ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / glencook-fans / archive / glencook-fans.200402 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2004-02-28 | 56KB

From: "J Morrigan" <skurbe@hotmail.com> Subject: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 25 Feb 2004 00:58:18 +0000 Hi, new to the list. Got a coupla questions. How come Murgen and Lady refer to Soul Catcher as Lady's younger sister, when the papers in the north say that Dorotea Senjak was the youngest of the 4 Senjak sisters? Also, Catcher says that Lady murdered her twin sister when they were kids, but if that were the case, how come Lady is the youngest? Does that mean Lady was the second born of the twins? Obviously someone's lying/mistaken, but does Cook ever come out and say who is older than who? _________________________________________________________________ Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Harris <HARRISSG@SLU.EDU> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 24 Feb 2004 19:29:47 -0600 (CST) Hi, At a guess: The exact familial relations in the Senjak family are one of those things that Glen didn't quite get straight in his own mind, or at least not entirely consistently. Or maybe there are conflicting sources that the characters are using--or conflicting stories that they are telling. Steve ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J Morrigan" <skurbe@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 25 Feb 2004 09:31:59 +0000 Ahh I see. One more question. I was perusing the archives, and someone mentioned that Cook was working on another black company novel. I thnik this was a couple years ago, somewhere along the lines of '01 or '02. Any news on that? _________________________________________________________________ Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/ ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Childs <childsl@earthlink.net> Subject: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 25 Feb 2004 13:48:55 -0800 (GMT-08:00) J Morrigan: I agree with Steve Harris that Glen Cook was not very clear about the relat= ionship between the Senjak sisters. It may also have been true the Soulcat= cher lied to Croaker about the death of her sister. Lee Childs THE BLACK COMPANY page 164 "[Soulcatcher said,] 'Didn't you know she murdered her twin sister when she= was fourteen?'" THE WHITE ROSE page 274 "He was a lord from a far western kingdome. A Baron Senjak who had four da= ughters said to vie with one another in their loveliness. One wore the nam= e Ardath." THE WHITE ROSE page 277 "I found that piece that made the Lady gasp once, ploughed through that int= erminable guest list till I found a Lord Senjak and his daughters Ardath, C= redence, and Sylith. The youngest one Dorotea, the scribbler noted, could = not attend." "Credence married Barthelme of Jaunt, a renowned sorcerer. It is in [Track= er=92s] memory that Barthelme became one of the Taken, but my memory is not= trustworthy." "Doratea married Raft, Prince-in-Waiting, of Start." "Sylith never married." THE WHITE ROSE page 278 "Lord Senjak was not KurreTelle." =93Credence perished in the fighting when the Dominator and Lady took Jaunt= in the early days of their conquest.=94 "There is no record of Doratea=92s death." "Sylith drowned in a flood of the River Dream some years earlier, swept awa= y before countless witnesses. But no body was found." -----Original Message----- Sent: Feb 24, 2004 4:58 PM Hi, new to the list. Got a coupla questions. How come Murgen and Lady refer to Soul Catcher as Lady's younger sister,=20 when the papers in the north say that Dorotea Senjak was the youngest of th= e=20 4 Senjak sisters? Also, Catcher says that Lady murdered her twin sister=20 when they were kids, but if that were the case, how come Lady is the=20 youngest? Does that mean Lady was the second born of the twins? Obviously= =20 someone's lying/mistaken, but does Cook ever come out and say who is older= =20 than who? _________________________________________________________________ Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday.=20 http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 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 <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 25 Feb 2004 21:19:50 -0400 Steve Harris wrote: > > Hi, > > At a guess: > > The exact familial relations in the Senjak family are one of those things > that Glen didn't quite get straight in his own mind, or at least not > entirely consistently. > > Or maybe there are conflicting sources that the characters are using--or > conflicting stories that they are telling. > I'd say conflicting stories. The reason? The whole bit about only a delicate web of sorcery keeping Lady and Soulcatcher from killing each other. Obviously they knew each other's True Name, hated each other (at least at times), and there had to be sufficient safeguards to keep them from Naming each other - which might have stretched to dropping hints about each other's True Name. Besides this, Soulcatcher would know that if anyone knew that X grew up to be Lady then that would be one less false guess for anyone trying to Name Soulcatcher (and visa versa). As for Soulcatcher taking about Lady killing her twin sister - it helps to remember the circumstances. She'd just read one of Croaker's love stories and probably wanted to shake him up, if only to see how well he'd handle the pressure of shooting Whisper. Plus she's pretty much a sick bitch at times :) Then again, I can see Cook making a mistake on it. From what he's said of his writing style he's not the sort to keep hundreds of notes detailing the backstory of the book and could have easily made a mistake between books. Hust my thoughts, Richard ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J Morrigan" <skurbe@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 07:17:08 +0000 Oh this also reminds me of another question I had. If Soulcatcher was such a problem, especially in Water Sleeps, what kept Goblin and One-Eye from Naming her? They knew her name supposedly (Sylith I think, though I could be misremembering and Cook didn't actually say what her True Name was), and even if they didn't, they could just go through the rigmarole of naming the rest of the names they knew (kinda like what the Dominator, Limper, and Silent did at the end of The White Rose). _________________________________________________________________ Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage û 4 plans to choose from! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BaronetCorvu@cs.com Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 06:59:28 EST --part1_80.62f90f6.2d6f39a0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have always thought that as part of their hiding their names, that they each assumed the identity of another sister. I.e. Lady might have actually been Dorotea but the world knew her as Ardath. I do not think that Soulcatcher just made up the "murdered her twin sister at 14" thing, I think that the sister whose identity Lady was know as actually killed her twin, and even though Lady was actually youngest, if her assumed identity was older than Soulcatchers, Lady herself would refer to Soulcatcher as her younger sister. Has it occured to anyone else that the murdered twin pretty much has to be a fifth sister whose name we don't know? The only way that it could be a known name is if Dorotea (or the sister assuming the role of Dorotea) was the one murdered and she couldn't attend the party because she was dead and her father didn't want the world to know that one of his daughters murdered her sister. To me this seems a little far fetched, I think the murdered sister was a fifth one whose name we don't know. Michael W Sweet --part1_80.62f90f6.2d6f39a0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><HTML>I have always thought that as part=20= of their hiding their names, that they each assumed the identity of another=20= sister. I.e. Lady might have actually been Dorotea but the world knew her as= Ardath. I do not think that Soulcatcher just made up the "murdered her twin= sister at 14" thing, I think that the sister whose identity Lady was know a= s actually killed her twin, and even though Lady was actually youngest, if h= er assumed identity was older than Soulcatchers, Lady herself would refer to= Soulcatcher as her younger sister. Has it occured to anyone else that the murdered twin pretty much has to be a= fifth sister whose name we don't know? The only way that it could be a know= n name is if Dorotea (or the sister assuming the role of Dorotea) was the on= e murdered and she couldn't attend the party because she was dead and her fa= ther didn't want the world to know that one of his daughters murdered her si= ster. To me this seems a little far fetched, I think the murdered sister was= a fifth one whose name we don't know. Michael W Sweet</HTML> --part1_80.62f90f6.2d6f39a0_boundary-- ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Bauze <supadave@zip.com.au> Subject: RE: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:35:36 +1100 Hi all, Here's my 2 cents worth. I have a theory which fits the evidence Glen has given us. I believe Soulcatcher is Credence. Why? We know Lady is Dorotea, Ardath is dead and if the rumour of Lady killing her twin is to be believed then Sylith can be discounted. The guest list supports the fact that Dorotea and Sylith are twins IF the sisters are listed in order of birth. Even twins are born one at a time and birth order must be established. Especially if a noble line of succession is to be made. (The White Rose pp277-278) Another clue Glen gives us is Sleepy's account of Soulcatcher's reaction to the whispered names Goblin uses to taunt her in the palace in Taglios. "There might have been a word there, too. Ardath? Or perhaps Silath? Or might it have been...? No matter." (Water Sleeps p183) I also suspect Credence's husband, Barthelme of Jaunt was the Limper. Though I have no evidence, it follows that the two of them were taken instead of being killed when the Dominator and Lady captured Jaunt and goes a long way to explain the eminity they share in the Books of the North. Please feel free to shoot holes in this. Especially the part about Limper. It was just a feeling I got recently when I reread the series. I think there is a passage in The Black Company when someone is explaining Raven's past that got me thinking. David Bauze. -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:49 AM J Morrigan: I agree with Steve Harris that Glen Cook was not very clear about the relationship between the Senjak sisters. It may also have been true the Soulcatcher lied to Croaker about the death of her sister. Lee Childs THE BLACK COMPANY page 164 "[Soulcatcher said,] 'Didn't you know she murdered her twin sister when she was fourteen?'" THE WHITE ROSE page 274 "He was a lord from a far western kingdome. A Baron Senjak who had four daughters said to vie with one another in their loveliness. One wore the name Ardath." THE WHITE ROSE page 277 "I found that piece that made the Lady gasp once, ploughed through that interminable guest list till I found a Lord Senjak and his daughters Ardath, Credence, and Sylith. The youngest one Dorotea, the scribbler noted, could not attend." "Credence married Barthelme of Jaunt, a renowned sorcerer. It is in [Tracker's] memory that Barthelme became one of the Taken, but my memory is not trustworthy." "Doratea married Raft, Prince-in-Waiting, of Start." "Sylith never married." THE WHITE ROSE page 278 "Lord Senjak was not KurreTelle." "Credence perished in the fighting when the Dominator and Lady took Jaunt in the early days of their conquest." "There is no record of Doratea's death." "Sylith drowned in a flood of the River Dream some years earlier, swept away before countless witnesses. But no body was found." -----Original Message----- Sent: Feb 24, 2004 4:58 PM Hi, new to the list. Got a coupla questions. How come Murgen and Lady refer to Soul Catcher as Lady's younger sister, when the papers in the north say that Dorotea Senjak was the youngest of the 4 Senjak sisters? Also, Catcher says that Lady murdered her twin sister when they were kids, but if that were the case, how come Lady is the youngest? Does that mean Lady was the second born of the twins? Obviously someone's lying/mistaken, but does Cook ever come out and say who is older than who? _________________________________________________________________ Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx ======================================================================= 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: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 15:52:41 -0400 J Morrigan wrote: > > Oh this also reminds me of another question I had. If Soulcatcher was such > a problem, especially in Water Sleeps, what kept Goblin and One-Eye from > Naming her? They knew her name supposedly (Sylith I think, though I could > be misremembering and Cook didn't actually say what her True Name was), and > even if they didn't, they could just go through the rigmarole of naming the > rest of the names they knew (kinda like what the Dominator, Limper, and > Silent did at the end of The White Rose). > I think to name someone you have be in their presence, and both Goblin and One-Eye knew that if they tried to go one on one with Soulcatcher (or two on one) they wouldn't last long enough to name her. The whole 'order of magnitude' thing mentioned when they were explaining the spear they were making (along with lots of other things) has me thinking that any attempt they'd make to say "Your Name is..." would go like: Goblin: "Y..." One-Eye: "Yo..." As for why it had to be them Naming her - I think Cook established that you need to have mojo to name someone when Croaker named ... Um, I forget her name, but it was Shapeshifter's apprentice (the girl from Jupiter). Croaker says her Name and points out that all these witch folk (Lady, One-Eye, Goblin) heard him say it and if she tries something they can now take her out. So since you need to be a wizard to Name another wizard, and there aren't many magic types in the south. Those in the Shadow Lands ended up working for (or being killed by) the Shadow Lords, and mighty Smoke seemed to be the only other wizard type operating south of the Great Swamp. Add this to the way wizards can track each other (Soulcatcher's mutterings before Limper and Whisper were attacked, One-Eye and Goblin sensing that there was a wizard in the Great Swamp) and I'd say that much of Goblin's and One-Eye's powers were devoted to hiding from Soulcatcher - they'd be the only two blips on her radar screen. Richard ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 16:57:55 -0400 BaronetCorvu@cs.com wrote: > > Has it occured to anyone else that the murdered twin pretty much has > to be a fifth sister whose name we don't know? The only way that it > could be a known name is if Dorotea (or the sister assuming the role > of Dorotea) was the one murdered and she couldn't attend the party > because she was dead and her father didn't want the world to know that > one of his daughters murdered her sister. To me this seems a little > far fetched, I think the murdered sister was a fifth one whose name we > don't know. > I think it depends on what sort of a party it was and how early they went husband hunting back when the Lady was young. During some periods displaying daughters at parties was part of the match making process, and young marriages were often the norm when the family had land or power. For example, Marie Antoinette was only 14 or 15 when she married the future Louis XIV, so it's more than possible that one of the girls at the party was the murdered one. Personally (because of Dominator's confusion over Lady's Name) I think the twins were Dorotea and Ardath. Then again, maybe that whole "murdered her twin and took her name" stuff is wrong. It's possible that Dorotea killed Ardath and kept her identity while let people think that Ardath had killed Dorotea to assume her identity - one last double bluff defense of her Name. Here's my take on four daughters: When listed as "Ardath, Credence, and Sylith" the list was alphabetical, not chronological (i.e. not in birth order). The youngest two were the twins, Dorotea and Ardath, and Ardath might have been dead at this point (and the family hushing it up - hence she listed as unable to attend parties rather than dead). She might have been younger by a few hours or by a few minutes, but some twins always harp on who is older / younger. Dorotea was Lady - whose marriage to "Raft, Prince-in-Waiting, of Start" was never consummated - which implies an early marriage. During the political "marry them young to cement an alliance" days it wasn't uncommon for a couple to be married for a year or two before consummating the marriage (Henry VIII's first marriage was to his brother's widow of a non-consummated marriage). There is no record of Dorotea's death because she didn't die. This could make Raft the Dominator (his true Name protected by the royal family) but I really doubt it based on Croaker's research. I'd say that Raft bought it when the Dominator took Start and discovered that Lady was too powerful to Take. Ardath was the name that the Dominator knew Lady by - probably (in my mind) killed by Lady. When it came time to list the fates of the sisters she was left off the list, probably implying she died before the other three or her family hushed up the death (at least that was my take when I read it). Sylith never married, drowned before "countless witnesses. But no body was found." - which might have been Soulcatcher cursing the fact she didn't have a twin to kill and covering her name this way, but I don't think so. If it wasn't an accident it might have been Soulcatcher muddying the waters. Credence married Barthelme of Jaunt and is listed as dying when Dominator and Lady took Jaunt (possibly before they'd Taken any of the Ten as it was "in the early days of their conquest.") Tracker thought Barthelme became one of the Taken but acknowledged he might be wrong. My take? There was a Taken made in Jaunt, but it was Soulcatcher (Credence). It possible that Lady's wish to spare her sister's life was the reason the Dominator started Taking (making Soulcatcher the first Taken) or maybe he just saw a useful tool - a powerful sorceress who could be used against the one wizard that was too powerful for him to take (Lady). To me one powerful arugement for Soulcatcher to be Credence comes from the taunting scene. "There might have been a word there, too. Ardath? Or perhaps Silath? Or might it have been...? No matter." (Water Sleeps p183) Those names don't sound alike - but the one that's missing (other than Lady's Name) is Credence. The ultimate taunt - I know one sister's name (Dorotea) because I was there where she was named, and another sister's name is Ardath, and another sister's name is Silath, and do I really know the last sister's name (which I think is yours)? Do I? Do you feel lucky? Huh? And as I type this I've discovered a hole in my theory. The voice may have said 'Silath', not Sylith. The two can sound the same but I'll bet there's a difference there - maybe just a different accent (southern rather than northern) but it would probably make the difference between success and failure... Of course it might have been misheard, or maybe Cook didn't check when he used the name, but there is that difference. Maybe the true taunt was Sylith / Silath - do they actually know her name or do they think it's Silath? So was Soulcatcher Credence Taken at Jaunt or Sylith after she faked her death? Unless she becomes a factor in another Black Company book we'll probably never know - asking Cook at Con would probably get the same answer as the question "Who was the third female Taken" produced. Richard ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 17:28:56 -0400 David Bauze wrote: > > I have a theory which fits the evidence Glen has given us. I believe > Soulcatcher is Credence. Why? We know Lady is Dorotea, Ardath is dead and > if the rumour of Lady killing her twin is to be believed then Sylith can be > discounted. The guest list supports the fact that Dorotea and Sylith are > twins IF the sisters are listed in order of birth. Even twins are born one > at a time and birth order must be established. Especially if a noble line > of succession is to be made. > (The White Rose pp277-278) > I'd find easier to believe birth order if the names weren't in alphabetical order - and it would have had to be reverse order if Sylith is the youngest. Then again Sylith's drowning might have been Lady (Dorotea) killing her, but there's that whole Dominator thinking Lady is Ardath thing which becomes easier if they are the twins. > Another clue Glen gives us is Sleepy's account of Soulcatcher's reaction to > the whispered names Goblin uses to taunt her in the palace in Taglios. > "There might have been a word there, too. Ardath? Or perhaps Silath? Or > might it have been...? No matter." > (Water Sleeps p183) > I agree - but then there's the Sylith / Silath problem. > I also suspect Credence's husband, Barthelme of Jaunt was the Limper. > Though I have no evidence, it follows that the two of them were taken > instead of being killed when the Dominator and Lady captured Jaunt and goes > a long way to explain the eminity they share in the Books of the North. > I think Barthelme died in Credence's place and Credence was Taken, but I can see another theory... Say the Sylith / Silath wasn't a slipup but was the intended taunt (something really close to Soulcatcher's Name) and Barthelme was Limper - which is possible because there was some belief that Limper's name was in with the papers. But let's say instead of relationship being a soured marriage that there was only one Taken made at Jaunt. Then we have the Soulcatcher - Lady - Limper triangle as Sylith - Dorotea - and their brother-in-law who let their sister die while he survived the odds (as Limper did again and again in the books). Lady trusts Limper - because she was on the side that killed her big sister (assuming the twins were the youngest) - but Soulcatcher hates him for letting her sister die... Or maybe Sylith and Credence were rivals for Barthelme and she hates him because he chose her sister. But we'll never know unless Cook writes the prehistory of the BC books. I for one would love to see the Domination forming, but I don't know if something like that would sell. Just thinking outloud: There were four sisters - one who died at 14. Let's say the surviving three were all sorceresses or at least attracted to powerful men. Dorotea becomes Lady, one sister becomes Soulcatcher, and maybe the third sister ends up as Shapeshifter's staff (caught in the love triangle between Limper and Soulcatcher)? If Barthelme is the Limper and Sylith is Soulcatcher then Credence died (I'm pretty sure the woman in the staff is dead) in Jaunt as part of a lover's quarrel during the conquest. Maybe Credence chose the winning side (the one with one or both of her sisters) and went with Shapeshifter until the newly Taken Limper showed he was still a power. Credence betraying Shapeshifter by returning to her husband the Limper then paying the price? It could work. Or maybe Barthelme is Limper and Credence did become Soulcatcher so she hates Limper because her ex betrayed her with the woman who became Shapeshifter's staff? This might explain why Shifter and Catcher got on so well - they both hated their ex's who had had an affair together. Alas, until / unless Cook writes something about it we'll never know. Richard ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hangnail <hangnail@verizon.net> Subject: RE: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 17:26:17 -0500 Thought the taken were pretty much 'undead'. So when I heard Soulcatcher mention about lady killing her twin it was lady killing her (soulcatcher). He (cook) always mentions that they are so close alike in appearance that they could be twins. Just a thought ... ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J Morrigan" <skurbe@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 22:47:13 +0000 That's what I thought too, but both Lady and Murgen mention Soul Catcher as the younger sister by at least a year (I think it was in She is the Darkness). >From: Hangnail <hangnail@verizon.net> >Reply-To: glencook-fans@lists.xmission.com >To: glencook-fans@lists.xmission.com >Subject: RE: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters >Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:26:17 -0500 > >Thought the taken were pretty much 'undead'. So when I heard >Soulcatcher mention about lady killing her twin it was lady killing her >(soulcatcher). He (cook) always mentions that they are so close alike >in appearance that they could be twins. > > >Just a thought ... > >======================================================================= > To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, > visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. _________________________________________________________________ Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters - Soulcatcher's Name Date: 26 Feb 2004 21:36:31 -0400 J Morrigan wrote: > > That's what I thought too, but both Lady and Murgen mention Soul Catcher as > the younger sister by at least a year (I think it was in She is the > Darkness). > I had forgotten about that... Thinking about the sisters, maybe it's best to remember how those who knew them thought of them. For this we have to go back to the first three books. Which Senjak girl was Lady? Those who knew Lady best knew she wasn't Dorotea - they bet their lives on that fact. Dominator: "Ardath, you bitch." (Shadows Linger) - where he loses his best chance to rise without having to fight his way out of the barrow. Dominator: "Sylith! I name your name!" (The White Rose) - where he dies after misnaming her. "Twice the Dominator had named her wrong." (The White Rose) - Croaker's reaction to Lady being called Sylith. By this point he would have checked with Goblin and One-Eye to confirm that Ardath being said at Jupiter was an attempt to Name her. Limper: "Credence, the rite is complete. I name your name!" (The White Rose) - He knew her back when the Domination was being founded and bet his life that if her Name wasn't Ardath or Sylith then it had to be Credence. He lost his bet and his head. (This was followed of course by Silent: "I name your true name, Dorotea Senjak." - which probably saved the Limper's life.) Which Senjak girl was Soulcatcher? From the above, I'd have to say Soulcatcher was Credence (which means Barthelme wasn't Limper, unless the deception started long before then). Why? From the Black Company - Soulcatcher (after getting Whisper's papers): "You've made me the second most powerful person in the Empire. The Lady knows all our true names. Now I know three of the others, and I've gotten my own back." The Dominator and Lady were the only two who knew every Taken's Name. Since the Dominator knew which of the sisters was Soulcatcher he wouldn't call Lady by Soulcatcher's true name when his life depended on it. Since he tried Ardath and Sylith neither could be Soulcatcher's Name. With Lady being Dorotea this leaves Soulcatcher as Credence. Which probably means Soulcatcher was Taken at Jaunt and tried to get people to think that Barthelme was Taken as an added level of protection for her name ("I had it hidden perfectly."[Black Company]). This might have been why Soulcatcher dressed as man while her sister got to ply her feminine wiles. It might also mean that there were four women Taken - if the deception was good enough everyone would think Soulcatcher was male. As for Goblin and One-Eye figuring things out, they heard the Dominator use two names and if Silent didn't tell them about the Limper they would have read in the Book of Croaker. The taunting was a reminder to her that they weren't totally helpless before her might. Richard ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J Morrigan" <skurbe@hotmail.com> Subject: (glencook-fans) Another thought Date: 27 Feb 2004 02:57:00 +0000 As much as I hate to admit it, I'm thinking all this analysis might be for nought as I reread the series. I'm thinking Cook just plain messed up. You can see a lot of discontinuity in between books. For example, (since I have it handy) at the end of Water Sleeps, Sleepy finds Cletus dead, but at the beginning of Soldiers Live, he and his brother Loftus are practicing swords with Doj and the rest of em. Considering the first book dates back to the mid-80's, I think this is as good an explanation as any. _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Acuff" <wacuff@edge.net> Subject: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 21:45:44 -0600 Long time no post, folks ... Glad to see y'all still kicking (& thx for keeping this little thing going, Eric, even in low traffic years -- it's my only tie to people who appreciate Glen)! On the Senjak sisters deal, IMO I'm more inclined to think Glen may have either just mixed it up or in fact didn't pay enough attention to realize he was setting up a "problem" in his plot, despite the fact that he ended up developing and using this particular "puzzle" in such an important way that you'd think he would have been motivated to use some degree of care ... <shrug> Having said that, with that many written words you're gonna screw up somewhere, and it happens, so no biggie ... Kinda like the female Taken discussion not too long ago :-) ... But since we're reading fantasy saying "Glen goofed" is a dull explanation ... My father is an amateur genealogist and it got me to thinking; we all know we can't really rely on historical records to be absolutely 100% factually accurate in every case, and the older these records are the less absolute faith we can realistically place in them. Large and small historical mistakes are made even when the facts are very important ... When it's something like an ancient list of party guests and their children's first names and casually mentioning "the youngest" or whatever, and said list can't really be cross-referenced to anything else, then I'd assume the risk would go up exponentially. Wholesale documentation mistakes (which is what has led to a lot of our own last names being spelled/pronounced the way they are today -- we may not even know it but our paternal "family" name could be completely at odds with the way it was spelled/pronounced just 200 years ago in some cases) aren't that uncommon at all in our world, so why couldn't they be in Cook's as well? :-) Start with one or two of these "oopsies" concerning the daughters names, ages, etc., all relative to each other, add in all those intervening years and the fact that these particular folks obviously have a vested interest in NOT having accurate records of themselves and especially their names, and finally throw in Catcher being her inimitable lying witch self, and you've got confusion made to order. Either that, or Glen goofed lol ... Now reading: Reap the East Wind. This series is getting better, IMO. I'd love to get some spoiler-filled (but marked as such, of course) discussions going about these babies when I "finish" the series. Bill wacuff@edge.net ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Ainsworth <dbainswo@students.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 26 Feb 2004 21:40:38 -0600 To add to this, I suspect that the preparation-part of the naming ritual takes a fair amount of mojo, too. Probably very hard to conceal. Given all the magic going off at the end of the White Rose I'd bet Limper and Silent could have done the ceremony without being noticed, but in the South it'd be a different matter. If Soulcatcher knew someone had done a naming ritual, she'd hunt them down and kill them without getting anywhere near them herself. So at best you'd make yourself an even bigger target for her than before. Personally, I've always thought that part of the magic binding Soulcatcher and Lady together depended upon their names, so naming Soulcatcher might also allow her to kill Lady. David At 03:52 PM 2/26/2004 -0400, Richard Chilton wrote: >I think to name someone you have be in their presence, and both Goblin >and One-Eye knew that if they tried to go one on one with Soulcatcher >(or two on one) they wouldn't last long enough to name her. The whole >'order of magnitude' thing mentioned when they were explaining the spear >they were making (along with lots of other things) has me thinking that >any attempt they'd make to say "Your Name is..." would go like: >Goblin: "Y..." >One-Eye: "Yo..." > >As for why it had to be them Naming her - I think Cook established that >you need to have mojo to name someone when Croaker named ... Um, I >forget her name, but it was Shapeshifter's apprentice (the girl from >Jupiter). Croaker says her Name and points out that all these witch >folk (Lady, One-Eye, Goblin) heard him say it and if she tries something >they can now take her out. > >So since you need to be a wizard to Name another wizard, and there >aren't many magic types in the south. Those in the Shadow Lands ended >up working for (or being killed by) the Shadow Lords, and mighty Smoke >seemed to be the only other wizard type operating south of the Great >Swamp. > >Add this to the way wizards can track each other (Soulcatcher's >mutterings before Limper and Whisper were attacked, One-Eye and Goblin >sensing that there was a wizard in the Great Swamp) and I'd say that >much of Goblin's and One-Eye's powers were devoted to hiding from >Soulcatcher - they'd be the only two blips on her radar screen. > >Richard > >======================================================================= > 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 <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Another thought Date: 26 Feb 2004 23:56:14 -0400 J Morrigan wrote: > > As much as I hate to admit it, I'm thinking all this analysis might be for > nought as I reread the series. I'm thinking Cook just plain messed up. You > can see a lot of discontinuity in between books. For example, (since I have > it handy) at the end of Water Sleeps, Sleepy finds Cletus dead, but at the > beginning of Soldiers Live, he and his brother Loftus are practicing swords > with Doj and the rest of em. Considering the first book dates back to the > mid-80's, I think this is as good an explanation as any. > Continuality is always an issue in any series. Zelazny's Amber series had so many issues that when he started the second set of 5 books he wrote that the narrator of the first 5 had lied. Brust's latest book in his Jhereg world thanked the nitpickers on the web who had tracked the series for him. Cook does a bit of this as well - his narrators never claim to give the absolute truth. In the first book Croaker admits he leaves out much of the barbaric behavior of the Black Company (he mentions it while listing the rape / murders at Whisper's camp). With the shifting narrators in the Books of the South / Glittering Stone books he has even more wiggle room for errors. I hate to break people into two groups, but there are different styles of writing fantasy. One is to write the story and ignore the backstory while the other is to have thousands of notes the public will never see. Tolkien's Middle Earth, Rowling's Harry Potter - both these have countless little details that the readers never see. Cook isn't someone who builds a huge world with countless details - he writes the story. I'm basing this on his response to the "Which were the female Taken" question. Richard ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Senjak sisters Date: 27 Feb 2004 00:25:02 -0400 David Ainsworth wrote: > > Personally, I've always thought that part of the magic binding Soulcatcher > and Lady together depended upon their names, so naming Soulcatcher might > also allow her to kill Lady. > There's something in She in the Darkness that says about Lady: "Her name had no power over her anymore. Being powerless herself, apparently, she could not take advantage of those true names she knew. Otherwise she would have dealt with the Howler and her sister a long time ago. And she would not give those names away even to One-Eye and Goblin. She would die first." My take? The spells that kept the two of them from killing each other ended when Lady was Named. Why didn't Soulcatcher kill Lady when she was powerless? I see two sets of reasons, the first being that Soulcatcher was pretty much crippled until her head was restored to her body, and by that time Lady was leeching onto an unknown power source - so it wouldn't have been 100% safe to take her on. The second set of reasons? From the end of She Is the Darkness: "She had won. After an age, she had won. She had put her sister down." If Lady was dead by this point Soulcatcher's victory would have been hollow. It wasn't just killing her sister, it was beating her and knowing that Lady would spend eternity imprissioned and knowing that her sister had won. In the last book (Soldiers Live), when says things like: She and her sister were one another's oldest surviving enemies. "She's the only connection I have left with ninety percent of my life. The only connection with my family." True, these are from Lady's point of view, but it can be a two way street. After all - if Soulcatcher kills Lady then Soulcatcher has killed her and it's all over. If she can beat her sister and keep Lady alive then she can rub it in her face for the rest of time. Looking through Solders Live I came across this passage which makes me think Cook rewrote the Senjak's sisters pasts: "The Dominator had taken her and all her sisters, had made one of them his wife and another his lover . . ." If Lady killed her twin then the Dominator couldn't have taken all her sisters... Unless Lady killed her because of the Dominator. The whole who they married, how they died bit in The White Rose kind of breaks down under a statement like that. Conflicting sources or lack of continuity? Unless another book clarifies this it really doesn't matter. Richard ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J Morrigan" <skurbe@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Another thought Date: 27 Feb 2004 04:36:16 +0000 Heh, I don't actually mind the discontinuity at all. It's something that I can overlook easily, especially when the story telling is done as well as Cook does it. I originally asked these questions to make sure I hadn't missed anything, not as a critique. P.S. What was Cook's answer to the female Taken question? _________________________________________________________________ Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage û 4 plans to choose from! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Ainsworth <dbainswo@students.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Another thought Date: 26 Feb 2004 22:01:59 -0600 Yes, but... Cletus was never a main character, and his death is a footnote in WS. Given that and the time gap, I'm not surprised Cook messed up. But the guy can handle continuity. Look at some of his early works, which really depend upon it. In a side note, in Soldiers Live, Croaker says that where Lady grew up, "mothers always named the daughters. Always. When the time was right." pg 24 David At 02:57 AM 2/27/2004 +0000, J Morrigan wrote: >As much as I hate to admit it, I'm thinking all this analysis might be for >nought as I reread the series. I'm thinking Cook just plain messed >up. You can see a lot of discontinuity in between books. For example, >(since I have it handy) at the end of Water Sleeps, Sleepy finds Cletus >dead, but at the beginning of Soldiers Live, he and his brother Loftus are >practicing swords with Doj and the rest of em. Considering the first book >dates back to the mid-80's, I think this is as good an explanation as any. ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Ainsworth <dbainswo@students.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Another thought Date: 27 Feb 2004 12:00:47 -0600 At 11:56 PM 2/26/2004 -0400, Richard Chilton wrote: >I hate to break people into two groups, but there are different styles >of writing fantasy. One is to write the story and ignore the backstory >while the other is to have thousands of notes the public will never >see. Tolkien's Middle Earth, Rowling's Harry Potter - both these have >countless little details that the readers never see. >Cook isn't someone who builds a huge world with countless details - he >writes the story. I'm basing this on his response to the "Which were >the female Taken" question. Basically true, I think, and he does very well at it. Personally, I find it adds a sense of realism of a different but related order to the realism "feel" of the "major backstory" texts. Most of us could name dozens of cities we've heard mentioned but know basically nothing about. Life is full of casual unknowns which we simply accept and move on. People tend to adapt, grow accustomed, and then take things for granted. Or they have lots of legends which bear little or no resemblence to actual events. And most of the time, people aren't very coherent when referencing such things. That said, Cook does manage a bunch of details quite well, though I'd concur that over the decades it took him to write the BC series many of those details blurred or realigned. I also suspect he does what I think most great writers do--he adapts his plans to the direction the story leads him. Something he himself may not have planned to be important can suddenly become vital, and that's OK with him. Interesting to compare with writers like David Eddings, though... David ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike H. <welly.rook@verizon.net> Subject: (glencook-fans) Soulcatcher's name Date: 28 Feb 2004 12:45:10 -0500 I believe that Rich is absolutely correct about the name of Soulcatcher. His explanation makes perfect sense. To summarize it: the Dominator undeniably knew Soulcatcher's true name. But he did not know the name of the Lady, which is why he guessed Ardath, then Sylith. For these reasons, Soulcatcher's name cannot be any of those two. That narrows it down to Credence and Dorotea. The Lady turned out to be Dorotea. ...It's really is a no-brainer at this point. Soulcatcher must be Credence. And to cement this theory into a "law", recall the scene where the Limper tried to name the Lady as Credence, and failed. -Welly ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Soulcatcher's name Date: 28 Feb 2004 18:02:15 -0400 You know, I think this might be a good thing to add to the FAQ. OK, it hasn't been asked often, but it will save time researching Soulcatcher's name the next time it is asked. Richard "Mike H." wrote: > > I believe that Rich is absolutely correct about the name of Soulcatcher. His > explanation makes perfect sense. > > To summarize it: the Dominator undeniably knew Soulcatcher's true name. But he > did not know the name of the Lady, which is why he guessed Ardath, then Sylith. > For these reasons, Soulcatcher's name cannot be any of those two. That narrows > it down to Credence and Dorotea. > > The Lady turned out to be Dorotea. ...It's really is a no-brainer at this > point. Soulcatcher must be Credence. And to cement this theory into a "law", > recall the scene where the Limper tried to name the Lady as Credence, and > failed. > > -Welly > > ======================================================================= > 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: Axemaster2001@aol.com Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Soulcatcher's name Date: 29 Feb 2004 16:42:36 EST --part1_195.2686ab33.2d73b6cc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/28/2004 5:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, rchilton@auracom.com writes: > You know, I think this might be a good thing to add to the FAQ where is the faq? --part1_195.2686ab33.2d73b6cc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><HTML>In a message dated 2/28/2004 5:06= :08 PM Eastern Standard Time, rchilton@auracom.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">You know, I think this might b= e a good thing to add to the FAQ</BLOCKQUOTE> where is the faq?</HTML> --part1_195.2686ab33.2d73b6cc_boundary-- ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Leitch <pleitch@telus.net> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Soulcatcher's name Date: 29 Feb 2004 13:55:59 -0800 do you mean this one? http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/Mail/glencook-fans-FAQ.txt On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:42:36 EST, <Axemaster2001@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 2/28/2004 5:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rchilton@auracom.com writes: > >> You know, I think this might be a good thing to add to the FAQ > > where is the faq? ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Chilton <rchilton@auracom.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Soulcatcher's name Date: 29 Feb 2004 19:08:56 -0400 Yes - prehaps we could change it from: Credence - Married to Barthelme of Jaunt. Died when Jaunt was taken by the Dominator and the Lady. Sylith - Swept away when the River Dream flooded. Body never found. Widely believed to be the real name of the Taken Soulcatcher. something that says Credence was probably Soulcatcher (based on Dominator calling Lady Sylith). Richard Peter Leitch wrote: > > do you mean this one? > http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/Mail/glencook-fans-FAQ.txt > > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:42:36 EST, <Axemaster2001@aol.com> wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/28/2004 5:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > rchilton@auracom.com writes: > > > >> You know, I think this might be a good thing to add to the FAQ > > > > where is the faq? > > ======================================================================= > 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>.