On Thu, 20 May 2004, John Klein wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2004, Philip Hart wrote: > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > doo dee doo > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > > @> > @> > @> > @> He shows Aerich's composure break when Tazendra is killed. We could > @> > @> hardly ask for more. > @> > > @> > Of course we could. That could just as easily be interpreted as him being > @> > angry because a friend was killed. (Although, of course, I doubt either of > @> > us have taken this interpretation.) The very fact that this is the most > @> > extreme reference Paarfi feels comfortable making to the matter tells us > @> > all we really need to know. > @> > @> In my view, SKZB wanted to write a novel of broad strokes and delicate > @> brushwork and hopes the reader will be attentive and flexible enough to > @> interpret and appreciate both. > > Uh-huh. But we're talking about Paarfi here, not Brust. Weren't you the > one arguing that we ought to keep things entirely within the fictional > context? I'm trying to convince _you_, not me - I already think I'm right. > In any event, Brust is clever enough to imply things through his own > creation's implications. Sure, and I think the deliberate authorial delicacy on Paarfi's part does honor to both. > @> You managed to elide the introduction to this point, where SKZB says, "It > @> seems to me..." and goes on to say Paarfi is a good historian. Also note > @> that _TEoDM_ is rather different from _TPG_ (which might work either way). > > Sure. And I actually have no doubt he's a good (albeit fictional) > historian, although I may have presented a confused interpretation of this > by humorously using the word liar. See, as Brust says in the introduction > and in the referenced newsgroup posts, Paarfi is writing fiction, not > history. Of course he's lying; he doesn't and shouldn't feel any > obligation to be entirely accurate in that context. Well, I disagree on this point. Also see my 2nd sentence above. > @> Again, I tend to discount or ignore what SKZB says about his fiction. > @> After all, he may be, like Vlad, "lying, and forgetful, doesn't > @> know as much as he thinks he does." > > He might change his mind about something in the future, sure, but I doubt > he's just going to out-and-out lie to us. And, of course, we must always > work with the information we have at the moment. Adding noise to an analysis can be useful but usually not. > @> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=paarfi+author:steven+author:brust&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ENV22.2039%24i63.7175442%40ptah.visi.com&rnum=1&filter=0 > @> > @> Here I see SKZB defending his improbable view that the Dragon-Jhereg war > @> as described by Vlad makes any sort of sense. > > I haven't seen any kind of definitive proof that it doesn't. Or even > anything suggestive, now that the beheading thing is officially out. My argument was basically that we would be aware of the social consequences for the Dragons of a war such as Vlad describes. For example, wouldn't Barrit or Adron have been affected? > And I note you cut out the specific instance of him being inaccurate re: > photic sneezing. Although, of course, I may have undue affection for that > one, being a photic sneezer myself (and having also had the experience of > suddenly finding out that everyone else wasn't). Because I think it's extremely thin gruel. > @> Rather to the advantage of my side of the argument I think, given that > @> Paarfi frankly addresses the issue (I assume this is intended as a > @> parallel to Thucydides's intro). > > Paarfi doesn't; the person introducing him does. Paarfi never admits to > any kind of dishonesty, despite the fact that some is obviously occurring. I think "dishonesty" is a partisan interpretation. I suspect Paarfi approved of the contents of the intro. > @> > Paresh spent a good deal of time reading books meant for novices, and > @> > could have understood her notes on that basis. Plus, he's capable of > @> > experimentation if there are pieces missing, so it's entirely possible > @> > that he figured out teleportation on his own (as many sorcerers during > @> > this period seem to have). > @> > @> You're assuming there were books for novices in Tazendra's keep. > > Why shouldn't I assume that? [...] I'm arguing fine-tuning - attempting to show you have to assume a large set of parameters to be chosen precisely. > > @> My guess is that after hundreds of years of Interregnum, basic sorcery > @> texts would be for the most part dust (explaining in part Morrolan's > @> difficulty in gathering them.) > > Could be, unless they were part the library of someone who knew pre-empire > sorcery, and had some small desire to preserve them. And it just so > happens... Don't know why she would bother with the intro texts even if P-E sorcery is suitable. > @> And experimenting with teleportation is not recommended. I know of no > @> evidence that "many sorcerers during this period" "figured out > @> teleportation on [their] own." > > I'll have to go back and check on that one, actually. Although there's a > logical path there: do you actually imagine that Sethra, or a dead > Tazendra, is going around teaching people how to do it? I assume that S taught T and StY and tSiG, who taught M and N and O and P and Q and R to help with the troop transfer, and who then taught ... > @> Consider yourself not knowing any calculus and walking into a disorganized > @> string theorist's office, picking up his notes, and teaching yourself > @> Maxwell's laws by reverse engineering and then the latest models... > > Paresh explicitly notes that he knows some spells even as a Teckla > (presumably of the 'I hope my crops don't get et by bugs' variety). So > it'd be more like someone going into a mathematician's library with a > basic knowledge of algebra and, after a year of doing nothing but studying > the texts there, coming across two of Newton's laws of motion and figuring > out the third one himself. Teleportation is I think little like this. Perhaps a better analogy would be a novice Basic programmer coming across some undocumented OO code and trying to reverse engineer it without the base classes (someone actually computer savvy feel free to improve this.) > @> > But that a Teckla had information? Of course not. The fact is, a person > @> > has appeared in the place where his lov^H^H^Hfriend has apparently been > @> > kidnapped by violence and is acting extremely strangely. It would be > @> > unbelievably stupid not to find out what this person knows about the > @> > matter, and Aerich is not stupid. > @> > @> I was going to grant you a bit of reason on this point, but on > @> reconsideration I don't. Aerich meets an insane Teckla (who he knows > @> likely isn't a retainer of T) who in fact knows nothing. If Grita et al > @> wanted to leave him a message, they wouldn't have given it to Paresh. > > Let us assume that Aerich has an encylopedic knowledge of all of > Tazendra's servants. So, there's a teckla where he shouldn't be /and/ > everything has gone to hell. A probable conclusion is that this person is > connected with the bandits/enemy army/6.5 gods that came in after > Tazendra, and that's certainly a conclusion that Aerich ought to > investigate if he has any sense. 6.5? It's possible, but the sort of hypothesis A would tend to reject. He might much more reasonably think that, after perhaps a year, a random Teckla had come to squat in the keep. The T is insolent but otherwise unremarkable and other matters press. > [...] Aerich remembering the faces of countless Teckla? Ridiculous.) T is unlikely to have a huge staff. Her estate is not large, the economy has crashed, and Mica serves her needs. Also note that we know from _FHYA_ that A is a keen observer > > @> As it happens, A learns everything possible to learn without P. > > Sure, but he has no way of knowing that. I think he does - he knows it's almost certainly a set-up by Grita, and that since she is manipulating events all putative data at the keep is part of the setup. > Actually, he might have gotten more specific information about when the > attack happened and what was destroyed, although that probably wouldn't > have been helpful. Yes, that's my view. > @> According to your scenario, A would have pursued P, unless you go to a lot > @> of effort to fine-tune the parameters. > > Can he trace a teleport? Can he teleport himself? On the latter question, aren't you arguing it's easy? (Note that I think there is likely some degree of inconsistency on this point in the Texts.) > @> And even so, Sorcerer A could have psionically called for backup to > @> round up Important Intel Source P. > > Remember, my new theory calls for Aerich to be using devices, not direct > sorcery. So he can't do that. And even assuming he can... well, perhaps he > did. But Paresh was already gone by the time anyone else could get there. With devices, he could still contact Sethra, or tSiG etc. And how would Paresh be gone untraceably? He probably doesn't know about traces anyway. Note you might consider arguing that _Paresh_ found some devices in the keep and is passing himself off as a sorcerer on that basis. I think that presents somewhat fewer complications. > @> > You mean, Tazendra is wandering the villages in her fiefdom, telling > @> > stories about her adventures to random farmers? Observe my hollow > @> > laughing. I could see some gossip and vague rumors circulating, but > @> > there's no reason to suspect that he knows any of the names of the > @> > participants. > @> > @> She drinks in taverns and boasts to travelling nobles and the waitstaff > @> hears her. And do you think Mica fails to mention his master's > @> accomplishments and associates to all and sundry? And do you think > @> there's no intercourse between the Teckla of the nearby estates? > > In order: probably, of course not, and not that much. I expect that things > that the Teckla talk about are going to be more on the order of what > cousin Ed did last Marketday, and how much a roast kethna is going for. > Why would they care about anything beyond the fact that she's had some > adventures somewhere and is a great and powerful warlord? It's not real. It's exciting. Five hundred years is a long time to talk about the weather, esp. after harvest season. Re intercourse, I've just reread Jane Austen and get the sense that there would be a good deal of it. > @> I still don't understand how you explain Paresh's Young Duke of Arylle. > > There are several possibilities: > > 1) Paresh was freaked out and not seeing things clearly. He was collected enough to challenge A. > 2) It was someone else and Paarfi mistakenly connected it with Aerich when > he heard the story third-hand from some guy in a bar. Paarfi's version makes more sense. Now Paresh hearing the story in a bar... > 3) Paresh legitimately mistook Aerich's age somehow (not familiar with > Lyorn physiology?). I'm doubtful, though certainly Paresh would have led a very narrow existence up to that point. > As I pointed out earlier, Paresh wouldn't have lied about this for his own > gain anyway; there's no motivation there. If he'd claimed that Aerich was > older, bigger, and stronger than he (Paresh) was, it would play into your > theory about making himself look tough, but claiming that he was basically > a child... The motivation is that it's unlikely a grown-up Lyorn would play with him, but a young one might be sufficiently hot-tempered. But I think your Paresh-heard-about-Aerich's-investigation-in-a-bar theory is better. > > @> I think if he had known who Aerich was, his account to Vlad would be > @> slightly different. > > In what way? I think he'd say something snide about the famous hero. Wildly speculative point though. > @> I think Vlad says something that places Cawti doing work in the recent > @> past. And I (somewhat vaguely) think she's still in Jhereg colors. > > I should have said "in the Organization". We know that there are Jhereg > who aren't members of it, because of Vlad's father. An extremely odd case. > I imagine her renunciation as being gradual (although sharply > accelerated when Franz died); I'm not saying that Paresh wanted Vlad to > suddenly stand up and throw away his hidden weapons and swear never to > kill again. Fair enough. > I think they would have given Vlad all the slack he needed > if he had said "hey, I believe in your goals, I'm trying to be a better > person, and I want to help you distribute pamphlets", which is > apparently what Cawti did. This I find unreasonable. He shows up and asks to help. I guess they don't really care who killed Franz or why, but they ought to see Vlad's offer as positive. Anyway, they ought to treat him as a potential convert. I think SKZB shows us Kelly harshing on Cawti later in part to indicate that there's a lot of (counterproductive) emotion in these kinds of movements. > But he doesn't believe in their goals, he isn't trying to be a better > person (until later), and he certainly isn't interested in pamphlets. He's barely even gotten the sales pitch at this point. And he does believe in the goal of a better life for Easterners. And he in fact emphasizes his identity with his moustache, as Kelly later notes. > @> > @> for me, Kelly is leading his group into destruction because he refuses > @> > @> to acknowledge the fact of the Cycle, > @> > > @> > Facts that are constructs rather than natural laws can be altered. The > @> > Cycle is not a natural law; it's a result of the actions of the gods. > @> > @> I don't think so - the Cycle is above the gods as far as I can tell. > @> Certainly it is more powerful than they, if it does what it seems to. > > That does not contradict the idea that it's a result of their actions. A > nuclear bomb is stronger than you and everybody you know. I can build a nuclear bomb (and have no intention to, secret govt agencies listening in); a nuclear bomb can't build me. On my own I can destroy a nuclear bomb, but not v.v. Ok, anyway, Kelly at least is fighting the gods. He needs to take that into account. (Actually, I think in _Phoenix_ Verra says they've argued.) > @> I think (Cycle or no) he's incredibly wrong about the ability and > @> willingness of for example StY to kill as many Easterners and Teckla > @> as need be to crush his movement. Quite why this doesn't happen in > @> _T_ or _Phoenix_ is actually a bit puzzling to me - I suspect it's > @> because in many ways Dragaerans live at a slower tempo than humans, > @> so didn't get around to it, or for metareasons I don't care to delve into. > > The fact is, you can't kill all the Easterners and Teckla, because the > empire relies on them to survive. Further, killing large numbers of people > doesn't always cause the others to be surpressed by fear; even a mouse > backed into a corner will fight. He's banking on these two facts; if his > life or even his death can motivate a significant fraction of the Teckla > to rebel, they can take the Empire. They're more numerous and they control > the production. Do they? In the new-orb age? I see a gentleman farmer flying above his fields and casting a weed-be-gone spell, then later teleporting the grain into his city warehouse. And do the Teckla across the empire have anything like a revolutionary consciousness just waiting to be nudged awake? In the midst of an economic boom? (Actually, I guess I'm arguing that there would in fact be lots of economic displacement. We don't see that in _Athyra_ though.) > The only questions are whether he actually can supply that > motivation and whether such a method is moral. Zerika is aware of all > this, which is why she doesn't play into their hands by declaring war on > them; that would just shore up their support. Plus she knows that > virtually everything they say about the conditions under which Easterners > and Teckla live is correct, and she has her own personal reasons... See _Phoenix_. I think I'm arguing about what would happen if Kelly actually tried to take and hold the city, which he claims he can do. I think Z can fairly say that a) management of the economic boom is much to the advantage of the T and future generations of Easterners and b) keeping the J out is of much more consequence to everyone's welfare. > @> > Sure. But when someone's lifetime may be a millenium, a book written > @> > during it might still be reasonably referred to as historical. In fact, a > @> > book written about events that happened fifty years ago would be > @> > considered historical today, even though many of the participants might > @> > still be alive. > @> > @> Loosely calculated, it's 3k/100 or 30/1, so Paarfi's writing about events > @> 10 years in the past. > > Well, several problems here. It's a factor of 25 (500:20) 25, 30, why quibble? > , so we're looking at at least 20 lifespan-years in the past (or > substantially more, depending on how long Zerika's reign was - we don't > know when she stepped down). Alexx will correct us, but I was of the impression that Paarfi is writing about 300 years PI. > Further, as I mention above, the fact is > that something that happened five hundred years in the past might still > be considered historical, even for a long-lived species. There are still > five hundred years worth of events that have occured since then; you > can't expect to simply scale everything up. The most important events of the last 100k+ years. > @> > If Dragaeran society as a whole threw off the concept of the Cycle, it > @> > would stop working. It's powered by the ambition of its participants. > @> > @> That's possible, but the Cycle does exist and everyone who's likely to > @> know about it seems to disagree with you. Frankly, I can't imagine such > @> a complex system working for 200k years on the basis of superstition. > > I said ambition, not superstition. Ambition is harder to get around. > > What do you imagine would happen if, when the time came for a Teckla > republic, the Teckla refused to take the orb? Or if an entire house were > destroyed? (With the exception of the Phoenix; that will probably be a > special case, since the nature of the Phoenix is to die and be reborn.) Exactly my point! Keeping the Cycle going is immensely difficult. > @> > @> (well, except that as a physicist I think "free will" is bunk.) > @> > > @> > Tsk. Even Leibniz' version? > @> > @> I think he's full of crap. He thinks God predetermined everything, > @> including all our actions, from the beginning (so far so good) but then he > @> pretends he doesn't think that (to avoid the obvious consequences, far as > @> I can tell). His basic argument is, We have free will because things > @> could have gone differently, even if they didn't (except of course they > @> couldn't.) I spit in the general direction of his grave. > > I wasn't suggesting that he was right, simply that his idea of free will > as a difference between the logically possible and the physically possible > is frequently attractive to physicists. (At least, the ones I know.) My crowd is more concerned with conviviality and contemporary politics. I'll take a poll, but my guess is that everyone I know thinks we're just complex organic computers without meaningful free will. > And certainly any physicist should be at least somewhat respectful of one > of the inventors of calculus, whatever other bizzare ideas he may have > had. Newton was so smart it makes my teeth hurt, but he was a contemptible nutcase outside the field. > @> > @> Neither of them are obsequious; and they are portrayed as clever, > @> > @> worldly, and (in Clari's case) generally attractive. > @> > > @> > They occasionally rise to the level of 'cheeky', if that's what you mean. > @> > @> AFB, but I think I'm right on these points. Consider Lar's first > @> interview with Piro, or any of Clari's acts. > > Cheeky. Never gets further than that. I think as you're as mistaken as someone who thinks the Teckla never produced a composer of note.