagan
neighbors are doing, YOU DON'T DO IT." Sacrificing one's
first-born was a common practice among the local pagans, and it
could be that Abraham was having angst over whether he should do
so too. In any case, God took the matter firmly in hand: "Go and
sacrifice your first-born." And seeing that Abraham was ready to
obey him, God then said, "No; stop; DON'T do it; sacrifice
*something else* instead." I would have to go back and read
through Genesis to see if that was the first example of the Jews
being commanded not to go along with local custom, but it's
certainly an early one.

[William George Ferguson]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:29:25 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <M9zL9...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <e99e1687-401f-406e...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>There is also an echo here of the story of Abraham and Isaac.
>>
>>Oh, the father who, either because he has no choice or because he
>>doesn't recognize him (or the son doesn't recognize the father
>>and attacks), kills his son, is a very old theme. Cuchulain.
>>Sohrab and Rustum. Hildebrant. Those are the ones I can think
>>of at this hour of the morning. Oh yes, and in _Il Trovatore._
>
>The story of Abraham and Isaac, however, has some other themes.
>One of the things God kept telling the Jewish people all through
>their history, beginning with Abraham, is "Whatever your pagan
>neighbors are doing, YOU DON'T DO IT." Sacrificing one's
>first-born was a common practice among the local pagans, and it
>could be that Abraham was having angst over whether he should do
>so too. In any case, God took the matter firmly in hand: "Go and
>sacrifice your first-born." And seeing that Abraham was ready to
>obey him, God then said, "No; stop; DON'T do it; sacrifice
>*something else* instead." I would have to go back and read
>through Genesis to see if that was the first example of the Jews
>being commanded not to go along with local custom, but it's
>certainly an early one.

I always thought that was a rather petty and insecure reaction by God,
although not as petty and insecure as the whole Job thing. I frequiently
wonder what the wives and children, and servents, of Job's sons had done to
deserve being killed.

And then there's Elisha who establishes that you should be killed ad eaten
by a bear to enter the kingdom of heaven.

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, September 7, 2012 5:29:58 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <M9zL9...@kithrup.com>,
>
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <e99e1687-401f-406e...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>There is also an echo here of the story of Abraham and Isaac.
> >
> >Oh, the father who, either because he has no choice or because he
> >doesn't recognize him (or the son doesn't recognize the father
> >and attacks), kills his son, is a very old theme. Cuchulain.
> >Sohrab and Rustum. Hildebrant. Those are the ones I can think
> >of at this hour of the morning. Oh yes, and in _Il Trovatore._
>
> The story of Abraham and Isaac, however, has some other themes.
> One of the things God kept telling the Jewish people all through
> their history, beginning with Abraham, is "Whatever your pagan
> neighbors are doing, YOU DON'T DO IT." Sacrificing one's
> first-born was a common practice among the local pagans, and it
> could be that Abraham was having angst over whether he should do
> so too. In any case, God took the matter firmly in hand: "Go and
> sacrifice your first-born." And seeing that Abraham was ready to
> obey him, God then said, "No; stop; DON'T do it; sacrifice
> *something else* instead." I would have to go back and read
> through Genesis to see if that was the first example of the Jews
> being commanded not to go along with local custom, but it's
> certainly an early one.

A possible problem with this interpretation is that Abraham's firstborn
is Isaac's brother Ishmael.

I'd find it easier to classify as one of those stories from the bible,
or indeed from the Silmarillion, that don't really make any sense. Sorry.

Although it's also a "blind self-destructive obedience" test of
Abraham by God, which Abraham evidently passes. Phew. I wonder
if Abraham had committed suicide to avoid either sacrificing
Isaac or not sacrificing him, would that save Isaac? I don't
remember whether that sort of thing tends to work with God or not.
It isn't often tried. My guess is, no, it's pillar of salt time.

On the other hand, Ishmael's story is rather like this of the dwarfs -
God isn't making any babies happen, and so someone else tries to
speed up the process, leading to a certain amount of ill-feeling
in heaven and on earth.

Now do I correctly remember that you have an anti-Pratchett thing...
well, _Thud!_ is a novel that turns on the political situation
between dwarfs and trolls, and the role of dwarf religion in this,
and whether scriptures are transmitted faithfully, or are revised
to support the convenient political message of the day. That is
to say, a holy book says what the priest wants it to say -
or, if you don't like what someone is showing /you/ in the book,
you can say that the devil can quote scripture too. Which kind of
hits a religious Godwin's Law, so, as Jesus apparently said,
watch yourselves.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <186c20ba-305f-4507...@googlegroups.com>,

Yes, but he was the son of a concubine. Isaac was Abraham's
*legitimate* son. Anyway, Abe had sent Ishmael and his mother
Hagar away when Isaac was born; *and* God had specifically said,
"Go and sacrifice Isaac, your only son, whom you love."

>
>I'd find it easier to classify as one of those stories from the bible,
>or indeed from the Silmarillion, that don't really make any sense. Sorry.
>
>Although it's also a "blind self-destructive obedience" test of
>Abraham by God, which Abraham evidently passes. Phew. I wonder
>if Abraham had committed suicide to avoid either sacrificing
>Isaac or not sacrificing him, would that save Isaac? I don't
>remember whether that sort of thing tends to work with God or not.
>It isn't often tried. My guess is, no, it's pillar of salt time.

Sometimes you have to tell little kids, "Do this, because I say
so. Theologically speaking, Abraham and his people were little
children who didn't understand what God wanted them to do or why,
and blind obedience was about the only way they could deal with
him.

>
>On the other hand, Ishmael's story is rather like this of the dwarfs -
>God isn't making any babies happen, and so someone else tries to
>speed up the process, leading to a certain amount of ill-feeling
>in heaven and on earth.

Ishmael became the ancestors of the Arabs, so they say. And
Isaac had two children, twins: Esau was born first, but Jacob
supplanted him. My Classics professor used to point out that both
Cain vs. Abel and Esau vs. Jacob reflect the hostility between
nomadic herders and agriculturalists -- and God was on the
nomads' side, till they got their own land.

There's a hint of something like it in Indo-European mythology,
too. The comparative mythologist Georges Dumezil pointed it out;
there were two brothers, and the elder should have been King,
only his younger brother supplanted him and became the ancestor
of the warrior caste, the Kshatriyas, whereas the elder brother
sired the Brahmins. So Dumezil sets up the concepts of the elder
house, the priests, the younger house, the warriors and kings,
and the third house, the peasants.

And you can see those three houses repeated in the _Fading Sun_
trilogy of Cherryh.

>Now do I correctly remember that you have an anti-Pratchett thing...

No, I have nothing *against* Pratchett; I just can't read him.

>well, _Thud!_ is a novel that turns on the political situation
>between dwarfs and trolls, and the role of dwarf religion in this,
>and whether scriptures are transmitted faithfully, or are revised
>to support the convenient political message of the day. That is
>to say, a holy book says what the priest wants it to say -
>or, if you don't like what someone is showing /you/ in the book,
>you can say that the devil can quote scripture too. Which kind of
>hits a religious Godwin's Law, so, as Jesus apparently said,
>watch yourselves.

And the Romans said, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:MA056...@kithrup.com:

> And the Romans said, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>

That's one of the themes explored in Thud!

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:29:25 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:M9zn5...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> The story of Abraham and Isaac, however, has some other
> themes. One of the things God kept telling the Jewish
> people all through their history, beginning with Abraham,
> is "Whatever your pagan neighbors are doing, YOU DON'T DO
> IT." Sacrificing one's first-born was a common practice
> among the local pagans, and it could be that Abraham was
> having angst over whether he should do so too. In any
> case, God took the matter firmly in hand: "Go and
> sacrifice your first-born." And seeing that Abraham was
> ready to obey him, God then said, "No; stop; DON'T do it;
> sacrifice *something else* instead." I would have to go
> back and read through Genesis to see if that was the
> first example of the Jews being commanded not to go along
> with local custom, but it's certainly an early one.

From a curiously appropriate discussion in currently taking
place in sci.lang:

>>> Of course, that's treating the bible as a unitary work.
>>> The injunction against consuming blood is from a P
>>> text, and the Noachic sacrifices are from a J text.

>> The laws given at Sinai are not supposed to have been
>> retroactive. Istr Isaac, or was it Jacob, built a pillar
>> or offered at one.

> Not in the P text, he didn't! That's an E story (Gen. 31:54). Isaac,
> of course, *was* a sacrifice.[1]

> The best explanation I've seen is that P was explicitly written to
> replace the existing book that had non-Aaronic sacrifice, an
> anthropomorphic deity, and talking animals.

> [1] Interestingly, the last time Isaac is seen in an E text is when
> "Abraham picked up the knife to slay his son." [Gen. 22:10] Then
> there's the bit with the angel, which is thought to have been
> added by the redactor who formed JE out of J and E, and then back
> to E with God saying that good things will happen to Abraham
> because "you have done this and not withheld your son", and then
> "Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together
> for Beer-sheba." I can just see the southern redactor getting to
> this point and saying "What do you mean they killed Isaac?! We
> need him in the next chapter!" and rewriting things so that he
> didn't really die, while keeping what seemed to be the important
> point of the northern story.

Brian

[Dr. Rufo]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
< snip >

>>>
>>> Whether Tolkien got the idea of the Vala Aule making creatures,
>>> and Iluvatar giving them life, from Tennyson is anybody's guess.
>> There is also an echo here of the story of Abraham and Isaac.
>
> Oh, the father who, either because he has no choice or because he
> doesn't recognize him (or the son doesn't recognize the father
> and attacks), kills his son, is a very old theme. Cuchulain.
> Sohrab and Rustum. Hildebrant. Those are the ones I can think
> of at this hour of the morning. Oh yes, and in _Il Trovatore._
>

Despite your lovely provided list, I cannot agree that Abraham and
Isaac qualify as another example. Abe received his instructions to
sacrifice Izzy direct from the Most High. It was a test of his faith in
that deity. The story has all sorts of other foci if you want to look at
it from Izzy's POV. However you look at the story, there's no element of
failure to recognize each other.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:58:53 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>Yes, but he was the son of a concubine. Isaac was Abraham's
>*legitimate* son. Anyway, Abe had sent Ishmael and his mother
>Hagar away when Isaac was born; *and* God had specifically said,
>"Go and sacrifice Isaac, your only son, whom you love."

But if God didn't know if Abraham truly loved him, what else did He
not know?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[William December Starr]

In article <6pfk48p5d4as9k5um...@4ax.com>,

William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> said:

> I always thought that was a rather petty and insecure reaction by
> God, although not as petty and insecure as the whole Job thing. I
> frequiently wonder what the wives and children, and servents, of
> Job's sons had done to deserve being killed.

Worn red shirts?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <MA056...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:

> There's a hint of something like it in Indo-European mythology,
> too. The comparative mythologist Georges Dumezil pointed it out;
> there were two brothers, and the elder should have been King, only
> his younger brother supplanted him and became the ancestor of the
> warrior caste, the Kshatriyas, whereas the elder brother sired the
> Brahmins. So Dumezil sets up the concepts of the elder house, the
> priests, the younger house, the warriors and kings, and the third
> house, the peasants.
>
> And you can see those three houses repeated in the _Fading Sun_
> trilogy of Cherryh.

But don't.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <jc5l48lgpt0lkda4g...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:

> But if God didn't know if Abraham truly loved him, what else
> did He not know?

And when did he not know it?

-- wds

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k2eksk$mg9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

Well, yeah, it's not very good. I still have those books around
solely because I might want to look at the society again
sometime.

[David DeLaney]

William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:

>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
>> But if God didn't know if Abraham truly loved him, what else
>> did He not know?
>
>And when did he not know it?

Oh, He knew. He just needed to have an intervention to make Abraham realize
what was going on inside Abraham's head. Cuz otherwise Abe would have gone
on thinking he loved da LORD to the last ounce of his flesh, or something.

Dave, grinding exceeding small
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, September 7, 2012 11:59:53 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <186c20ba-305f-4507...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Now do I correctly remember that you have an anti-Pratchett thing...
>
> No, I have nothing *against* Pratchett; I just can't read him.

Well, you /could/. You choose not to. That's fine, and you're not alone in
having limited time, space, or money for books that you don't expect to like.

> >well, _Thud!_ is a novel that turns on the political situation
> >between dwarfs and trolls, and the role of dwarf religion in this,
> >and whether scriptures are transmitted faithfully, or are revised
> >to support the convenient political message of the day. That is
> >to say, a holy book says what the priest wants it to say -
> >or, if you don't like what someone is showing /you/ in the book,
> >you can say that the devil can quote scripture too. Which kind of
> >hits a religious Godwin's Law, so, as Jesus apparently said,
> >watch yourselves.
>
> And the Romans said, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yes, but that's dirty.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F>

By the way, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/greatlives>
has half an hour on that (alleged?) author in the episode of -
hang on - it says 29th August 2012, but it may have been the
28th. I don't know if that's going to matter.
"Matthew Parris invites writer and comic Natalie Haynes to explain
why her nomination for a Great Life is a Roman poet about whose
life we know very little" - Juvenal. Her theory is that he was a
stand-up comedian, perhaps literally.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 9/8/12 10:34 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2012 11:59:53 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <186c20ba-305f-4507...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now do I correctly remember that you have an anti-Pratchett thing...
>>
>> No, I have nothing *against* Pratchett; I just can't read him.
>
> Well, you /could/. You choose not to.

Depends on the definition of "can't". There's "can't" in the physical
sense, which Dorothy obviously does not mean. There's also "can't" as in
"I cannot bring myself to do this for reasons of taste" (I, for example,
can't drink alcoholic beverages. Obviously there is nothing that
physically prevents me from doing so)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k2g6rh$gpe$2...@dont-email.me>,

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 9/8/12 10:34 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Friday, September 7, 2012 11:59:53 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <186c20ba-305f-4507...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now do I correctly remember that you have an anti-Pratchett thing...
>>>
>>> No, I have nothing *against* Pratchett; I just can't read him.
>>
>> Well, you /could/. You choose not to.
>
> Depends on the definition of "can't". There's "can't" in the physical
>sense, which Dorothy obviously does not mean. There's also "can't" as in
>"I cannot bring myself to do this for reasons of taste" (I, for example,
>can't drink alcoholic beverages.

Likewise.

> Obviously there is nothing that
>physically prevents me from doing so)

Well, me neither, except if I do, I get sick.

(For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, September 8, 2012 9:44:52 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <k2g6rh$gpe$2...@dont-email.me>,
>
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On 9/8/12 10:34 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, September 7, 2012 11:59:53 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> >>> In article <186c20ba-305f-4507...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Now do I correctly remember that you have an anti-Pratchett thing...
> >>>
> >>> No, I have nothing *against* Pratchett; I just can't read him.
> >>
> >> Well, you /could/. You choose not to.
> >
> > Depends on the definition of "can't". There's "can't" in the physical
> >sense, which Dorothy obviously does not mean. There's also "can't" as in
> >"I cannot bring myself to do this for reasons of taste" (I, for example,
> >can't drink alcoholic beverages.
>
> Likewise.
>
> > Obviously there is nothing that
> >physically prevents me from doing so)
>
> Well, me neither, except if I do, I get sick.
>
> (For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")

In both cases I'm prepared to accept "shouldn't".

Apparently from Tolkien (as author) down, the Six Deadly Words are
"By God, not another bloody elf!"

Pratchett is relatively elf-free specifically, but there are outbreaks......

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:38:25 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>
> Depends on the definition of "can't". There's "can't" in the physical
>sense, which Dorothy obviously does not mean. There's also "can't" as in
>"I cannot bring myself to do this for reasons of taste" (I, for example,
>can't drink alcoholic beverages. Obviously there is nothing that
>physically prevents me from doing so)

Or you can drink it, but will get in trouble, break the law, fall down
dead, fall off the wagon...

But for most usages, it doesn't matter which "can't" we're talking
about. It doesn't happen.

[Jim G.]

Howard Brazee sent the following on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:47:37 -0600:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:58:53 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but he was the son of a concubine. Isaac was Abraham's
> >*legitimate* son. Anyway, Abe had sent Ishmael and his mother
> >Hagar away when Isaac was born; *and* God had specifically said,
> >"Go and sacrifice Isaac, your only son, whom you love."
>
> But if God didn't know if Abraham truly loved him, what else did He
> not know?

42.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
http://www.goodreads.com/jimgysin/
http://www.librarything.com/home/jimgysin

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <slrnk4lpb...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
>>> But if God didn't know if Abraham truly loved him, what else
>>> did He not know?
>>
>>And when did he not know it?
>
>Oh, He knew. He just needed to have an intervention to make Abraham realize
>what was going on inside Abraham's head.

Exactly.

And, as I think I said upthread, to convince Abraham that he and
his descendants were NOT going to sacrifice their first-born like
their neighbors, but sacrifice something else instead.

[Nate Edel]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > Obviously there is nothing that
> >physically prevents me from doing so)
>
> Well, me neither, except if I do, I get sick.
> (For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")

I'm not sure of the right-pondian usage, but in my internal dialect of yank
"sick" and "ill" are synonyms meaning "unwell" could mean a broad spectrum
from nauseated, hung over, or with the sniffles at one end to dying of
something horrific at the other.

So is that nauseated, or something more serious?

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."

[Butch Malahide]

On Sep 8, 5:28 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Apparently from Tolkien (as author) down, the Six Deadly Words are
> "By God, not another bloody elf!"

SPOILER for Morris Bishop's "How to Treat Elves":

"It gives me sharp and shooting pains
To listen to such drool."
I lifted up my foot, and squashed
The God damn little fool.

http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/ficus-members/reiher/elves.html

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <dvl2i9x...@claudius.sfchat.org>,

Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> > Obviously there is nothing that
>> >physically prevents me from doing so)
>>
>> Well, me neither, except if I do, I get sick.
>> (For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")
>
>I'm not sure of the right-pondian usage, but in my internal dialect of yank
>"sick" and "ill" are synonyms meaning "unwell" could mean a broad spectrum
>from nauseated, hung over, or with the sniffles at one end to dying of
>something horrific at the other.
>
>So is that nauseated, or something more serious?

UKian "sick" means "nauseated."

[Rod Speed]

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:MA64K...@kithrup.com...

> In article <dvl2i9x...@claudius.sfchat.org>,
> Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> > Obviously there is nothing that
>>> >physically prevents me from doing so)
>>>
>>> Well, me neither, except if I do, I get sick.
>>> (For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")
>>
>>I'm not sure of the right-pondian usage, but in my internal dialect of
>>yank
>>"sick" and "ill" are synonyms meaning "unwell" could mean a broad spectrum
>>from nauseated, hung over, or with the sniffles at one end to dying of
>>something horrific at the other.
>>
>>So is that nauseated, or something more serious?
>
> UKian "sick" means "nauseated."

Wrong. It is in fact much more commonly used than the
word ill for a problem that has nothing to do with nausea.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:58:21 -0700, Nate Edel
<arch...@sfchat.org> wrote in
<news:dvl2i9x...@claudius.sfchat.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>>> Obviously there is nothing that
>>>physically prevents me from doing so)

>> Well, me neither, except if I do, I get sick.
>> (For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")

> I'm not sure of the right-pondian usage, but in my
> internal dialect of yank "sick" and "ill" are synonyms
> meaning "unwell" could mean a broad spectrum from
> nauseated, hung over, or with the sniffles at one end to
> dying of something horrific at the other.

> So is that nauseated, or something more serious?

Sick to his stomach. Vomiting, or on the verge thereof.

Brian

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <MA0nB...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>In article <k2eksk$mg9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <MA056...@kithrup.com>,
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>>> And you can see those three houses repeated in the _Fading Sun_
>>> trilogy of Cherryh.

_Faded Sun_.

>>But don't.
>
>Well, yeah, it's not very good.

Huh! Cue Dorothy kissing a cow. I very much like the Faded Sun
books, much more than many of her later works.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k2o6t8$895$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Okay. I like the Chanur books, myself, and _Cyteen_. I keep the
FS books around just for the reference to Dumezil (whom, mind,
she doesn't name. You know what T. S. Eliot said: "Immature
artists imitate; mature artists steal.")

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <M9zn5...@kithrup.com>,
djh...@kithrup.com "Dorothy J Heydt" further elaborated:

> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>> Richard R. Hershberger <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>

>>>There is also an echo here of the story of Abraham and Isaac.
>>
>>Oh, the father who, either because he has no choice or because he
>>doesn't recognize him (or the son doesn't recognize the father

>>and attacks), kills his son, is a very old theme. [snip examples]

- *nods* - also (according to some) arthur and mordred,
which is simultaneously the inverse, with the son killing
the father; and, each unbeknownst to the other, oedipus
killing his father (which, too, raises the added spectre
of incest); in the former, arthur sees no alternative by
which he can in honour rid his kingdom and his people of
the evil he has created; in the latter, oedipus cannot re-
veal his identity without being forsworn, nor in honour
give way without accepting combat offered.
in both of these, and perhaps in all the other instances,
the conflict between maintaing personal honour, without
which a man (or woman?) cannot be held in respect by any
(or, perhaps, bear to live), and the demands of morality,
religion, the law - the requirements of society - results
in facing an irresoluble dilemma to which every answer is
wrong. (i don't know whether the concept of personal fate/
doom/moira/wyrd is common to all honour-based societies -
dorothy or brian might know; or another rasfwr denetzen?)

>
>The story of Abraham and Isaac, however, has some other themes.
>One of the things God kept telling the Jewish people all through
>their history, beginning with Abraham, is "Whatever your pagan
>neighbors are doing, YOU DON'T DO IT." Sacrificing one's first-
>born was a common practice among the local pagans, and it could
>be that Abraham was having angst over whether he should do so too.

- many years - a few decades, even - ago, back when i was
reading up about various aspects of the bible, i remember
learning how traces remain in various places in the text,
not just of many members of the tribes slipping back into
worshipping a rival god - or outright polytheism, but of
polytheistic worship, including the honouring of one or
more goddessed, preceding the tribes' adoption of more-or-
less strict monotheism.

- is there any clearer idea of when the tribes converted -
both in terms of biblically-recorded generations, and in
terms of the composition of the established version of the
"old testament" ? (- [a])

>In any case, God took the matter firmly in hand: "Go and sacrifice
>your first-born." And seeing that Abraham was ready to obey him,
>God then said, "No; stop; DON'T do it; sacrifice *something else*

>instead." [..]

- "but abraham would not, and slew his son;
and half the seed of europe, one by one."
- wilfred owen;
war requiem, britten

- have we come such a long way from then, after all ?

- love, ppint.

[a] - the only version with which i'm reasonably familiar
being the king james authorised edition, so go gently

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"decadence, n: the finest flowering of civilisation"
- yr hmbl srppnt., 8/72

[Nate Edel]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
> >Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> (For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")
> >
> >I'm not sure of the right-pondian usage, but in my internal dialect of yank
> >"sick" and "ill" are synonyms meaning "unwell" could mean a broad spectrum
> >from nauseated, hung over, or with the sniffles at one end to dying of
> >something horrific at the other.
> >
> >So is that nauseated, or something more serious?
>
> UKian "sick" means "nauseated."

Gotcha.

[Rod Speed]

"Nate Edel" <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:9tq7i9x...@claudius.sfchat.org...

> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>> >Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> >> (For rightpondians: I don't mean "ill"; I mean "sick.")
>> >
>> >I'm not sure of the right-pondian usage, but in my internal dialect of
>> >yank
>> >"sick" and "ill" are synonyms meaning "unwell" could mean a broad
>> >spectrum
>> >from nauseated, hung over, or with the sniffles at one end to dying of
>> >something horrific at the other.
>> >
>> >So is that nauseated, or something more serious?
>>
>> UKian "sick" means "nauseated."
>
> Gotcha.

She's just plain wrong. If that was true, it wouldn�t be called sick leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_sick_pay

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:37:38 AM UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
> She's just plain wrong. If that was true, it wouldn’t be called
> sick leave. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_sick_pay>

Oh, Rod, thou art sick.
A lamentable corse
That cries in the night,
"That's just plain wrong."
--------

ObSF:

The ship gave a particularly sickening lurch.

"Take it easy," pleaded Arthur, "you're making me space sick."

"Time sick," said Ford. "We're plummeting backward through time."

"Thank you," said Arthur, "now I think I really am going to be ill."

"Go ahead," said Zaphod, "we could do with a little color about the place."

[Rod Speed]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> She's just plain wrong. If that was true, it wouldn�t be called

>> sick leave. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_sick_pay>

> Oh, Rod, thou art sick.
> A lamentable corse
> That cries in the night,
> "That's just plain wrong."
> --------

Down, boy |-)