ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/glencook-fans/archive/glencook-fans.200207

Internet Message Format | 2002-07-23 | 119KB

From: "Michael Higgins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) new member
Date: 04 Jul 2002 19:17:33 -0400

I'm a long time SF reader and I started reading Cook with the Dread
Empire series. I became a staunch follower of the Black Company from
the first book I stumbled over. I can even take credit for turning my
son on to the books, making him a fervent follower of the Black
Company himself. We've actually had arguments over who was the better
Captain, which is out-and-out hilarious. I like the Garrett books as
well, being enough of a fan of the original genre to appreciate the
humorous twist he's put on the hard-boiled dick.

I was also interested in the comments regarding POD in the archives.
I've just gone through a lengthy process with 1st Books library in
self-publishing an SF/thriller hybrid and its not something to enter
into without a lot of resolve and not a few bucks.

One of the positive aspects of the 1st Books agreement (I don't know
what other POD companies do in this regard) is that the author retains
all of the rights to the work (which might mean something in the
unlikely event that the book succeeds...1st Books claims to have put
over 8000 books into print...if so, I weep for the trees that went to
paper for most of them)

But I digress. Someone like Glen Cook could indeed keep all of his
works in print forever, having them available to fans and dabblers
alike for as long as electrons spin. I know that I watch the SFBC
notice religiously in hopes that they will reissue the Dread Empire
books. If they were available online, or in the hardcover and/or
softcover versions available from 1st Books and similar companies, I
would buy them regardless of the undoubtedly higher unit price. I
bought the Cordwainer Smith compilation, and the Lovecraft book, as
well as the E.E.Smith Lensman books even if they did cost more than
they would have in B&N. I guess I just love books >:^)

More accurately, I love some books written by certain writers. Smith,
Lovecraft, Zelazny, Spillane (like, that isn't fantasy he was writing?)
Guy Gavriel Kay, George R. Martin and Glen Cook and a few others, I
would buy if they were laundry lists. Oh, yeah, and that Stephen King
guy, if that really is a human being and not some book-writing
computer.

So much for my self-introduction to the list. I hope I haven't bored
anyone but please don't complain too much. At least I spared you the
autobiography.

In regard to the POD thing, though. Has anyone else on this list ever
done something like that?

Mike Higgins
NYC
---------

Keep up with the Joneses? furgeddaboudit...
Keep up with the Higginses instead..go to www.huigin.com for the
latest stuff


---------



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eric Herrmann <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) Monthly Mailing List Info
Date: 05 Jul 2002 00:10:12 -0600

The June mail archives have been posted to the website.

Added a Gallery tab to the website for pictures of Glen.
Trying to get permission for some more pictures.

Added interview with Glen from Boskone 2002.
Anyone know if he's made the trip to Poland yet?

Spain:
    "The White Rose" is now available from La Factor=EDa de Ideas.

Russia:
    "Passage at Arms / Dragon Never Sleeps" is now available from AST.
    An omnibus of Starfishers trilogy to be published next month.

--

This mailing list is sponsored by The Glen Cook Fan Page at:
<http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/ >.

The mailing list archives and instructions of how to subscribe or
unsubscribe can be found at:
<http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html >.

The mailing list FAQ can be found at:
<http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/Mail/glencook-fans-FAQ.txt >.

The mailing list exclusive Glen Cook Bibliography can be found at:
<http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GCBiblio.txt >.

--=20
Eric Herrmann
<[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:    "Marcin Welnicki" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  (glencook-fans) Monthly Mailing List Info
Date: 05 Jul 2002 22:41:15 +0200


----- Original Message -----

>Anyone know if he's made the trip to Poland yet?

He was going (is going) to come to Poland???

Mocker


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eric Herrmann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Monthly Mailing List Info
Date: 05 Jul 2002 15:30:14 -0600

on 7/5/02 2:41 PM, Marcin Welnicki at [e-mail] wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric Herrmann <[e-mail]>
>
>> Anyone know if he's made the trip to Poland yet?
>
> He was going (is going) to come to Poland???

From The Glen Cook Interview, Feb 2002:
<http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Biog12.html >

"It's also a big hit overseas. There's a big following in Russia, including
a whole pirated translation, which I'm not real happy about. I am the guest
of honor at a convention in Poland. They're flying me over and meeting me
with a limousine at the airport."

Sorry, I don't know anymore than that.

--
Eric Herrmann
<[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chew)
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) new member
Date: 05 Jul 2002 17:56:59 -0400 (EDT)


    Welcome Mike!

>
>I was also interested in the comments regarding POD in the archives.
>I've just gone through a lengthy process with 1st Books library in
>self-publishing an SF/thriller hybrid and its not something to enter
>into without a lot of resolve and not a few bucks.
>
    I don't have experience with Print on Demand but I'm very curious
to hear more about your experiences.  I think that PoD may work for authors
like Glen Cook in the future.
    If you don't mind, could you go into more detail about the costs
(both time and money) that you found necessary to do PoD?  What kind of
quality are the books from 1st Books?  How much profit does the author
receive from a sale?  Can those books be made available through other
book stores like Amazon?  Do they really print "on demand" or do they
print a run of books up front for a fee?  What would it take for an
author like Glen Cook to submit his books to 1st Books?
    Thanks for any info.

                Steve


--
Steve Chew - [e-mail] - http://www.interzone.com
"Why should I do it?" asks each man in the crowd.  "I can do nothing alone."
 And they are all lost.
"If I don't do it, who will?" asks the man with his back to the wall.
 And they are all saved.
        -- Vladimir Bukovsky,  _To Build a Castle_: My Life as a Dissenter_

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael Higgins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) new member
Date: 05 Jul 2002 22:45:42 -0400

I just sent you a lengthy reply. Let me know if you got it.

>
>     Welcome Mike!
>
> >
> >I was also interested in the comments regarding POD in the archives.
> >I've just gone through a lengthy process with 1st Books library in
> >self-publishing an SF/thriller hybrid and its not something to enter
> >into without a lot of resolve and not a few bucks.
> >
>     I don't have experience with Print on Demand but I'm very curious
> to hear more about your experiences.  I think that PoD may work for
authors
> like Glen Cook in the future.
>     If you don't mind, could you go into more detail about the costs
> (both time and money) that you found necessary to do PoD?  What kind of
> quality are the books from 1st Books?  How much profit does the author
> receive from a sale?  Can those books be made available through other
> book stores like Amazon?  Do they really print "on demand" or do they
> print a run of books up front for a fee?  What would it take for an
> author like Glen Cook to submit his books to 1st Books?
>     Thanks for any info.
>
>
        Steve
>
>
> --
> Steve Chew - [e-mail] - http://www.interzone.com
> "Why should I do it?" asks each man in the crowd.  "I can do nothing
alone."
>  And they are all lost.
> "If I don't do it, who will?" asks the man with his back to the wall.
>  And they are all saved.
>         -- Vladimir Bukovsky,  _To Build a Castle_: My Life as a
Dissenter_
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>
>

3 cents a page! That's all it'll cost you for your own paperback copy of
 TELL NO TALES, a brand new SF novel of life in the Age of Terrorism
http://www.huigin.com/cardpage.html





=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael Higgins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) new member
Date: 05 Jul 2002 23:24:14 -0400

Okay, it looks like my first effort didn't make it through. Here's another.
Hi! In case my first effort didn't get through, let me try a shorter
version.

Yes, Cooks books would do very well with a POD publisher like
1stBooks.com and I have allready recommended to another person with
control of the rights to a deceased author's works that she consider
that route to keep his works in print for all time (or at least until
electrons stop spinning).

Simply put, you pay the POD publisher a fee to put your book in a format
of your choice. This could be a .pdf ebook or some other ebook format
depending on the POD company---1stBooks apparently uses only .pdf Adobe
files because of the penetration of Adobe Acrobat into just about every
damn computer in the world. There are also softcover and hardcover
formats available most places, but the quality is open to question. My
book, TELL NO TALES, appears in .pdf and softcover format on the
1stBooks page (http://www.1stBooks.com/bookview/9922) but I opted
against the hardcover because I considered it would be too costly to
sell. This would most likely not be a problem for Cook, since his fans
would undoubtedly buy whatever he published in whatever format he chose.

The cost of doing this are steep. Around $600 initially for me, and
there are other subsequent costs that applied to me that probably
wouldn't affect Cook. There is a fee for revisions after the first or
second galleys that applies to errors by the author (they don't charge
you if they screw up) BUT reprinting a previously edited book would
hardly call for much revision other than hunting down and correcting the
inevitable mistakes in transcription. The works would have to be
transcribed into WORD or WORDPERFECT format, unless Cook allready has
them in one of those formats. You then send a disk with the book (and a
check) and you are off and running.

1stBooks sends you a notice explaining what the base price of the book
has to be to cover the setup costs and you, as the author, determine the
final price depending on your selfconfidence and the liklihood of your
book generating a demand.

The books are available direct from 1stBooks.com and also through
Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Borders, as well as other individual and
chain bookstores. They are available, but you will have to ORDER them,
as they are printed to order, and that can be a problem since many of
the store clerks haven't a clue what POD is all about. They will tell
you the book is out of print (duh, of course it is--it won't be printed
until you order it) or unavailable (which is outright wrong). You have
to insist and if you do, lo and behold, the system will take the order.
The cost at the store will be higher than from 1stBooks.com direct BUT
you usually would not have to pay the shipping costs to Amazon, et al,
which is a substantial savings. It cost me $3.95 each to mail copies to
people I'm hoping will help me market it, and it cost 1stBooks more than
that to UPS an individual copy to a buyer. USPS bookrates are lower but
I distrust sending anything that way except First Class, and even then I
worry.

So, Glen Cook and POD? A natural, same as it would be for A.E.Van Vogt
or Cordwainer Smith or Roger Zelazny or any of the giants of the field
(IMHO) that are now hard to find, and increasingly little known. Can we
persuade people like Cook to go this route? Hardly likely, until they
are backlisted out of the field by the growth of the megapublishers who
can only justify sure and certain blockbusters like Stephen King and Tom
Clancy to the folks who look only to the bottom line.

Publishing is increasingly finding itself in the position of the guy who
knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. The sadder part
is they know the value of the works they have to pass over but it is
really out of their control, which has to be horribly frustrating. POD
is an interesting alternative for people like me who love to write, have
some spare bucks to invest, and aren't afraid to look like fools at
times. Whether it will become a haven for fine writers dropped from
traditional publishers because of beancounting remains to be seen.

But hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Mike Higgins, author (j.g.)
BUY MY BOOK DAMMIT!
3 cents a page! That's all it'll cost you for your own paperback copy of
 TELL NO TALES, a brand new SF novel of life in the Age of Terrorism
http://www.huigin.com/cardpage.html





=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:    "Marcin Welnicki" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odp: (glencook-fans) Monthly Mailing List Info
Date: 06 Jul 2002 09:19:32 +0200


----- Original Message -----


> "It's also a big hit overseas. There's a big following in Russia,
including
> a whole pirated translation, which I'm not real happy about. I am the
guest
> of honor at a convention in Poland. They're flying me over and meeting me
> with a limousine at the airport."

Ill have to look in that :)

Mocker


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel) spoilers)
Date: 07 Jul 2002 01:56:45 -0300

This message has a couple of spoilers for the first novel of the Black
Company series....
.
.
.
If you haven't read that book yet don't read below.
.
.
.
.
If you haven't read that book yet I'd really recommend it
.
.
.
.
.
I was recently re-reading the first Black Company book, and after I
re-read one passage I started wondering about True Names again.
No, this isn't a reopening of the "If Lady knew all their True Names why
didn't she use X's when..." bit, but something I'd forgotten about
during those debates.
In the chapter entitled "Whisper" we see the first (and probably best)
of the new Taken being Taken.  We also have two (or more) people
learning the True Name of one of the Taken.
Raven carved the Limper's True Name on an arrow.
Croaker saw the True Name on the arrow.
Possibly some of the company wizards saw the arrow, maybe they didn't,
but Croaker knew (and recorded) that he'd seen it.  With all the help
the wizards gave during interrogations you'd think one of them could
have helped Croaker remember the name, so why didn't the company use it?

Then again the Limper was gone right after it was learned.  Then he was
'a friend' who they watched for signs of mistrust.  It strikes me that
the company would have recovered his name during that period, and having
it would have made the fight at the end of book 2 much easier.
Falling that there were a couple of times during book 3 when it would
have been useful.

I've got two theories on why it was never used:

1) The Lady took the name back during the Taking of Whisper.  The after
affects of the Eye, spells to make sure all witnesses (including
Soulcatcher) forgot Whisper's True Name (which would have had to been
part of the ritual) went too - whatever.

2) Cook forgot about it.  This could be - after all it's a minor point
during that chapter (the major ones being the Limper going down and
Whisper being Taken).  It's like the mass rape and murder - something
easily forgotten.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)
Date: 07 Jul 2002 08:19:31 -0700



Richard Chilton wrote:

> This message has a couple of spoilers for the first novel of the Black
> Company series....
> .
> .
> .
> .....We also have two (or more) people
> learning the True Name of one of the Taken.
> Raven carved the Limper's True Name on an arrow.
> Croaker saw the True Name on the arrow.
> ---------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------

 Ok, so so we have Croaker seeing the arrow. But did he see the name itself?
And was it in a language he understood? I always had the impression ( please
dont ask why, I just visualized it this way) that he was standing back a few
feet rather than looking over Ravens shoulder. So he never got the name
himself.

 Well, thats my thoughts.
 [e-mail]



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Bricker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)
Date: 07 Jul 2002 10:20:44 -0500


Good discussion.

I'm 99% sure Croaker neither read nor wrote Kelle-Turre, the language in
which Raven would have written Limper's name.





> From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:19:31 -0700
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)
> spoilers)
>
>
>
> Richard Chilton wrote:
>
>> This message has a couple of spoilers for the first novel of the Black
>> Company series....
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .....We also have two (or more) people
>> learning the True Name of one of the Taken.
>> Raven carved the Limper's True Name on an arrow.
>> Croaker saw the True Name on the arrow.
>> ---------------------------------------
>> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Ok, so so we have Croaker seeing the arrow. But did he see the name itself?
> And was it in a language he understood? I always had the impression ( please
> dont ask why, I just visualized it this way) that he was standing back a few
> feet rather than looking over Ravens shoulder. So he never got the name
> himself.
>
> Well, thats my thoughts.
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
> =======================================================================
> To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
> visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)
Date: 07 Jul 2002 16:46:01 -0300

Note - the spoilers now include the three books of the north and The
Silver Spike.


Joe Murphy wrote:
>
> Richard Chilton wrote:
>
> > This message has a couple of spoilers for the first novel of the Black
> > Company series....
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .....We also have two (or more) people
> > learning the True Name of one of the Taken.
> > Raven carved the Limper's True Name on an arrow.
> > Croaker saw the True Name on the arrow.
> > ---------------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------------------
>
>  Ok, so so we have Croaker seeing the arrow. But did he see the name itself?
> And was it in a language he understood? I always had the impression ( please
> dont ask why, I just visualized it this way) that he was standing back a few
> feet rather than looking over Ravens shoulder. So he never got the name
> himself.
>

He might not have known the language at the time, but it was one of the
things he studied in his attempts to decode Whisper's papers.

How well did he see it?  Well enough to know what it was.

It might just be me, but I see Silent, Goblin, and One-Eye working out
some kind of memory inhancement spell so they could find the symbols and
learn the name - if the three hadn't tried to learn it during the during
the lead up to the ambush in the woods.  The three knew enough of what
was going on to make the amulet, and I'm guessing if Goblin had said
"Raven, just in case things go to hell out there can you tell me the
Limber's True Name and I'll make sure he follows you to hell" Raven
would have covered his bets.  With the bad blood between them I can see
the Captain wanting his wizards to know Limper's True Name.

For that matter, when Croaker warned Raven that the Limper was back I
can see Raven making sure that either Croaker or Silent knew that name.

During the second book I can see Raven teaching the Name to Darling.

It's been a while since I read the third book, but unless my time line
is off Raven would have known the Limper was back before he did his
wanderings in the Barrowlands.  Based off all the hatred there I can't
see him know sending a letter immediately to Croaker saying "By the way,
the Limper's real name is... - get that bastard!"
Then again I could be wrong - maybe Raven didn't hear of the Limper's
return before he was trapped.

The only time I can't see Raven passing on that name is during The
Silver Spike - during that book I can him holding that info in reserve
so he can do a dramatic save the day naming at the end again.

But I'd say there are a few more options explaining what happened:
3) Croaker and Raven didn't see the name in a form they could speak.
The symbols weren't any they could pronounce.  Carve yes, speak no.
4) It wasn't the True Name - Raven was working magic (a bit like Goblin
and One-Eye's spear) and didn't want Croaker to know.
5) Croaker lied - thought it was dramatic for Raven to have the True
Name so put in the story.
6) Croaker did see the name but the Wizards couldn't get it out of him
in a form they could use and Raven didn't think to pass it on during
book 1 or 2, and was 'lost' before hearing the Limper resurfaced in Book
3.

Personally I still think the answer is 2 - Cook either forgot about it
or ignored for drama.  Raven having the Limper's True Name is very
dramatic.  His 'Just a warning between friends - Soulcatcher has your
name' bit was a high point of the chapter (and helped fill in a few
pieces of Raven's background), but once Limper became the unstopable
villian having someone name him would have destroyed the drama.

Just my thoughts,

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first
Date: 07 Jul 2002 16:56:42 -0300

Spoiler for book three included here....



David Bricker wrote:
>
> Good discussion.
>
> I'm 99% sure Croaker neither read nor wrote Kelle-Turre, the language in
> which Raven would have written Limper's name.
>


Probably not...

But, just thinking out loud, when Croaker was working witrh Tracker in
the Hole - openly searching for the Dominator's name while keeping an
eye open for the Lady's - he could have written the name out for Tracker
and asked Tracker to translate it, using Tracker the way he did when the
Lady's voice caught while reading.

While I think it was just a 'whoops' on Cook's part I still feel that
the Black Company is one of the tight series I've read when it comes to
avoiding inconstancies.  Considering the length of time between the
first and last book, add in the fact that Cook probably didn't think
passed the third when he started (and might not have even thought that
far ahead considering it started off as short stories) the books hang
amazingly well together.  I can't think of another series that is made
up of multiple series that fits together as well the Black Company does.

Richard

> > From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
> > Reply-To: [e-mail]
> > Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:19:31 -0700
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)
> > spoilers)
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Chilton wrote:
> >
> >> This message has a couple of spoilers for the first novel of the Black
> >> Company series....
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .....We also have two (or more) people
> >> learning the True Name of one of the Taken.
> >> Raven carved the Limper's True Name on an arrow.
> >> Croaker saw the True Name on the arrow.
> >> ---------------------------------------
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > Ok, so so we have Croaker seeing the arrow. But did he see the name itself?
> > And was it in a language he understood? I always had the impression ( please
> > dont ask why, I just visualized it this way) that he was standing back a few
> > feet rather than looking over Ravens shoulder. So he never got the name
> > himself.
> >
> > Well, thats my thoughts.
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================================
> > To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
> > visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Craig Dutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)  spoilers)
Date: 07 Jul 2002 16:31:19 -0400 (EDT)

--- Richard Chilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
...

> For that matter, when Croaker warned Raven that the Limper was back I
> can see Raven making sure that either Croaker or Silent knew that name.

I can't.  That's completely against Raven's MO.  People tell Raven things,
usually not the other way around unless he has absolutely no choice.  To give
them the name, Raven would have to admit to others that he thought someone
would beat him... not very likely.

The 'wouldn't he tell Darling' argument has the same flaw.  Raven telling
Darling assumes he is prepping her for life post-Raven, when indications are
his decision to drop her in BC hands came out of nowhere.

Not that Cook might not have forgotten (or deliberately left it out to avoid
short circuiting the plot), but there are plausible reasons for that not to be
the case.

The problem with my theory is why Raven doesn't nail Limper with his True Name
in Spike, but the spell/ritual to use the Name may have limitations unspecified
in the texts.

Craig


______________________________________________________________________
Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)
Date: 07 Jul 2002 17:53:56 -0300

Craig Dutton wrote:
>
> --- Richard Chilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > For that matter, when Croaker warned Raven that the Limper was back I
> > can see Raven making sure that either Croaker or Silent knew that name.
>
> I can't.  That's completely against Raven's MO.  People tell Raven things,
> usually not the other way around unless he has absolutely no choice.  To give
> them the name, Raven would have to admit to others that he thought someone
> would beat him... not very likely.
>

But he is a sneaky guy.  I can see him wanting everyone to know his
biggest enemy's weakness - especially when he's about to go on the
run....
Then again that would have gotten the Lady thinking about Whisper's
papers.  Keeping quiet about that might have out wieghted all other
concerns.

> The 'wouldn't he tell Darling' argument has the same flaw.  Raven telling
> Darling assumes he is prepping her for life post-Raven, when indications are
> his decision to drop her in BC hands came out of nowhere.
>

I can see him preparing her to handle things after he died defending him
- because he would have seen that as a likely outcome.  Maybe he assumed
they'd die together?
Then again he was doing a lot of dirty work but keeping her out of it so
her hands would be clean.  Maybe this was just one more thing he was
keeping her protected from.

> The problem with my theory is why Raven doesn't nail Limper with his True Name
> in Spike, but the spell/ritual to use the Name may have limitations unspecified
> in the texts.
>

This is the situation I have the least problem explaining.
When the Limper came back Raven didn't tell anyone his name because then
they, not him, would use it.
He didn't use it because he didn't have a dramatic chance to use it.

Those battles with the Limper on the road were distant ones.  Darling
wasn't directly involved, so couldn't have seen Raven save the day, so
he didn't save it.  He was waiting for Darling's final plan to fail,
then as the Limper walked unstopable through the rain of missles and
spells Raven would have stood in front of Darling and saved her by
naming the Limper.
Maybe it would have been after Silent was dead, maybe not, but he would
have done it to save Darling and Darling would have loved him again and
everything would have been OK.  He would once more be Raven, champion of
the White Rose, and not a broken man who'd become a drunkard after
abandoming his family.

Why do I think this?  His actions at the end of book three and Darling's
reactions to them.  She knew him better than he knew himself.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chew)
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Print on Demand
Date: 08 Jul 2002 01:22:30 -0400 (EDT)


Mike,
    Thanks for the info -- it's very interesting to see a first person
perspective into today's world of print on demand.


>
>Yes, Cooks books would do very well with a POD publisher like
>1stBooks.com and I have allready recommended to another person with
>control of the rights to a deceased author's works that she consider
>that route to keep his works in print for all time (or at least until
>electrons stop spinning).
>
>Simply put, you pay the POD publisher a fee to put your book in a format
>of your choice. This could be a .pdf ebook or some other ebook format
>depending on the POD company---1stBooks apparently uses only .pdf Adobe
>files because of the penetration of Adobe Acrobat into just about every
>damn computer in the world. There are also softcover and hardcover
>formats available most places, but the quality is open to question.
>
    Why do you say the quality is open to question?  Have you seen
your book in softcover?  How does it compare with a standard paperback
or trade paperback?  Does the binding seem solid?  How does the print
font compare?


>My
>book, TELL NO TALES, appears in .pdf and softcover format on the
>1stBooks page (http://www.1stBooks.com/bookview/9922) but I opted
>against the hardcover because I considered it would be too costly to
>sell. This would most likely not be a problem for Cook, since his fans
>would undoubtedly buy whatever he published in whatever format he chose.
>
    Yes, I'd certainly buy the Dread Empire series in hardback
if it was of good quality.  Unfortunately, I don't think that Cook
has those books in digital format.


>
>1stBooks sends you a notice explaining what the base price of the book
>has to be to cover the setup costs and you, as the author, determine the
>final price depending on your selfconfidence and the liklihood of your
>book generating a demand.
>
    I see.  So you set your own profit margins.  Interesting.  Is
the base price based on the number of pages?  What percentage does
1stbooks keep?


>The books are available direct from 1stBooks.com and also through
>Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Borders, as well as other individual and
>chain bookstores.
>
    I checked Amazon and their price is considerably higher ($11)
than the one on 1stbooks.com.  Why is the difference so great?


>They are available, but you will have to ORDER them,
>as they are printed to order, and that can be a problem since many of
>the store clerks haven't a clue what POD is all about. They will tell
>you the book is out of print (duh, of course it is--it won't be printed
>until you order it) or unavailable (which is outright wrong). You have
>to insist and if you do, lo and behold, the system will take the order.
>
    Hopefully that will change.


>
>So, Glen Cook and POD? A natural, same as it would be for A.E.Van Vogt
>or Cordwainer Smith or Roger Zelazny or any of the giants of the field
>(IMHO) that are now hard to find, and increasingly little known. Can we
>persuade people like Cook to go this route? Hardly likely, until they
>are backlisted out of the field by the growth of the megapublishers who
>can only justify sure and certain blockbusters like Stephen King and Tom
>Clancy to the folks who look only to the bottom line.
>
    I think that the main problem would be getting those older books
into a format that can be used.  That shouldn't be as much of an issue
for today's authors.

                Steve



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Harris <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 03:20:14 -0500

Richard,

Spoiler for first three Black Company volumes...



....



...




...



....



....




Croaker sees Raven engraving something on a silver band around an arrow.
 Asked about it, Raven says, "Fixing an arrow for the Limper.  With his
true name on it.  Catcher gave it to me."

But what is the effect of that arrow (and two others, not so special)?
It knocks the Limper over and shocks him sufficiently that Croaker can
kick his head and otherwise discommode him till Raven comes over and
ties him up, including cutting off some fingers.  Between the two of
them, they keep him settled till Catcher shows up.  But that certainly
wasn't a means of putting him down completely--not the way Silent did
the Lady at the end of "The White Rose".

Possibilities:

1) That wasn't, in fact, Limper's True Name (despite what Raven says
Catcher told him); it was just some charm that helped knock him for a
loop temporarily.  (Maybe a fraction of his True Name?)

2) It takes a heckuva lot more than just the True Name to really take
down a powerful wizard.  Presumably, Silence had been working a very
long time to make the proper ritual for taking down the Lady (needing
only to know which of the possible names to trigger the ritual); and
maybe even he wouldn't have had a chance, if the Lady had not just scant
seconds previously been deep inside Darling's null.

3) Limper gets a new True Name when he gets back in the Lady's good
graces (maybe he gets ReTaken? maybe that can include a new True Name?)

Steve

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 13:03:07 -0300


Steve Harris wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Spoiler for first three Black Company volumes...
>



> ....
>





> ...
>



> ...
>
> ....
>
> ....
>
> Croaker sees Raven engraving something on a silver band around an arrow.
>  Asked about it, Raven says, "Fixing an arrow for the Limper.  With his
> true name on it.  Catcher gave it to me."
>

Based on some of the interrogations the wizards have done I'd say there
is a good chance they could have gotten a look of Croaker's memories of
the ring.

> But what is the effect of that arrow (and two others, not so special)?
> It knocks the Limper over and shocks him sufficiently that Croaker can
> kick his head and otherwise discommode him till Raven comes over and
> ties him up, including cutting off some fingers.  Between the two of
> them, they keep him settled till Catcher shows up.  But that certainly
> wasn't a means of putting him down completely--not the way Silent did
> the Lady at the end of "The White Rose".
>
> Possibilities:
>
> 1) That wasn't, in fact, Limper's True Name (despite what Raven says
> Catcher told him); it was just some charm that helped knock him for a
> loop temporarily.  (Maybe a fraction of his True Name?)
>

Just thought of another possibility - Soulcatcher may have lied to
Raven.  Since most people don't know much about how magic works but do
know about the True Name bit Soulcatcher may have wieghed "It's a
Ironioal charm fashened over three decades designed to pierce someone's
magical protections - I was making it for use on the Lady before I
discovered Limper had my True Name" against "It's his True Name - put it
on your arrow and it will work better" and decided to keep things
simple.

> 2) It takes a heckuva lot more than just the True Name to really take
> down a powerful wizard.  Presumably, Silence had been working a very
> long time to make the proper ritual for taking down the Lady (needing
> only to know which of the possible names to trigger the ritual); and
> maybe even he wouldn't have had a chance, if the Lady had not just scant
> seconds previously been deep inside Darling's null.
>

I can't see this one - it's clear throughout all the books that the
saying of the True Name is the end of a wizard's carreer, which is why
everyone who knew about magic was driven crazy wondering how Lady got
her powers back.

> 3) Limper gets a new True Name when he gets back in the Lady's good
> graces (maybe he gets ReTaken? maybe that can include a new True Name?)
>

Can't see this one working - partly because Lady never tried to get a
new True Name either while her husband was working his way through her
sisters' names or once she was named.

Part of me still thinks this is a little nitpick - something the author
lost track of.  When you look at the size of the story it's surprising
that there aren't more little things like it.  There were a few more,
but Cook handled them with "when X was writting X gave his point of
view", or "Lady lied about that bit", or "there are several different
meassurements being used - all called miles".
Blaming the narrator for little mistakes is one of the best saves there
is to cover the fact that most authors aren't nitpickers and it's hard
to maintain consistancy over long series.  Fans might debate which of
the Taken were women but Cook doesn't give that a second thought.  Since
he's not the type of author that writes huge amounts of world background
and constantly checks it while writting little things like this are
bound to crop up.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Ainsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again (Black Company (first Novel)
Date: 07 Jul 2002 21:14:30 -0500

At 01:56 AM 7/7/2002 -0300, Richard Chilton wrote:
>This message has a couple of spoilers for the first novel of the Black
>Company series....
>.
>.
>.
>If you haven't read that book yet don't read below.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>If you haven't read that book yet I'd really recommend it
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>I've got two theories on why it was never used:
>
>1) The Lady took the name back during the Taking of Whisper.  The after
>affects of the Eye, spells to make sure all witnesses (including
>Soulcatcher) forgot Whisper's True Name (which would have had to been
>part of the ritual) went too - whatever.

Given that by this point the Lady wants Limper to be secure from Catcher
"in case," this seems reasonable to me.

Let me add another possibility, though (#5?):
Raven states that Catcher gave him Limper's name to put on the arrow.  The
arrow does indeed seem to penetrate his defenses, but it also catches him
by surprise (and ordinary weapons do seem to hack parts off of him when
he's not ready for them).  There's no evidence beyond Catcher's word that
this name was accurate--and even if Catcher thought she knew Limper's true
name, she might have been wrong.  Had the *Lady* provided Raven with the
arrow/name I'd be inclined to accept it without as much question.

My guess is that Catcher expected the Lady to destroy Limper, not Raven and
Croaker.  Given the punishment Limper is capable of surviving in later
cases, I think Raven and Croaker are most ill-prepared to kill him, and
they're intentionally sent off that way.

If Catcher did learn Limper's name, I don't believe she shared it.  Just
the sort of thing she'd do.

David

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 21:29:29 -0700

True names and thier effect on wizards

 It has been my thoughts that the naming of a wizard IN THE RITUAL OF NAMING
is sufficint to undo thier powers. I think the ritual is so basic and simple
because the name is all to the wizard. So stating the name would not do
much, ( Shadow games, near the end, apprentice forvalaka) but only if
uttered in the ritual.

 I also wonder if it takes someone with power to do the ritual, as thier was
good reason for Lady to use a couple during Shadow games and she did not.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) Timeline of the Domination and Resurrection
Date: 08 Jul 2002 21:41:47 -0700

Spoilers for Silver Spike
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
 I have often wondered about this topic. Although referenced in other
books, most info comes from Silver Spike and The White Rose.
 The questions are   "How long ago was the domination, how long were
they buried, when did they return?"

 I cant decide which way to argue as thier is lots of evidence for 2
different ways to go.
 BC states the reyrn was 2 turns of the comet ago (80 yrs) . But Bomanz
was young when he went to the barrowland, spent 40 years working, got
caught and returned ( so this would be 2 full cycles pus a wacky short
cycle [ 95 years?]). But its mentioned twice in Spike he is around 500
years old. It also mentions he is about 150.
 I dont care which it is, but I do kind of wish that future Printings
have a small revision so the numbers kind of match.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Changeling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 20:45:13 -0500 (CDT)


Here's something that occured to me when I was having the discussion about
why Lady didn't use True Names against more people...maybe she didn't know
them. After all, if she had been able to Take the original Ten then they
wouldn't have risen up against her with the Dominator, right? But she
wasn't even sure of Soulcatcher's True Name. So why would she know anyone
else's?
My feeling is that the Dominator couldn't command the Ten because of the
magic in place around the barrow. So he was only able to influence the
ones that, on some level, wanted to be working for him. (Lady makes a
comment about it being the females but I think it's more complicated than
that)
We are shown time and again throughout the series that illusion is a
powerful weapon. And the illusion of knowledge can be a pretty useful
tool.

-Matthew

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Joe Murphy wrote:

> True names and thier effect on wizards
>
>  It has been my thoughts that the naming of a wizard IN THE RITUAL OF NAMING
> is sufficint to undo thier powers. I think the ritual is so basic and simple
> because the name is all to the wizard. So stating the name would not do
> much, ( Shadow games, near the end, apprentice forvalaka) but only if
> uttered in the ritual.
>
>  I also wonder if it takes someone with power to do the ritual, as thier was
> good reason for Lady to use a couple during Shadow games and she did not.
>
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>


**************************************************************************
*                                                                        *
* It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.             *
*                                                                        *
**************************************************************************


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael Higgins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Print on Demand
Date: 08 Jul 2002 22:12:42 -0400

To answer your questions, without putting you to sleep...

> Why do you say the quality is open to question?  Have you seen
> your book in softcover?  How does it compare with a standard paperback
> or trade paperback?  Does the binding seem solid?  How does the print
> font compare?

The 1stBooks paperback is superb. We loves it, my precious, we loves
it... However, 1stBooks is just one of a growing number of POD
publishers and I don't work for any of them. It is likely some of them
are fly by night shysters, putting out crappy work (or just taking the
money and disapearing) or loading the process down with hidden fees.
This was one of my problems with 1stBooks, and in truth it probably
would not have even come up if I hadn't been so overanxious to get this
thing into the works. I was careless, and I paid for it. Sort of like
life in a way.

I did disagree with the charge of $90 to rework the cover art because I
was not aware that their "suggested cover" was their "intended cover"
and that I had to pay to change it. If you'd like I could send you a
copy of their cover, and the final cover that incorporated my
suggestions into it. You'll notice a substantial difference, I think.

However, the final cover, and the print job and the heft of the book
were as good as anything you'll find on the mass market ALLTHOUGH the
book is somewhat larger. It's about an inch higher and a half-inch wider
that the paperbacks you ordinarily buy, but is smaller than the
softcover textbooks you sometimes find it necessary to obtain. The size
difference is not so great that you couldn't stick it in a bag, or a
jacket pocket to take with you to the beach, so that's good.

>     Yes, I'd certainly buy the Dread Empire series in hardback
> if it was of good quality.  Unfortunately, I don't think that Cook
> has those books in digital format.

a scanner and a Optical Text Recognition program, along with a good deal
of time, would solve that problem easily. I'd be willing to do it myself
if the books were still available, since I'm about to retire and I
figure on having a good deal of free time available.

>     I see.  So you set your own profit margins.  Interesting.  Is
> the base price based on the number of pages?  What percentage does
> 1stbooks keep?

Actually, I'm not sure what the costs are based on. It runs about 2
cents a page, so far as I can tell, which is not bad for the quality of
the book.

>     I checked Amazon and their price is considerably higher ($11)
> than the one on 1stbooks.com.  Why is the difference so great?

You were able to get a listing from Amazon? You're better at this than I
am, dude. The difference is Amazon's cost and profit margin. 1stBooks is
like a wholesaler, Amazon is retail.

>     Hopefully that will change.

Only if lots of people go out and buy a POD book. Like mine, for example...

Any other questions?

Mike Higgins (http://www.michaelhiggins.net)
4 cents a page! That's all it'll cost you for your own paperback copy of
 TELL NO TALES, a brand new SF novel of life in the Age of Terrorism
http://www.huigin.com/cardpage.html





=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Llaneza <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 19:20:03 -0700

I do tech support for a living. I would bet MY True Name that any wizard
would take option B below.

Besides, when did Catcher *ever* tell the truth ?

Both Catcher and the Lady had diverse tactical reasons for making Raven
and Croaker *think* they had the Limper's Name.

Richard Chilton wrote:

>Just thought of another possibility - Soulcatcher may have lied to
>Raven.  Since most people don't know much about how magic works but do
>know about the True Name bit Soulcatcher may have wieghed "It's a
>Ironioal charm fashened over three decades designed to pierce someone's
>magical protections - I was making it for use on the Lady before I
>discovered Limper had my True Name" against "It's his True Name - put it
>on your arrow and it will work better" and decided to keep things
>simple.
>
>
>
>
>



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Changeling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 21:28:31 -0500 (CDT)


How about option C: When Lady Took Limper she basically remade him from
the ground up. Wouldn't it be possible for her to rename him at that
point? He's no longer the man he used to be, after all...

-Matthew

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Michael Llaneza wrote:

> I do tech support for a living. I would bet MY True Name that any wizard
> would take option B below.
>
> Besides, when did Catcher *ever* tell the truth ?
>
> Both Catcher and the Lady had diverse tactical reasons for making Raven
> and Croaker *think* they had the Limper's Name.
>
> Richard Chilton wrote:
>
> >Just thought of another possibility - Soulcatcher may have lied to
> >Raven.  Since most people don't know much about how magic works but do
> >know about the True Name bit Soulcatcher may have wieghed "It's a
> >Ironioal charm fashened over three decades designed to pierce someone's
> >magical protections - I was making it for use on the Lady before I
> >discovered Limper had my True Name" against "It's his True Name - put it
> >on your arrow and it will work better" and decided to keep things
> >simple.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>


**************************************************************************
*                                                                        *
* It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.             *
*                                                                        *
**************************************************************************


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Llaneza <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 19:43:01 -0700

I'll always consider an Option C.

Changeling wrote:

>How about option C: When Lady Took Limper she basically remade him from
>the ground up. Wouldn't it be possible for her to rename him at that
>point? He's no longer the man he used to be, after all...
>
>-Matthew
>
>On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Michael Llaneza wrote:
>
>
>
>>I do tech support for a living. I would bet MY True Name that any wizard
>>would take option B below.
>>
>>Besides, when did Catcher *ever* tell the truth ?
>>
>>Both Catcher and the Lady had diverse tactical reasons for making Raven
>>and Croaker *think* they had the Limper's Name.
>>
>>



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brooke Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 20:22:38 -0700

Heh! As in:

Format complete.
Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)?

Now you got me laughing. Thanks for that image. :-)


[e-mail] wrote:

>How about option C: When Lady Took Limper she basically remade him from
>the ground up. Wouldn't it be possible for her to rename him at that
>point? He's no longer the man he used to be, after all...
>
>-Matthew
>



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Bricker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 22:39:19 -0500


I'm seeing a 5.25" floppy with clay legs, straw arms, and a volleyball
(painted with blood of course) for a head.

And he's *still* a badass.

D



> From: Brooke Wheeler <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:22:38 -0700
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
>
> Heh! As in:
>
> Format complete.
> Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)?
>
> Now you got me laughing. Thanks for that image. :-)
>
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
>
>> How about option C: When Lady Took Limper she basically remade him from
>> the ground up. Wouldn't it be possible for her to rename him at that
>> point? He's no longer the man he used to be, after all...
>>
>> -Matthew
>>
>
>
>
> =======================================================================
> To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
> visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Llaneza <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 08 Jul 2002 21:13:00 -0700

8" Winchester cartridge. 10 MB of attitude, tough enough to whack
someone with.

David Bricker wrote:

>I'm seeing a 5.25" floppy with clay legs, straw arms, and a volleyball
>(painted with blood of course) for a head.
>
>And he's *still* a badass.
>
>D
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Brooke Wheeler <[e-mail]>
>>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>>Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:22:38 -0700
>>To: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
>>
>>Heh! As in:
>>
>>Format complete.
>>Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)?
>>
>>Now you got me laughing. Thanks for that image. :-)
>>
>>
>>[e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>How about option C: When Lady Took Limper she basically remade him from
>>>the ground up. Wouldn't it be possible for her to rename him at that
>>>point? He's no longer the man he used to be, after all...
>>>
>>>-Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>=======================================================================
>>To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>>visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>>
>>
>
>
>=======================================================================
> To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
> visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>
>
>
>



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Tygers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again Black Company Spoilers
Date: 08 Jul 2002 21:59:22 -0700 (PDT)

I think the explanation is pretty obvious: the Lady
mindwiped Croaker and Raven after Taking Whisper. They
were both under the Eye, and Croaker says "some days
disappeared" and "what I could not remember could not
be used against her." And she had probably decided to
rehabilitate the Limper, or at least give herself that
option. Thus, take the Name back.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Changeling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again Black Company Spoilers
Date: 09 Jul 2002 00:14:29 -0500 (CDT)



Of course, now that we've talked about re-formating the Taken it's time to
discuss what OS is installed. Probably some version of Linux...although
the way that the baby Taken (the ones that Lady created) crash when she
loses her power would suggest Windows XP in it's "get permission from Big
Sister to execute this prog^H^H^H^Hspell" methodology...

-Matthew


**************************************************************************
*                                                                        *
* It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.             *
*                                                                        *
**************************************************************************


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eric Herrmann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) True Names Again Black Company Spoilers
Date: 08 Jul 2002 23:39:21 -0600

on 7/8/02 11:14 PM, Changeling at [e-mail] wrote:

> Of course, now that we've talked about re-formating the Taken it's time to
> discuss what OS is installed. Probably some version of Linux...although
> the way that the baby Taken (the ones that Lady created) crash when she
> loses her power would suggest Windows XP in it's "get permission from Big
> Sister to execute this prog^H^H^H^Hspell" methodology...

Linux?!? I wouldn't think that Wizards would support OpenSource.
Wouldn't she have had to make the source as well as any modifications that
she made to the Taken available to the community?

I'd say some sort of ancient, proprietary OS with a small market share that
runs on fairly generic hardware. I'm thinking something like NetWare.

--
Eric Herrmann
<[e-mail]>


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names
Date: 09 Jul 2002 14:37:25 -0300

Changeling wrote:
>
> Here's something that occured to me when I was having the discussion about
> why Lady didn't use True Names against more people...maybe she didn't know
> them. After all, if she had been able to Take the original Ten then they
> wouldn't have risen up against her with the Dominator, right? But she
> wasn't even sure of Soulcatcher's True Name. So why would she know anyone
> else's?

Think of True Names as the ultimate weapon.  The biggie.  You can use it
once against an enemy as he's gone.

Looking at the long term, which would most power mad sorcerers have:
1) a dead enemy
2) a defeated enemy who's now a useful tool who knows that at any time
you can kill him.

Most people who have the drive to become one of the Taken would pick
option 2.

Based on what's in the books the Dominator had enough power and
knowledge to Take 10 of the 11 top wizards of his day, and if he had his
way there would have been the 11 Who Were Taken.  Instead Lady was a
near equal he was forced to ally with.

Not his equal of course.  The Lady knew that one on one she couldn't
beat him.  He probably could have killed her one on one and with the Ten
behind him she wouldn't have stood a ghost of chance, but he didn't.  He
keep the option of Takening her open and made her a useful tool in his
Empire.

When she had her power the Lady didn't have to name any of the Ten, and
once she lost her power she saw the remaining Taken as tools she could
manipulate to do things she could no longer do.

Then again maybe she was bluffing or just thought she knew the True
Names and wouldn't bet her life on it.  After all the Dominator didn't
know her True Name and his failure to name her cost him everything.

As for Soulcatcher, one of the books explains why the two of them never
named each other.  They were sisters and a web of sorcery protected each
from the other - I'm thinking a "if you do any to cause her to be named
you lose your powers too" type deal.  The protections around them
explain why Lady needed Croaker to strike down Soulcatcher with a sword
- Lady could have used spells to solve that problem but doing so would
trigger that ancient web of sorcery.

> We are shown time and again throughout the series that illusion is a
> powerful weapon. And the illusion of knowledge can be a pretty useful
> tool.
>

I agree - it could have been a bluff.

At least for the Ten - Lady must have held True Names of the new Taken
to bind their power to hers....
Which reminds me of the scene where Lady is Name, all the new Taken lose
their powers, but all the Old Taken keep theirs.

Alas, while we can debate this there is no way to find out the Truth.
When Cook was asked about another point that was debated on (who was the
third female Taken) his answer was he didn't know.  He'd either never
decided or had forgotten since it didn't play a role in the story.  Why
the Lady didn't name the Taken probably fits into the same catagory for
him.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Ainsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names [spoilers]
Date: 09 Jul 2002 15:01:08 -0500

At 02:37 PM 7/9/2002 -0300, Richard Chilton wrote:
>Based on what's in the books the Dominator had enough power and
>knowledge to Take 10 of the 11 top wizards of his day, and if he had his
>way there would have been the 11 Who Were Taken.  Instead Lady was a
>near equal he was forced to ally with.
>
>Not his equal of course.  The Lady knew that one on one she couldn't
>beat him.  He probably could have killed her one on one and with the Ten
>behind him she wouldn't have stood a ghost of chance, but he didn't.  He
>keep the option of Takening her open and made her a useful tool in his
>Empire.

Presumably the Dominator had reason to believe that Lady knew some of the
True Names of the Ten.  If so, and if he tried to Take her and failed (say,
because he had the wrong Name), she didn't have the power to beat him but
she could unmake enough of his servants that it wouldn't be worth the risk.
 He may also have feared that she might guess *his* True Name, at least
before he'd gone to extensive efforts to erase it from the world.  I doubt
he could have dealt with Lady's subtlety very well.

>Alas, while we can debate this there is no way to find out the Truth.
>When Cook was asked about another point that was debated on (who was the
>third female Taken) his answer was he didn't know.  He'd either never
>decided or had forgotten since it didn't play a role in the story.  Why
>the Lady didn't name the Taken probably fits into the same catagory for
>him.

Who ever said that authors knew the Truth of their creations?  ;)

In any event, wizardry in the BC series is not particularly systematized,
or at least not by the time of the stories.  There are hints that in
Bomanz's day there may have been more system.  It's certainly a real
headache trying to map BC sorcery onto an RPG system, I can tell you...

If everyone is running around with an individualized method of doing magic,
Cook didn't *need* to develop a set system... but that doesn't mean it
isn't possible to draw a few useful hypotheses.

David

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names [spoilers]
Date: 10 Jul 2002 15:03:39 -0300

David Ainsworth wrote:
>
> At 02:37 PM 7/9/2002 -0300, Richard Chilton wrote:
> >Based on what's in the books the Dominator had enough power and
> >knowledge to Take 10 of the 11 top wizards of his day, and if he had his
> >way there would have been the 11 Who Were Taken.  Instead Lady was a
> >near equal he was forced to ally with.
> >
> >Not his equal of course.  The Lady knew that one on one she couldn't
> >beat him.  He probably could have killed her one on one and with the Ten
> >behind him she wouldn't have stood a ghost of chance, but he didn't.  He
> >keep the option of Takening her open and made her a useful tool in his
> >Empire.
>
> Presumably the Dominator had reason to believe that Lady knew some of the
> True Names of the Ten.  If so, and if he tried to Take her and failed (say,
> because he had the wrong Name), she didn't have the power to beat him but
> she could unmake enough of his servants that it wouldn't be worth the risk.
>  He may also have feared that she might guess *his* True Name, at least
> before he'd gone to extensive efforts to erase it from the world.  I doubt
> he could have dealt with Lady's subtlety very well.
>

Based on their characters I see the Dominator using Lady while Lady used
the Dominator.
Dreams of Steal has a quote pointing out that the Dominator believed in
power, in strength, that enough raw power could solve any problem.  Goes
something like "He believed that up until the day I killed him."
But he must have realized that some problems needed guile, that throwing
raw pow at some situations would be counter productive.  He'd never
needed to develop the skills to handle those situations so gave tasks
like that to certain of the Ten or Lady.  I.E. He used Lady as his top
trouble shooter and manager for areas he didn't want to destroy
outright.
The Lady used the Dominator for his strenght.  She guided his steps as
much as she could, building an Empire in his name.  Alas, the Dominator
was like a wild bull running through the streets - unpredictable, short
sighted, and pointlessly destructive.  At one point Lady points out how
wastful the Dominator was - destroying useful tools - when she tells
Croaker who he reminds her of and how the Dominator killed him.

I can also see the Dominator using Lady to referee the Taken.  For her
to do this effectively he might have given her the names of the Taken,
or at least told the Taken he'd given her the names.
I can also see Lady tricking (or forcing) the Taken into giving her
their names, or researching them herself.  Certainly she was no stranger
to the work she did with Croaker in book 3.


> >Alas, while we can debate this there is no way to find out the Truth.
> >When Cook was asked about another point that was debated on (who was the
> >third female Taken) his answer was he didn't know.  He'd either never
> >decided or had forgotten since it didn't play a role in the story.  Why
> >the Lady didn't name the Taken probably fits into the same catagory for
> >him.
>
> Who ever said that authors knew the Truth of their creations?  ;)
>

There's a lot of truth in that.  What's the old saying?
"When I wrote that only two people knew what it really meant, myself and
god.  Now that it's been published and countless people have added their
interpretation only god the true meaning."

> In any event, wizardry in the BC series is not particularly systematized,
> or at least not by the time of the stories.  There are hints that in
> Bomanz's day there may have been more system.  It's certainly a real
> headache trying to map BC sorcery onto an RPG system, I can tell you...
>

I see the Taken as each mastering a different sphere or school of
magic.  You never hear of Limper shifting shape or Shifter stealing
souls and Stormbringer is the ultimate in weather magic.  By bring all
those different schools together you would have a unite system of
sorcery.
Alas that system was a victim of the Dominator's fall as the victors
destroyed everything associated with his reign, to the point where
generations later a skilled wizard felt he had no choice but to call
upon the Taken directly to gain knowledge of magic.

> If everyone is running around with an individualized method of doing magic,
> Cook didn't *need* to develop a set system... but that doesn't mean it
> isn't possible to draw a few useful hypotheses.
>

Part of the problem is we don't see the magic system from the inside.
Goblin and One Eye might use the same words and guestures of power, but
use different antics to disguise the true source of their power.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names [spoilers]
Date: 10 Jul 2002 18:40:11 -0700



Richard Chilton wrote:

>
> >
>
> Part of the problem is we don't see the magic system from the inside.
> Goblin and One Eye might use the same words and guestures of power, but
> use different antics to disguise the true source of their power.
>
> Richard
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Actually, it is mentioned in BC or one of the other early books that they both
use different languages for spell casting, and neither understands the others.

 Murph

>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Re: True Names [spoilers]
Date: 10 Jul 2002 20:05:28 -0300


Joe Murphy wrote:
>
> Richard Chilton wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > Part of the problem is we don't see the magic system from the inside.
> > Goblin and One Eye might use the same words and guestures of power, but
> > use different antics to disguise the true source of their power.
> >
> > Richard
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  Actually, it is mentioned in BC or one of the other early books that they both
> use different languages for spell casting, and neither understands the others.
>

Allow me to put it another way:
Many systems of magic (in books, games, etc) embrace the concept of
words of power.  The words often are not understood by the caster but
are the focus of the magic.  They aren't even real words most of the
time - just sounds that some how make the magic work.  Casters often
surround the important words and gestures with nonsense or words that
seem to have meaning to prevent others from stealing their spells, or
because they don't know which parts of the spell make it work.
For example, let's say huh is a word of power.  A chant might go
lalannanannllalaalHUHlalalaha while another chant might
nannannnaaaaHUHnananalala.  Both casters are invoking the power of the
word huh but neither would recognize it buried in the other's chant.
Both casters say their chants because that's what their teachers taught
them to say and sysbols around huh make sense in their different native
languages.
Say those two are Golbin and One Eye - both competitent casts but
neither picked as the genious of their generation.
If someone was to go through the various mystic chants of the different
traditions - say the Ten different traditions united under the Dominator
- he could notice the word huh in all the chants and realize that it is
the word that powers the spell.  Armed with this, the researcher could
go to more complex spells, ones with several power words, and slowly
write a dictionary of what makes magic works.  Then while the half
trained witch doctor is trying to say 'lalannanannllalaalHUHlalalaha'
(blurring the huh sound a bit in his chant) the well trained sorcery
could just say 'huh' - welding the same power in less time.

The Dominator and Lady probably did during the Dominion - giving them
access to a great deal of magical knowledge.  People like the Howler
would want that knowledge which is why Lady was in so much danger.
Whoever got her got the best research of one of the more magical times
in the world.

I could be really off base here of course - power words aren't the only
system of magic that exist in fantasy, but they do fit the books closer
than the other ones.  Rare components don't appear to be sacrificed to
make most spells work; it doesn't look like most of the wizards deal
with other worldly entities for power (but that apperantly happens often
enough for Lady to recognize when it happens with her); wizards don't do
long, time comsuming rituals for most times; wizards don't spend forever
studying spells, nor do they live virtuous or sinful lives (at least not
more than others).

Then again, since no one ever ties to explain the magic system(s) we'll
never know how it works.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Ainsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) BC Magic system [potential spoilers]
Date: 11 Jul 2002 16:41:25 -0500

At 08:05 PM 7/10/2002 -0300, Richard Chilton wrote:
>I could be really off base here of course - power words aren't the only
>system of magic that exist in fantasy, but they do fit the books closer
>than the other ones.  Rare components don't appear to be sacrificed to
>make most spells work; it doesn't look like most of the wizards deal
>with other worldly entities for power (but that apperantly happens often
>enough for Lady to recognize when it happens with her); wizards don't do
>long, time comsuming rituals for most times; wizards don't spend forever
>studying spells, nor do they live virtuous or sinful lives (at least not
>more than others).

Components are generally out, yes, although Silent gathers up a "component"
for the time he releases a swarm of bees on the Company's enemies.
Silent's ability also proves that there are alternate ways of accessing
magic--predominantly gestures--which are also seen used by some of the
Taken (Limper's wiggling fingers, for example).

One-Eye and Tom-Tom also seem to use totems as a source of power, following
a more shamanistic form of drawing power.  Tom-Tom's totem is obvious.
One-Eye's might well be his hat, which would explain a number of things, or
perhaps he voluntarily surrendered his eye to form a sort of negative token.

Layered enchantments very clearly require long rituals, at least for weaker
casters (witness One-Eye's spear), and I suspect that some ritual is
required for the more powerful.  Certainly, the Taken can't just whip up
some enchanted objects on the spur of the moment--they require time and
craft.  'Catcher's restoration also involves ritual, and Kina's magic seems
almost entirely grounded in it.  The enchantment Shadowspinner generates
during the fight for Dejagore is also clearly a layered spell generated
over an extended period of time.

The Taken certainly demonstrate specialization, but there's no evidence
that they couldn't use other magics if they knew them.  Shifter can
certainly do a number of things unconnected with changing shape.
Presumably, the more power a sorcerer possesses, the more he can accomplish
in a shorter period of time.  So the Circle require a bit of time to
generate some of their battle-magics, while the Dominator can throw off
powerful and complex magics in a matter of seconds.  I'm inclined to
suspect that magical "energy," however measured, is more of a factor than
knowledge, especially given that Lady later possesses the knowledge but
lacks the energy.  That would also explain why many of the truly powerful
wizards simply don't demonstrate any sense of subtlety--they just aren't
accustomed to needing it.

David

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chew)
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) BC Magic system [potential spoilers]
Date: 12 Jul 2002 13:55:01 -0400 (EDT)

>
>At 08:05 PM 7/10/2002 -0300, Richard Chilton wrote:
>>I could be really off base here of course - power words aren't the only
>>system of magic that exist in fantasy, but they do fit the books closer
>>than the other ones.  Rare components don't appear to be sacrificed to
>>make most spells work; it doesn't look like most of the wizards deal
>>with other worldly entities for power (but that apperantly happens often
>>enough for Lady to recognize when it happens with her); wizards don't do
>>long, time comsuming rituals for most times; wizards don't spend forever
>>studying spells, nor do they live virtuous or sinful lives (at least not
>>more than others).
>
>powerful and complex magics in a matter of seconds.  I'm inclined to
>suspect that magical "energy," however measured, is more of a factor than
>knowledge, especially given that Lady later possesses the knowledge but
>lacks the energy.  That would also explain why many of the truly powerful
>wizards simply don't demonstrate any sense of subtlety--they just aren't
>accustomed to needing it.
>
>David
>

David,
    I think you're right that it is mostly a magical "energy" or
perhaps magical "will" which is the source of each person's magic.  The
words or components may help focus it, but aren't strictly necessary --
you made the good point about Silent.  It also seems that some knowledge
as to how to focus the energy to produce specific results can be helpful.
This may be where the specialization of the Taken comes in -- they've
learned specific tricks to focus their energy to perform certain tasks
well.  It also seems possible that this energy is inherited (Lady and
Soulcatcher are sisters and Lady's daughter may have magical ability too).
    However, I think that we're trying to enforce a rigorous system
of magic where it doesn't exist -- I don't think Cook has thought about
it (or necessarily cares to think about it) in this amount of detail.

                Steve


--
Steve Chew - [e-mail] - http://www.interzone.com
"Read any books whatever come to thy hands, for thou art sufficient
 both to judge aright, and to examine each matter....Prove all things,
 hold fast that which is good."
        -- John Milton

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) Brother Vs. Brother
Date: 13 Jul 2002 01:51:52 -0700

Spoilers for Glittering Stone and Shadows Linger













In Stone when the Nar are opening the East Gate and Murgens bunch show
up to stop them Murgen writes that this is the first instance of brother
fighting brother.
 In Shadows after the Old Crew take off the rest of the Company pursues
and catches them . Pawnbroker tells Croaker about it. They even
reference the the others as "the rest of the Company".

 Did Glen forget about it?
 Was Murgen not joined yet so did not know? I thought this till I came
across Murgen talking to Swan in Glittering about how he joined the
Company, and references the Rebel in a bad way so as to make one think
he joined before they turned Rebel.( I always figured he was one that
joined during the march to Charm or shortly thereafter. It would make
him 30 to 35 yrs old or so during Shadow Games which is plenty young
enough for One Eye to call him pup.)

 Murph


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Bricker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Brother Vs. Brother
Date: 13 Jul 2002 10:35:02 -0500

>
> Spoilers for Glittering Stone and Shadows Linger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In Stone when the Nar are opening the East Gate and Murgens bunch show
> up to stop them Murgen writes that this is the first instance of brother
> fighting brother.
> In Shadows after the Old Crew take off the rest of the Company pursues
> and catches them . Pawnbroker tells Croaker about it. They even
> reference the the others as "the rest of the Company".

I'm probably being thick here -- but where's the contradiction? Can you be a
little more explicit?

> Was Murgen not joined yet so did not know? I thought this till I came
> across Murgen talking to Swan in Glittering about how he joined the
> Company, and references the Rebel in a bad way so as to make one think
> he joined before they turned Rebel.( I always figured he was one that
> joined during the march to Charm or shortly thereafter. It would make
> him 30 to 35 yrs old or so during Shadow Games which is plenty young
> enough for One Eye to call him pup.)

As old as they are, One-Eye and Goblin call a lot of BC members some young
in some deprecating fashion, including Croaker, before he becomes Captain.
More telling perhaps is Murgen's constant reference to Croaker as The Old
Man.

The earliest BC engagement Murgen refers to as having experienced it himself
is Juniper, I think.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Brother Vs. Brother
Date: 13 Jul 2002 13:04:22 -0300

David Bricker wrote:
>
> >
> > Spoilers for Glittering Stone and Shadows Linger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In Stone when the Nar are opening the East Gate and Murgens bunch show
> > up to stop them Murgen writes that this is the first instance of brother
> > fighting brother.
> > In Shadows after the Old Crew take off the rest of the Company pursues
> > and catches them . Pawnbroker tells Croaker about it. They even
> > reference the the others as "the rest of the Company".
>
> I'm probably being thick here -- but where's the contradiction? Can you be a
> little more explicit?
>

What I think he means is:
How can the fighting at the east gate be the first time the company
fought itself (brother fighting brother) if it fought itself after
Juniper?
Either Murgen didn't know about the earlier case or there's some other
reason.

As you've stated Murgen probably knew about the early case, so what
could the other reason could there be?

Maybe the 'new company' / old company split is at the heart of it.
Perhaps neither side thought of each other as brothers when they fought
in book two.  The new company saw the old company as traitors while the
old company saw the new guys as dupes.  I.E. a "We aren't fighting
brothers, we're fighting those we used to call brothers" kind of thing.
But during the fighting at the east gate both sides saw each other as
members of the same company.  They saw each others as brothers.  It
wasn't two versions of the company but a civil war.

Or maybe Murgen was being dramatic.  Maybe he feels recording it as the
first time Brother fought Brother sounds better than "the first time in
years that Brother fought Brother" and he's writing for future readers.
Remember that he only recently took on the 'sacred duty' of maintaining
the annals and he may be trying to put the most dramatic light on
things.

Or maybe Murgen has a memory problem.  Wasn't he under the influences of
a memory altering spell Lady cast on him?

Or maybe the mob fight after Jupiter was seen to be more of a brawl than
a battle.  If memory serves it wasn't much of an engagement - the old
crew left on the ship while the new crew was fighting the Prince's men
for control of the city.  It's been a few years since I re-read it, but
my impression was a few people fought but it wasn't really a company
verse company battle.
Croaker even patched up both side's losers - something that won't have
happened after the east gate.

> > Was Murgen not joined yet so did not know? I thought this till I came
> > across Murgen talking to Swan in Glittering about how he joined the
> > Company, and references the Rebel in a bad way so as to make one think
> > he joined before they turned Rebel.( I always figured he was one that
> > joined during the march to Charm or shortly thereafter. It would make
> > him 30 to 35 yrs old or so during Shadow Games which is plenty young
> > enough for One Eye to call him pup.)
>
> As old as they are, One-Eye and Goblin call a lot of BC members some young
> in some deprecating fashion, including Croaker, before he becomes Captain.
> More telling perhaps is Murgen's constant reference to Croaker as The Old
> Man.
>

The Old Man is the classic reference to the commander.  Used to refer to
rank, not age.  The 50 year old sergeant would refer to the 30 year
captain as the Old Man.  I'm not sure how it started out (maybe the
senior officer taking command after the commander went down?  maybe the
senior appointed officer listening to the most experinced officer?
maybe the burden of command aging you?) but its use is wide spread.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chew)
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Brother Vs. Brother
Date: 13 Jul 2002 20:19:24 -0400 (EDT)

>> >
>> > Spoilers for Glittering Stone and Shadows Linger
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In Stone when the Nar are opening the East Gate and Murgens bunch show
>> > up to stop them Murgen writes that this is the first instance of brother
>> > fighting brother.
>> > In Shadows after the Old Crew take off the rest of the Company pursues
>> > and catches them . Pawnbroker tells Croaker about it. They even
>> > reference the the others as "the rest of the Company".
>>
>> I'm probably being thick here -- but where's the contradiction? Can you be a
>> little more explicit?
>>
>
>What I think he means is:
>How can the fighting at the east gate be the first time the company
>fought itself (brother fighting brother) if it fought itself after
>Juniper?
>Either Murgen didn't know about the earlier case or there's some other
>reason.
>
    If I was Gordian I would say that it's simply an inconsistency.
:)

                Steve



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chew)
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Brother Vs. Brother
Date: 13 Jul 2002 20:25:24 -0400 (EDT)

>>> >
>>> > Spoilers for Glittering Stone and Shadows Linger
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In Stone when the Nar are opening the East Gate and Murgens bunch show
>>> > up to stop them Murgen writes that this is the first instance of brother
>>> > fighting brother.
>>> > In Shadows after the Old Crew take off the rest of the Company pursues
>>> > and catches them . Pawnbroker tells Croaker about it. They even
>>> > reference the the others as "the rest of the Company".
>>>
>>> I'm probably being thick here -- but where's the contradiction? Can you be a
>>> little more explicit?
>>>
>>
>>What I think he means is:
>>How can the fighting at the east gate be the first time the company
>>fought itself (brother fighting brother) if it fought itself after
>>Juniper?
>>Either Murgen didn't know about the earlier case or there's some other
>>reason.
>>
>    If I was Gordian I would say that it's simply an inconsistency.
>:)
>
    Whoops, make that "If I was Alexander..."  ;-)

                Steve


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Brother Vs. Brother
Date: 14 Jul 2002 02:20:09 -0700



Richard Chilton wrote:

>
>
> The Old Man is the classic reference to the commander.  Used to refer to
> rank, not age.  The 50 year old sergeant would refer to the 30 year
> captain as the Old Man.  I'm not sure how it started out (maybe the
> senior officer taking command after the commander went down?  maybe the
> senior appointed officer listening to the most experinced officer?
> maybe the burden of command aging you?) but its use is wide spread.
>
> Richard

 In Stone Murgen mentions that now that the "Old Man" is getting old thaey cant
call him that anymore, so it's definitely a reference to position rather than age.

Murph

>
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Troy Lefman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) BC Magic system [potential spoilers]
Date: 14 Jul 2002 11:05:42 +0000



Steve Chew wrote:

> >
> >At 08:05 PM 7/10/2002 -0300, Richard Chilton wrote:
> >>I could be really off base here of course - power words aren't the only
> >>system of magic that exist in fantasy, but they do fit the books closer
> >>than the other ones.  Rare components don't appear to be sacrificed to
> >>make most spells work; it doesn't look like most of the wizards deal
> >>with other worldly entities for power (but that apperantly happens often
> >>enough for Lady to recognize when it happens with her); wizards don't do
> >>long, time comsuming rituals for most times; wizards don't spend forever
> >>studying spells, nor do they live virtuous or sinful lives (at least not
> >>more than others).
> >
> >powerful and complex magics in a matter of seconds.  I'm inclined to
> >suspect that magical "energy," however measured, is more of a factor than
> >knowledge, especially given that Lady later possesses the knowledge but
> >lacks the energy.  That would also explain why many of the truly powerful
> >wizards simply don't demonstrate any sense of subtlety--they just aren't
> >accustomed to needing it.
> >
> >David
> >
>
> David,
>         I think you're right that it is mostly a magical "energy" or
> perhaps magical "will" which is the source of each person's magic.  The
> words or components may help focus it, but aren't strictly necessary --
> you made the good point about Silent.  It also seems that some knowledge
> as to how to focus the energy to produce specific results can be helpful.
> This may be where the specialization of the Taken comes in -- they've
> learned specific tricks to focus their energy to perform certain tasks
> well.  It also seems possible that this energy is inherited (Lady and
> Soulcatcher are sisters and Lady's daughter may have magical ability too).
>         However, I think that we're trying to enforce a rigorous system
> of magic where it doesn't exist -- I don't think Cook has thought about
> it (or necessarily cares to think about it) in this amount of detail.
>
>                                 Steve
>
> --
> Steve Chew - [e-mail] - http://www.interzone.com
> "Read any books whatever come to thy hands, for thou art sufficient
>  both to judge aright, and to examine each matter....Prove all things,
>  hold fast that which is good."
>         -- John Milton

All magic can be anything.  Magic power can come from the killing of a family
member (the baby in Hart's Hope), from the use of runes (the Death Gate
series), mental energies (Darkwar), or anything else.  It all depends on what
the author wants to use.  Nothing is written in stone, unless there are rules
for the story.  Magic power is unlimited in source.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Changeling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) BC Magic system [potential spoilers]
Date: 14 Jul 2002 12:40:02 -0500 (CDT)


>
> All magic can be anything.  Magic power can come from the killing of a family
> member (the baby in Hart's Hope), from the use of runes (the Death Gate
> series), mental energies (Darkwar), or anything else.  It all depends on what
> the author wants to use.  Nothing is written in stone, unless there are rules
> for the story.  Magic power is unlimited in source.

Well, yeah. But that's why were' having this conversation. Trying to
figure out what rules Glen is playing by in the Black Company series.

-Matthew


**************************************************************************
*                                                                        *
* It's that moment of dawning comprehension that I live for.             *
*                                                                        *
**************************************************************************


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Ainsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) BC Magic system [potential spoilers]
Date: 15 Jul 2002 13:40:37 -0500

At 11:05 AM 7/14/2002 +0000, Troy Lefman wrote:
>All magic can be anything.  Magic power can come from the killing of a family
>member (the baby in Hart's Hope), from the use of runes (the Death Gate
>series), mental energies (Darkwar), or anything else.  It all depends on what
>the author wants to use.  Nothing is written in stone, unless there are rules
>for the story.  Magic power is unlimited in source.

Yes, but authors have to make decisions regarding how magic functions and
what its limitations are in each book/series.  I'd argue that magic in
fantasy settings works in the same sort of generic way as, say, FTL travel
in sci-fi.  Readers expect some sort of system or explanation, however
vague and farfetched, and authors have to figure out how to engage with the
matter.

Further, whether or not Cook has a fully thought out and developed magic
system, one may potentially be derived from the BC series.

Here are a few basic observables:
Magic walks a line between total illusion and actuality.  Less powerful
spellcasters (like the Company wizards) are less able to manifest entirely
real effects, though often the illusion is more than sufficient.  (Plenty
of sources.  Taken magic, of course, is nearly always real, though Lady, at
least, demostrates a flair for illusion.)

One wizard who knows another wizard is present, and has some idea of his
location, can reduce or suppress his abilities, although this appears to
weaken the suppressing wizard as well.  (Seen most explicitly in The White
Rose, although it's a factor in many of the deaths of the Taken.)

Preparation increases the power of magic.  (Presumably for an illusion, a
more complete visualization is helpful in improving the spell.  Goblin and
One-Eye evidently prepare illusions for their various clashes.  It may also
be possible to "hang" spells and have them ready to go, given the speed
with which some wizards can throw off effective spells, like Harden when
fighting the Taken, and given how others seem ineffective when surprised,
but this point isn't clear.)

Magic requires both knowledge and talent.  (Plenty of examples.)

And this is just a brief compilation.

David

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Troy Lefman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Angry Lead Skies ***SPOILER ALERT***
Date: 20 Jul 2002 18:44:10 +0000



Richard Chilton wrote:

> I know these are old posts, but I didn't have the book when they were
> sent.  Someone at the bookstore forgot to phone to tell me it was in, so
> I just finished yesterday.
>
> "Timothy P. Taylor" wrote:
> >
> > I finished Angry Lead Skies.
> >
> > I liked it.
> >
> > ************SPOILER ALERT******************
> >
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > **
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *I think that some of the alluded to sex scenes were "interesting", I liked
> > VERY MCUH the fact that Pular was in this one.  Cook did a good job I think
> > in rounding out several characters, and still managing to incorporate
> > several old reliables (Saucerhead, Morley, Winger) without going overboard.
> >
> > I think he's setting it up for a pretty good conclusion, the ending was
> > interesting what with the dialogue between Old Man Tate, Garrett and Tinnie.
> >
> > Okay, I'm rooting that he settles down with tinnie...I admit to a bit of a
> > bias in that I myself married a red-head...no regrets!
> >
>
>
> The latest book advanced (in a round about way) a new theory for how
> Garrett was always able to get the girls - he seems to be a borderline
> Psy with unconscious powers.  The mother daughter team that was
> introduced seemed like a glaring pointer to how Garrett gets the girls -
> his mind pulls them towards him.

I opt for the idea of TunFaire and Karenta being limited on the number of eligible
men due to the war.  The war is over now, but the women are used to the older
(25-30 age group) men to be strong and reliable.  Of course, they survived the
ravages of war.  Because Garrett lived through the war and is a "go-getter"
(though not a self-starter), the women find him beyond adorable.  I would guess he
is handsome too, but that is another topic altogether.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fraser=20Ronald?= <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) Angry Lead Skies
Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:13:25 +0100 (BST)

Angry Lead Skies debuted at #1 in the Locus Paperback
Best-Selling list. Woo-Hoo for Glen. Too bad those
outside the genre category wouldn't give him a try so
he could get on the NY Times list. Now that would be
cause for celebration.

Or has it happened yet?

I get kind of upset when I see RJ and some others on
the NY list and Glen's absent, when he has more talent
in his big toe (heard it's pretty talented, but I have
no first hand info).

Anyway, just thought some of you might like to know.

=====
Fraser Ronald
"Sword's Edge" (http://www.atfantasy.com/fiction/swords_edge/)
AtFantasy Alliance Fiction Archive (http://www.atfantasy.com/fiction)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Pete Flugstad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Lists (was Re: (glencook-fans) Angry Lead Skies)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 10:28:03 -0500

Fraser Ronald wrote:
> Angry Lead Skies debuted at #1 in the Locus Paperback
> Best-Selling list. Woo-Hoo for Glen. Too bad those
> outside the genre category wouldn't give him a try so
> he could get on the NY Times list. Now that would be
> cause for celebration.
>
> Or has it happened yet?

Right now, NY Times list and similar are really based on
"opinions" of various "elite" book sellers, and those sellars
traditionally didn't take SF/Fantasy into account very much,
(the Times avoids "genre" book stores) as they didn't consider
them "real" fiction.

But there's a new sales tracking system coming online that
should change that.  Here's the original reference:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/08/1714230&mode=nocomment&tid=149

which has a link to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24656-2002May2

When some national newpaper (say USAToday) starts publishing these
numbers, it'll be interesting to see if SF/Fantasy experience the
same affect as "New Country" did.

You can tell that well-done SF/Fantasy is well liked by the US public
in general - just look at the popularity of such recent movies as
"Minority Report" (based on a SF novel by Phillip Dick), "The Fellowship
of the Ring", "Spider-Man", "Harry Potter", as well as historical
popularity of "Blade Runner" (also by Dick), "Blade", "Conan", the
original "Star Wars" trilogy, and even "ET".  These are among the top
grossing movies of all time, yet books in the same genre consistently
fail to make it into the top-20 (or even top-100).

You just *know* that the main stream media just isn't reporting what
real people are buying and are intested in.  They're stuck in their
elite snobbery book lists and aren't much interested in what "normal",
non-US-east-coast, non-US-upper-middle-class people are doing.  I guess
it's a natural thing to do, they are reflecting their own buying habits,
but they seem so snobbish about it, like they're trying to _help_ the
rest of us to read the "right" things.

Anyway, my $0.02 worth.

Pete Flugstad



=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) More on names
Date: 23 Jul 2002 16:06:57 -0700

Spoilers for Water Sleeps and Soldiers live












I have noticed a couple more things on this topic that I found
interesting. One is when Soulcatcher is mumbling about Lady , she refers
to her as as Ardath. Is here memory going or is she as confused as the
Dominator was?
 Next topic is Tobo. That is a nickname only. But he never receives his
real name from his Mom before she dies. Does this mean no one ever can
use his true name against him (short of calling Sahras spirit up).
 Or does Tobo basically become his True name since he is never called by
anything else?

 Murph


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hangnail <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) More on names
Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:29:06 -0400

On 7/23/02 7:06 PM, "Joe Murphy" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Spoilers for Water Sleeps and Soldiers live
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Same thing with BooBoo ...



> I have noticed a couple more things on this topic that I found
> interesting. One is when Soulcatcher is mumbling about Lady , she refers
> to her as as Ardath. Is here memory going or is she as confused as the
> Dominator was?
> Next topic is Tobo. That is a nickname only. But he never receives his
> real name from his Mom before she dies. Does this mean no one ever can
> use his true name against him (short of calling Sahras spirit up).
> Or does Tobo basically become his True name since he is never called by
> anything else?
>
> Murph
>
>
> =======================================================================
> To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
> visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Angry Lead Skies ***SPOILER ALERT***
Date: 24 Jul 2002 15:38:28 -0300



Troy Lefman wrote:
>
> Richard Chilton wrote:
>
> > I know these are old posts, but I didn't have the book when they were
> > sent.  Someone at the bookstore forgot to phone to tell me it was in, so
> > I just finished yesterday.
> >
> > "Timothy P. Taylor" wrote:
> > >
> > > I finished Angry Lead Skies.
> > >
> > > I liked it.
> > >
> > > ************SPOILER ALERT******************
> > >
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > **
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *I think that some of the alluded to sex scenes were "interesting", I liked
> > > VERY MCUH the fact that Pular was in this one.  Cook did a good job I think
> > > in rounding out several characters, and still managing to incorporate
> > > several old reliables (Saucerhead, Morley, Winger) without going overboard.
> > >
> > > I think he's setting it up for a pretty good conclusion, the ending was
> > > interesting what with the dialogue between Old Man Tate, Garrett and Tinnie.
> > >
> > > Okay, I'm rooting that he settles down with tinnie...I admit to a bit of a
> > > bias in that I myself married a red-head...no regrets!
> > >
> >
> >
> > The latest book advanced (in a round about way) a new theory for how
> > Garrett was always able to get the girls - he seems to be a borderline
> > Psy with unconscious powers.  The mother daughter team that was
> > introduced seemed like a glaring pointer to how Garrett gets the girls -
> > his mind pulls them towards him.
>
> I opt for the idea of TunFaire and Karenta being limited on the number of eligible
> men due to the war.  The war is over now, but the women are used to the older
> (25-30 age group) men to be strong and reliable.  Of course, they survived the
> ravages of war.  Because Garrett lived through the war and is a "go-getter"
> (though not a self-starter), the women find him beyond adorable.  I would guess he
> is handsome too, but that is another topic altogether.
>

That's what I thought up until the time Garrett ran into his old
commanding officer in one of the books (don't have the books handy, but
I think it was the one where the Call was introduced) and the CO
recognized Garrett.  If memory serves the former CO said something like
Garrett being the only person in existance who could be stuck in a swamp
in the middle of a war zone and find a beautiful girl.
Getting lucky in a city where women outnumber guys 5 (or was it 10?) to
1 is one thing.  Being the only guy to get luck in an isolated swamp in
a warzone is another.

Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Chilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) More on names
Date: 24 Jul 2002 17:51:13 -0300


Joe Murphy wrote:
>
> Spoilers for Water Sleeps and Soldiers live
>

























> I have noticed a couple more things on this topic that I found
> interesting. One is when Soulcatcher is mumbling about Lady , she refers
> to her as as Ardath. Is here memory going or is she as confused as the
> Dominator was?

Maybe not...
Remember there were four sisters, two of which were (if memory serves)
twins.  My take is Lady's twin sister was Ardath and even if the two
weren't twins there would be a family resemblance.
So Soulcatcher might be thinking about her long dead sister, or
wondering what happened to the sister's whose fate is never documented.

There were four sisters, and of these four we know of:
Lady
Soulcatcher
One that Lady killed (according to Soulcatcher in the Whisper chapter of
_The Black Company_)

Leaving one whose fate is never revealed.  I think it's safe to assume
that number four is dead but I've just had a thought about her:
The Taken die.  Not easily, but they go down.
The Dominator could die.
The While Rose mark one had a magic damping field that had to be at
least as good as Darling's (i.e. The White Rose mark two) but the
Dominator, Lady, and Taken were burried because the White Rose couldn't
kill them even inside the null.

The Lady and Soulcatcher knew each other's True Names and a web of
sorcery protected each from the other's direct attacks.  Could that
fourth sister (unable to kill Lady and Soulcatcher) have been the White
Rose?
1
Pros:
A nice theory.

Cons:
1) Timing - I've got the impression that the Dominion lasted centuries.
If true then a null couldn't have lived as long as Lady.
2) Lady and Soulcatcher were able to attack each other through others or
attacks which didn't involve naming - then again it's been a while since
I read the end of The Black Company and Soulcatcher's "death scene" so
I'm not sure how much input Lady had in Soulcatcher's "death".  Then
again, Lady being involved might have been why Soulcatcher survived...
On the other hand the Limper survived as a head and no relative of his
was involved in his death.

>  Next topic is Tobo. That is a nickname only. But he never receives his
> real name from his Mom before she dies. Does this mean no one ever can
> use his true name against him (short of calling Sahras spirit up).
>  Or does Tobo basically become his True name since he is never called by
> anything else?
>

Not having a True Name might be one of the reasons why Tobo has such
great potencial - he lacks one of the traditional weaknesses that other
wizards have.
Several real life cultures have new 'True' names for manhood.  At one
time it was common to refer to an infant as 'the kid' until it was 2 - 3
years old - infant mortality being so high you didn't want to get overly
attached to them until they lived through the most dangerous age.

Of course everything above are just my thoughts,
Richard

=======================================================================
 To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
 visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.