ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/glencook-fans/archive/v01.n021

Internet Message Format | 2000-08-22 | 30KB

From: [e-mail] (glencook-fans-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: glencook-fans-digest V1 #21
Reply-To: glencook-fans-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


glencook-fans-digest     Tuesday, August 22 2000     Volume 01 : Number 021




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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:34:14 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (glencook-fans) Literary Crit (was Enough on Jordan!)

In a message dated 8/18/00 4:19:10 PM, [e-mail] writes:

>When exactly did this change to a semantics and etymology discussion list?

It's always been a semantics list. Most of the best discussion has centered
around a minute point in the text or a new way to view an old passage.

>I'm not one to complain about off-topic stuff usually, in fact, it is
>ordinarily enjoyable to a degree, but this seemed to push even my
>boundaries.

I don't think that discussion was off topic at all. Pretty hard to claim it
was off topic when Cook's characters and books were mentioned in just
about every paragraph (I would point out it was more on-topic than a post
complaining that it wasn't).

And to keep this post on-topic:

>And, yes, the use of cycle is appropriate in this case... not that it really
>matters.

Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I wasn't challenging the appropriatness of
the usage, but rather requesting a definition. I was only trying to clarify a
minor point and to insure the word "cycle" wasn't being used in the context
of "a really long series of books," or some other meaning.

One of the reasons I like Cook is that the majority of his books can actually
support literary criticism or prolonged discussion. In fact, I can only think
of
one of his books that, in my mind, doesn't stand up (and no, I don't own Swap
Academy).

I would have to agree with you that deconstructing the text is no where near
as fun as reading the books, but after you've exhausted the "I Liked/Disliked
X Book," and the "Who Would Win in a Fight," threads sometimes you're left
with actually having to resort to a serious thread.

Besides, I only did it because I'd been accused of ignoring the previous post.
(So really, the LitCrit wasn't my fault, I didn't start it). I actually wish
there
were more such posts on this list.

Etymology isn't a bad word. One of the projects I've wanted to start for a
long
time was to break down the influences in Cook's BC book. Identify the real
world
religions and myths that went into the books, pick out the various military
sayings and attribute them to the original authors, same with the colorful
slang sayings that are obviously "imported" from our world to Cook's world.

Of course I never find the time to even read.

christopher....


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:01:47 -0500
From: "Lich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Favorite Black Company Villian(s)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C00C1F.FC0B6AA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I love the Limper and his two-dimensional aggressiveness.  Frequently in =
fantasy, evil characters make stupid mistakes that allow the inferior =
heroes to win.  With the villains making such mistakes, the reader is =
forced to suspend his disbelief even more than the fanatsy genre =
requires normally.  How could this sorcerer have become so powerful in =
the first place if he's this stupid?  It quickly becomes obvious that =
the writer simply isn't good enough to be able to get the plot to go =
where he wants, without making the villain of the piece into a =
caricature.

Unlike the villains above, Limper doesn't stand around spouting all his =
secret plans to anyone who will listen, nor does he give his opponents =
any "extra chances" to amuse himself.  He just "destroys them where he =
finds them" and moves on with ruthless efficiency.  However, clever =
writer that he is, Cook writes about how the Limper's smash everything =
in his path mentality allows weaker opponents to prevail against him, =
without requiring the character to be blatantly stupid.  Instead of the =
Limper's weakness being stupidity, he is a vitctim of his own power, and =
centuries of no one being powerful enough to stand against him.  It much =
easier to believe in a character that has lost the capacity for subtle =
trickery after centuries of simply being able to obliterate anyone who =
stood in his way through sheer power.  It is this lack of subtlety, not =
intelligence that makes Limper entertaining, rather than obnoxious.  =
This characteristic is brilliantly displayed in Limper's return to the =
North in the Silver Spike - after abandoning his pursuit of the Lady =
South.  He knows that he's being manipulated and steered, yet each time =
he thinks he's in a position where he can just bull his way through, and =
crush the puny insects how seek to oppose him.  Each time the "puny =
insects" blind-side him, putting him in a position where he's helpless =
to use the awesome power for destruction at his disposal.  The Dominator =
seems much the same, although we don't know him as well. =20

Harden was fun to read about, just because he was such a bad-ass.

First-trilogy Soulcatcher was great because of the dichotomy between her =
human side, and the mantle of being one of the Ten Who Were Taken.

I'd love to know more about the proto-dominator under the tree.  Also, I =
really like Nameless.  Both of these two I like for the simple reason =
that we know so little about them, and I feel that there's a fascinating =
story to be told for each.


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Lee Childs=20
  To: Glen Cook Fans=20
  Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 8:04 PM
  Subject: (glencook-fans) Favorite Black Company Villian(s)


  Folks:=20
  I would be interested in knowing what everyone's favorite villains are =
from the Black Company series.  For myself, I liked Soulcatcher, Lady, =
Whisper, Feather, Howler, and Mogaba.=20
  Opinions?  Please itemize the names at the top of the email and follow =
the list with your reasons.=20

  Lee Childs=20


- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C00C1F.FC0B6AA0
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3018.900" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I love the Limper and his =
two-dimensional=20
aggressiveness.  Frequently in fantasy, evil characters make stupid =

mistakes that allow the inferior heroes to win.  With the villains =
making=20
such mistakes, the reader is forced to suspend his disbelief even more =
than the=20
fanatsy genre requires normally.  How could this sorcerer have =
become so=20
powerful in the first place if he's this stupid?  It quickly =
becomes=20
obvious that the writer simply isn't good enough to be able to get the =
plot to=20
go where he wants, without making the villain of the piece into a=20
caricature.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Unlike the villains above, Limper =
doesn't stand=20
around spouting all his secret plans to anyone who will listen, nor does =
he give=20
his opponents any "extra chances" to amuse himself.  He just =
"destroys them=20
where he finds them" and moves on with ruthless efficiency.  =
However,=20
clever writer that he is, Cook writes about how the Limper's smash =
everything in=20
his path mentality allows weaker opponents to prevail against him, =
without=20
requiring the character to be blatantly stupid.  Instead of the =
Limper's=20
weakness being stupidity, he is a vitctim of his own power, and =
centuries of no=20
one being powerful enough to stand against him.  It much easier to =
believe=20
in a character that has lost the capacity for subtle trickery after =
centuries of=20
simply being able to obliterate anyone who stood in his way through =
sheer=20
power.  It is this lack of subtlety, not intelligence that makes =
Limper=20
entertaining, rather than obnoxious.  This characteristic is =
brilliantly=20
displayed in Limper's return to the North in the Silver Spike - after =
abandoning=20
his pursuit of the Lady South.  He knows that he's being =
manipulated and=20
steered, yet each time he thinks he's in a position where he can just =
bull his=20
way through, and crush the puny insects how seek to oppose him.  =
Each time=20
the "puny insects" blind-side him, putting him in a position where he's =
helpless=20
to use the awesome power for destruction at his disposal.  The =
Dominator=20
seems much the same, although we don't know him as well.  =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Harden was fun to read about, just =
because he was=20
such a bad-ass.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>First-trilogy Soulcatcher was great =
because of the=20
dichotomy between her human side, and the mantle of being one of the Ten =
Who=20
Were Taken.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'd love to know more about the =
proto-dominator=20
under the tree.  Also, I really like Nameless.  Both of these =
two I=20
like for the simple reason that we know so little about them, and I feel =
that=20
there's a fascinating story to be told for each.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]" =
title=[e-mail]>Lee=20
  Childs</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]"=20
  title=[e-mail]>Glen Cook Fans</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 19, 2000 =
8:04=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> (glencook-fans) =
Favorite Black=20
  Company Villian(s)</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>Folks: <BR>I would be interested in knowing what =
everyone's=20
  favorite villains are from the Black Company series.  For myself, =
I liked=20
  <B>Soulcatcher, Lady, Whisper, Feather, Howler, and Mogaba.</B>=20
  <P>Opinions?  Please itemize the names at the top of the email =
and follow=20
  the list with your reasons.=20
  <P>Lee Childs </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C00C1F.FC0B6AA0--


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:43:22 -0500
From: Stacey Harris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Literary Crit (was Enough on Jordan!)

Hi, all,

Christopher's request for more lit-crit type of posts prompts this
thought from me (not really lit-crit, maybe, but a bit more in-depth
than, say "Would Bomanz have made a good Taken"):

Is there an underlying similarity among the military portions of Cook's
writing?  the Black Company, Passage at Arms, Dragon Never Sleeps, Dread
Empire?

I'm thinking in terms of making the reader appreciate a feel for
sneakery, for tactics of deception--or, at any rate, cleverness.   Been
a while since I've read the non-BC books, but I seem to recall feeling
something of the same in several of them.

Which begs the question--is it really cleverness?  Or are we just *told*
"we were realy sneaky in our attack that day" and the like?  Not as bald
as that usually; but what, really, constitutes cleverness in a fictional
tactician?  The author is free to make the opposition unsuspecting,
naive, never looking too far below the surface, just to make his hero's
strategems succeed.  What, then, inspires us to admire the story-telling
ability of the author, to revel in a feeling that we have been in the
presence of a tale worth the telling, not just because it was well told,
but because it betrayed an intellectual depth we didn't anticipate?

***non-Cook digression***

A cinematic example (which is vivid enough to capture the spirit I am
talking about):  In my mind, the only truly brilliant piece of
story-telling in the Star Wars movies is the opening adventure in the
third one:  Luke arrives, unarmed, in the camp of his enemy (Jabba's
floating cruiser).  He gives his enemy the chance to surrender, while
appearing quite vulnerable.  When the offer is rejected, he turns the
tables, not primarily by means of Jedi magic, but by the sheer cleveness
of having previously secreted his allies among the prisoners--mostly
similarly unarmed and apparently vulnerable.  It is Luke's ability to
rely on the spontaneous invention of his allies--using the very chains
of their captivity as make-shift weapons--that makes for great
story-telling, that makes us (well, me) feel that there is far more here
than super-human mystical powers (which none of us have), but ingenuity
and pluck: things that are far more human-scaled, so they draw us into
the characters much better.

***end digression***

We can't any of us direct sorcerous energies; but we can at least hope
to be clever in the disposition of resources and skilled in the use of
guile where force and persuasion are unavailable to us.  And maybe that
is why we respond so well to that method of derring-do in story
telling--and one reason why Cook is so appealing.

Is the Black Company *really* clever?  Or the Guard in Dragon?  Or
Ragnarsson in Dread Empire? Or whoever-it-is in Passage?  In what is
that cleverness constituted?

Does Cook out-think the reader, and not just the villain?  And is that
what constitutes admirable cleverness in a hero?

Steve

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:34:07 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

Just before the Battle of Charm, and after Croaker is injured, there is a discussion with the Captain about disassociating the Company from Soulcatcher. The Captain says something like "first you're injured, then one of the Taken goes zuzu. And there's that lime thread."

Is this sentence out of order, did Cook miss a scene or did I miss something? As far as I can tell, no Taken goes zuzu between the time Croaker is injured and the conversation. (even though they are all a little zuzu anyway).

Win

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:53:19 -0500
From: "PrimalChrome" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

I thought he was referring to Limper's actions....


- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:34 AM
Subject: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?


Just before the Battle of Charm, and after Croaker is injured, there is a
discussion with the Captain about disassociating the Company from
Soulcatcher. The Captain says something like "first you're injured, then one
of the Taken goes zuzu. And there's that lime thread."

Is this sentence out of order, did Cook miss a scene or did I miss
something? As far as I can tell, no Taken goes zuzu between the time Croaker
is injured and the conversation. (even though they are all a little zuzu
anyway).

Win

=======================================================================
 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>.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:33:59 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

The Limper's "treason" would be the best guess, if the sentence order hadn't had the comment after Croaker's injury. It would have been months since Limper was subdued.

Win

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:48:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Changeling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

Is this sentence before or after Croaker comes out of the tower?

- -Changeling

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 [e-mail] wrote:

> The Limper's "treason" would be the best guess, if the sentence order hadn't had the comment after Croaker's injury. It would have been months since Limper was subdued.
>
> Win
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>


**************************************************************************
* "If hostility to men causes Lesbianism, then it seems to me that in a  *
*  male-dominated society, Lesbianism is a sign of mental health."       *
*                             -- Martha Shelley, Notes of a              *
*                                Radical Lesbian (1969)                  *
**************************************************************************


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:29:09 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

After. And after he learns that Darling thwarted the attack on Raven.

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:43:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Changeling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

Well, if it's after Croaker left the Tower then the Taken going zuzu would
refer to the attack on Croaker by the shadowy form that he shot with the
bow that Lady gave him, wouldn't it?

- -Changeling

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 [e-mail] wrote:

> After. And after he learns that Darling thwarted the attack on Raven.
>
> =======================================================================
>  To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list,
>  visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.
>


**************************************************************************
* "If hostility to men causes Lesbianism, then it seems to me that in a  *
*  male-dominated society, Lesbianism is a sign of mental health."       *
*                             -- Martha Shelley, Notes of a              *
*                                Radical Lesbian (1969)                  *
**************************************************************************


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:53:20 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

I'm not sure, since I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the sentence was "first the attack on Croaker, then one of the Taken goes zuzu."

Win

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:54:49 +0000
From: Rich Kim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

On Tuesday, August 22 2000, 15:34:07 [e-mail] wrote:

>Is this sentence out of order, did Cook miss a scene or did I miss something?
>As far as I can tell, no Taken goes zuzu between the time Croaker is injured
>and the conversation. (even though they are all a little zuzu anyway).
>
The quote goes like this "What happened in the hills.  No accident, eh?  The
Lady summons you and half an hour later, one of the Taken goes zuzu.  Then
there's your accident in the Tower...."

Croaker was summoned by Lady before the carpet went to pick them up from the
raid, and it took about half an hour for the anonymous Taken to show up on the
carpet with the accidental green mist.  This is before he went to see Lady and
before the accident in the tower.


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:13:15 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) Continuity Error in BC?

Thanks for clearing this up. I was sure someone would look up the passage before I got home.

Win

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:04 -0400
From: "Mark Debes" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE:  Re: (glencook-fans) Favorite Black Comp

From the Books of the North, Soulcatcher was definitely my favorite villain.
 She very rarely showed the powers that made her one of the Taken, she used
her vast understanding of the human psyche to manipulate her opponents into
doing what she wanted.  The way she orchestrated the takedown of Raker, and
manipulated the Limper into a position where Lady had to take him out of the
game was fascinating.

An interesting point on how the Limper, with no one to oppose him, lost the
ability for subtlety and went for pure strength to carry him through.
 Soulcatcher exhibited many of the same characteristics in the last two books
of the South.

I'm not sure who my favorite villain is in the South.

 -----Original Message-----
From: glencook-fans [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 11:01 AM
To: Mark Debes; glencook-fans
Subject:  Re: (glencook-fans) Favorite Black Comp

 << File: body.htm >>
I love the Limper and his two-dimensional aggressiveness.  Frequently in
fantasy, evil characters make stupid mistakes that allow the inferior heroes
to win.  With the villains making such mistakes, the reader is forced to
suspend his disbelief even more than the fanatsy genre requires normally.
How could this sorcerer have become so powerful in the first place if he's
this stupid?  It quickly becomes obvious that the writer simply isn't good
enough to be able to get the plot to go where he wants, without making the
villain of the piece into a caricature.

Unlike the villains above, Limper doesn't stand around spouting all his
secret plans to anyone who will listen, nor does he give his opponents any
"extra chances" to amuse himself.  He just "destroys them where he finds
them" and moves on with ruthless efficiency.  However, clever writer that he
is, Cook writes about how the Limper's smash everything in his path mentality
allows weaker opponents to prevail against him, without requiring the
character to be blatantly stupid.  Instead of the Limper's weakness being
stupidity, he is a vitctim of his own power, and centuries of no one being
powerful enough to stand against him.  It much easier to believe in a
character that has lost the capacity for subtle trickery after centuries of
simply being able to obliterate anyone who stood in his way through sheer
power.  It is this lack of subtlety, not intelligence that makes Limper
entertaining, rather than obnoxious.  This characteristic is brilliantly
displayed in Limper's return to the North in the Silver Spike - after
abandoning his pursuit of the Lady South.  He knows that he's being
manipulated and steered, yet each time he thinks he's in a position where he
can just bull his way through, and crush the puny insects how seek to oppose
him.  Each time the "puny insects" blind-side him, putting him in a position
where he's helpless to use the awesome power for destruction at his disposal.
 The Dominator seems much the same, although we don't know him as well.

Harden was fun to read about, just because he was such a bad-ass.

First-trilogy Soulcatcher was great because of the dichotomy between her
human side, and the mantle of being one of the Ten Who Were Taken.

I'd love to know more about the proto-dominator under the tree.  Also, I
really like Nameless.  Both of these two I like for the simple reason that we
know so little about them, and I feel that there's a fascinating story to be
told for each.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Lee Childs
  To: Glen Cook Fans
  Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 8:04 PM
  Subject: (glencook-fans) Favorite Black Company Villian(s)


  Folks:
  I would be interested in knowing what everyone's favorite villains are from
the Black Company series.  For myself, I liked Soulcatcher, Lady, Whisper,
Feather, Howler, and Mogaba.
  Opinions?  Please itemize the names at the top of the email and follow the
list with your reasons.

  Lee Childs



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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:10:32 -0700
From: Lee Childs <[e-mail]>
Subject: (glencook-fans) The attacks on Croaker

Croaker was attacked twice.  One of the large tower weapons fell on him. =
 Later, a
sorcerer masked in a cloud of darkness struck at him.  I always belived t=
hat
Soulcatcher had a hand in this.

THE BLACK COMPANY page 244
"The Captain shook his head.  'Hang on to that sense of humor.  The Lady =
wants to
see you.  Personally.'"
"My mind hurtled around like a herd of mice fleeing a cat.  In seconds I =
was
soaked with sweat."
THE BLACK COMPANY page 248
"Men shouted below.  I turned to look=85Threw up an arm.  Slam!  Impact t=
hrew me a
dozen feet, spinning.  My guard guide yelled.  The Tower roof came up to =
meet me.
Men shouted and ran away."
"I rolled, tried to get up, slipped in a slick of blood.  Blood!  My bloo=
d!"
THE BLACK COMPANY page 249
"[The Guard Captain said,] 'Hold him down.  Foster.  What happened?''
"[Foster said,] 'One of the weapons fell of the upper tier.  It went off =
when it
fell.'"
"[Croaker said,] 'Wasn't no accident.  Somebody wanted to kill me.'"
THE BLACK COMPANY page 282
"[The Lady said,] 'That evil tried to kill you three times, physician.  T=
wice for
fear of your knowledge, once for fear of your future.'"
"That woke me up.  'My future?'"
"[The Lady said,] 'The Taken sometimes glimpse the future.  Perhaps this
conversation was foreseen.'"
"A quarter way up the ramp I got a funny feeling.  Halfway there I realiz=
ed what
it was.  One-Eye's amulet!  My wrist was burning=85Taken!  Danger!"
"A cloud of darkness reared out of the night, from some imperfection in t=
he side
of the pyramid.  It spread like the sail of a ship, flat, and moved towar=
d me.  I
responded the only way I could.  With an arrow."
"And a long wail surrounded me, filled me more with surprise than rage, m=
ore
despair than agony.  The sheet of darkness shredded.  Something manshaped=
 scuttled
across the slope."


Rich Kim wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 22 2000, 15:34:07 [e-mail] wrote:
>
> >Is this sentence out of order, did Cook miss a scene or did I miss som=
ething?
> >As far as I can tell, no Taken goes zuzu between the time Croaker is i=
njured
> >and the conversation. (even though they are all a little zuzu anyway).


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

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

End of glencook-fans-digest V1 #21
**********************************

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