>This duck is a light eater, this talks duck talks (which implies she >breaths). I haven't had the opportunity to bleed that duck. This >duck's brain, larynx, senses, & muscles work quite well, I haven't had >a chance to observe its spleen in action, but I would say that this duck >has guts. (Or Dickens would say "bowels"). >This duck is able to pass as alive by observant people. The truth of your conclusion seems irrefutable. It doesn't appear to be the same statement as the original, though, which was: "Yep. But when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - she's alive." "Passing as alive" is not the same as "she's alive". Yes, she eats; for pleasure, not for sustenance. Yes, she breathes; for communication, not for sustenance. Yes, she ambulates; her body would be of very little use in the world otherwise. As for the bowels, I'd say that's an open question, but since she DOES eat, one presumes that something happens to the ingested food. She's a simulucrum of life, despite appearances. We end up back at the question of just what does undead mean? The "walks like a duck" statement is a philosophical statement rather than a scientific statement. I'll grant you that the question is an academic one and that for all practical purposes Sethra may as well be treated as if she's alive. The Necromancer's view on death, "It is sometimes an inconvenience" (or close to that) may as well be applied to Sethra also.