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 / v01.n266 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2003-09-16 | 29KB

From: owner-glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com (glencook-fans-digest) To: glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: glencook-fans-digest V1 #266 Reply-To: glencook-fans-digest Sender: owner-glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-glencook-fans-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk glencook-fans-digest Wednesday, September 17 2003 Volume 01 : Number 266 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:08:35 -0600 From: Derrill 'Kisc' Guilbert <ninjaspam2@insaneninjahero.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories > > >Well, in my mind, Occum's Razor suggests that NONE of the other > > You're using Occam's Razor in an arguement about characters in a Glen Cook book, and more specifically regarding the Taken. With regards to the Taken, one assumes that the simple answer is all but /never/ the correct one. Kisc ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:34:51 -0500 From: David Ainsworth <dbainswo@students.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories At 08:50 PM 9/15/2003 -0400, Mike H. wrote: > > Yes, but the only concrete evidence we have for such feuding in the books > > suggests they were genuine and deadly. Shifter and Bringer certainly do a > > number on one another, and Catcher kills Moonshadow and THEN discovers to > > her disappointment that he wasn't one of the Taken. > >That is entirely correct, for those two instances. >Yet, we know absolutely nothing about the feud that >occurred between The Faceless Man and Moonbiter, so >it could very well have been simply a rouse, and an >effective one, at that. My primary reason for >thinking they staged their deaths is due to >1. there were no bodies and >2. they were not involved in enemy action at the >time of their supposed deaths. I have no intention >of trying to persuade you or others to believe this; >I'm just trying to verify my theory as a realistic possibility. The trouble is that Lady would have needed to accept the deaths as real. She had every reason to believe that Howler was dead--she clearly felt he was loyal, given the missions she assigned to him, and the circumstances of his death did not invite close examination (who could have figured he'd made a teeny little carpet for himself). Similarly, I infer that the other feuds in operation reflect past history. I don't think it's impossible, it just seems unlikely. > > I seriously doubt that two Taken could have killed each other without help > > from a third party, which is where the fishiness comes in. But we have > > confirmation that, for example, Stormbringer was able to kill > > Bonegnasher. Lady needed to believe these deaths were real--to do that > > suggests one Taken settling a score with another and then fleeing. > >Don't forget what happened to Shifter. After he >overpowered a fellow Taken, he was bagged by >bystanders. Considering that Moonbiter and the >Faceless had an army of each one's own, it's >totally possible to the Lady that one killed >the other but was soon overpowered by the dead >Taken's army. Either way, she thought they were both dead. That was only possible because 'Catcher had weakened both Shifter and Stormshadow. Plus, the people involved actually had some idea of what extreme measures to take to ensure they stayed dead. I'd think that none of the Taken would have wanted their troops to know what needed to happen to kill them. Nor is there any mention of one Taken being killed by conventional forces--it's presented as "They killed each other," which does not fit the scenario you present. >But I never stated that their feud was ever real. >Which means, to repeat, >their feud was set up. Therefore, the fishiness can be explained like this: >those two Taken both wanted to leave the Lady, along with Howler and >perhaps Nightcrawler to head south, so they set up a fake battle amid the >chaos. The result was simple. The Lady, as well as the rebels, were tricked >into believing both were killed. But they just ran south with Bringer, and >Howler, and etc. Is it possible? Sure. Does it seem likely? I'd say not. The more people involved in such a conspiracy, the more likely it will be exposed. As I read the stories, 'Catcher followed the other Taken south. 'Shifter was sent south by Lady. 'Bringer went south as part of the Shadowmaster thing. Howler's involvement is unclear but there's no evidence he coordinated his escape with Stormbringer. He may have known about the Shadowgate, or he may have gotten dragged in at some later stage (that seems to keep happening to him...). >He became insanely paranoid after he was forced to use his name >to seal the shadowgate. Unless there is a text reference I missed, >I can't think of a reason for him to have been paranoid all along. ALL powerful sorcerers in the Black Company series are paranoid. (Actually, that's true in the Dread Empire series as well.) That's what scares everyone in Soldiers Live about Tobo. He's moving more and more towards those qualities. I think it entirely possible that the single-minded pursuit of sorcery actually produces such an effect. Also, can you tell me where I can >read the "conclusive evidence that many of those working with >Longshadow came with him"? I don't remember any other real names >besides his and Shadowspinner, and I cannot think of another person >from his land except Moonshadow, & even the latter I'm not sure >is from Longshadow's land. Came with him does not equal from his land. But we know he came through the gate with followers. See Soldiers Live for details; I don't have time to look up the specific page references right now. >I totally understand that perspective, and I too enjoy all the >loose threads. These two Particular threads in my mind >however were so close and so similar, that I just "re-connected" >them into one cord. I would never tie up all Glen's loose ends >& take the magic from his work, but this particular one >(which of course is simply one of many) to me was just >screaming to be solved, or at least theorized about... >even the numbers add up! For me, that means "omen" because >I've never been a math person. So for ME to notice a consistency >in a plot that solves two minor mysteries which also actually "add up", >with no other conclusive evidence as of yet to poke a hole, >I'm still sure it is a valid, even likely, possibility. Well, among other things I have been a math person... and part of why I keep coming back to Glen's work is that it's hard to add everything up. A lot of fantasy is too easy to predict, and too many series depend upon characters being dumb as posts. I've rarely had characters in books think of possibilities I hadn't, but this happens with some regularity in Glen's writing. What's even more exciting to me is that sometimes they think up brilliant theories which match all the known facts, and they're dead wrong. (See Garrett, frequently.) "Digging up the bodies" to see how many Taken were still running around is presented as a red herring when we hear the results. If Glen continues the series that might change, but it's still a red herring right now. So--interesting speculation, but the evidence, in my eyes, makes it unlikely. David ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:38:55 -0500 From: David Ainsworth <dbainswo@students.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories At 07:08 PM 9/15/2003 -0600, Derrill 'Kisc' Guilbert wrote: >You're using Occam's Razor in an arguement about characters in a Glen Cook >book, and more specifically regarding the Taken. > >With regards to the Taken, one assumes that the simple answer is all but >/never/ the correct one. Sometimes. Sometimes it is. Shifter's motives, for example, tend to be pretty straightforward. It's just that we can't be sure what they are at a given moment. We know nothing at all about the Faceless Man. We know next to nothing about Nightcrawler. We know a tiny bit about how Moonbiter handles his/her troops in the battle at Charm. We can't even be sure which one of them is the female, though Moonbiter looks like the obvious choice. So we can't tell if the easiest solution is the best fit for the situation. That's exactly my point. Anyone interested in turning the discussion to the question of history? What shapes history in Cook's novels? David ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:39:01 -0700 From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@speakeasy.net> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories "Three people can keep a secret if two are dead" ... and their souls destroyed and the evidence confused. David Ainsworth wrote: > > Is it possible? Sure. Does it seem likely? I'd say not. The more > people involved in such a conspiracy, the more likely it will be exposed. > > - -- We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/j091262.htm ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:18:19 EDT From: BaronetCorvu@cs.com Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories - --part1_189.1ec40f81.2c98679b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2003 8:46:13 PM Central Standard Time, dbainswo@students.wisc.edu writes: > At 08:50 PM 9/15/2003 -0400, Mike H. wrote: > >>Yes, but the only concrete evidence we have for such feuding in the books > >>suggests they were genuine and deadly. Shifter and Bringer certainly do a > >>number on one another, and Catcher kills Moonshadow and THEN discovers to > >>her disappointment that he wasn't one of the Taken. > > > But everyone seems to be forgetting that while Soulcatcher discovered that Moonshadow was not a member of the Taken, she DID recognize him. She knew who he was. This seems to jive completely with Lady's theory that the missing/unknown Shadowmasters were not Taken, but rather members of the Circle of Eighteen who ran south rather than be killed at Charm. It is stated several times that the Circle was never fully accounted for after the battle. I also find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that more than two Taken could ever do anything together without backstabbing going on. >That is entirely correct, for those two instances. >Yet, we know absolutely nothing about the feud that >occurred between The Faceless Man and Moonbiter, so >it could very well have been simply a rouse, and an >effective one, at that. My primary reason for >thinking they staged their deaths is due to >1. there were no bodies and >2. they were not involved in enemy action at the >time of their supposed deaths. I have no intention >of trying to persuade you or others to believe this; >I'm just trying to verify my theory as a realistic possibility. My theory has always been that these two faked their own deaths and ran off to some other far off part of the world to set themselves up as mini-dominators. - --part1_189.1ec40f81.2c98679b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML>In a message dated 9/15/2003 8:46:13 PM Central Standa= rd Time, dbainswo@students.wisc.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">At 08:50 PM 9/15/2003 -0400, Mi= ke H. wrote: >>Yes, but the only concrete evidence we have for such feuding in the=20= books >>suggests they were genuine and deadly. Shifter and Bringer certainly= do a >>number on one another, and Catcher kills Moonshadow and THEN discove= rs to >>her disappointment that he wasn't one of the Taken. > </BLOCKQUOTE> But everyone seems to be forgetting that while Soulcatcher discovered that M= oonshadow was not a member of the Taken, she DID recognize him. She knew who= he was. This seems to jive completely with Lady's theory that the mis= sing/unknown Shadowmasters were not Taken, but rather members of the Circle=20= of Eighteen who ran south rather than be killed at Charm. It is=20= stated several times that the Circle was never fully accounted for after the= battle. I also find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that more=20= than two Taken could ever do anything together without backstabbing going on= . >That is entirely correct, for those two instances. >Yet, we know absolutely nothing about the feud that >occurred between The Faceless Man and Moonbiter, so >it could very well have been simply a rouse, and an >effective one, at that. My primary reason for >thinking they staged their deaths is due to >1. there were no bodies and >2. they were not involved in enemy action at the >time of their supposed deaths. I have no intention >of trying to persuade you or others to believe this; >I'm just trying to verify my theory as a realistic possibility. My theory has always been that these two faked their own deaths and ran off=20= to some other far off part of the world to set themselves up as mini-dominat= ors. </HTML> - --part1_189.1ec40f81.2c98679b_boundary-- ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:33:31 EDT From: BaronetCorvu@cs.com Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories - --part1_114.28bb958c.2c986b2b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2003 8:46:03 PM Central Standard Time, dbainswo@students.wisc.edu writes: > We know nothing at all about the Faceless Man. We know next to nothing > about Nightcrawler. We know a tiny bit about how Moonbiter handles his/her > troops in the battle at Charm. We can't even be sure which one of them is > the female, though Moonbiter looks like the obvious choice. > I used to think the third female was Moonbiter, but upon reflection I think it is Nightcrawler. Why? 1. In Cook's worlds female commanders tend to lead with cunning and guile, not brute force. The glimpse we had of Moonbiter's leadership showed him using his troops with brute force and ferocity. 2. The (original) female Taken seem to have been the REALLY powerful sorcerers. The Lady was a better sorcerer than the Dominator, but he had more raw force to his magic. Croaker states that he thought that Stormbringer was the most powerfull sorcerer of the Taken that he had seen, but that people more familier with all of them feared Soulcatcher even more. Shapeshifter was a one trick pony. The Limper was powerfull but made mistakes frequently. Bonegnasher seems to be more of a general/leader/king first and sorcerer second. The company troops who were in battle with Nightcrawler were so terrified by the battle that they wouldn't tell Croaker about it. This makes me think that Nightcrawler must be one of the most badass sorcerers of all the taken, like, well, Stormbringer and Soulcatcher. 3. A more proper tranlsation of Moonbiter's name was Moondog. I can't imagine any woman having "dog" in a name that she chose for herself. Michael W Sweet - --part1_114.28bb958c.2c986b2b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML>In a message dated 9/15/2003 8:46:03 PM Central Standa= rd Time, dbainswo@students.wisc.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">We know nothing at all about th= e Faceless Man. We know next to nothing about Nightcrawler. We know a tiny bit about how Moonbiter handles his= /her troops in the battle at Charm. We can't even be sure which one of them= is the female, though Moonbiter looks like the obvious choice. </BLOCKQUOTE> I used to think the third female was Moonbiter, but upon reflection I think=20= it is Nightcrawler. Why? 1. In Cook's worlds female commanders tend to lead with cunning and guile, n= ot brute force. The glimpse we had of Moonbiter's leadership showed hi= m using his troops with brute force and ferocity. 2. The (original) female Taken seem to have been the REALLY powerful sorcere= rs. The Lady was a better sorcerer than the Dominator, but he had more= raw force to his magic. Croaker states that he thought that Stormbrin= ger was the most powerfull sorcerer of the Taken that he had seen, but that=20= people more familier with all of them feared Soulcatcher even more. Shapeshi= fter was a one trick pony. The Limper was powerfull but made mistakes freque= ntly. Bonegnasher seems to be more of a general/leader/king first and sorcer= er second. The company troops who were in battle with Nightcrawler wer= e so terrified by the battle that they wouldn't tell Croaker about it. = This makes me think that Nightcrawler must be one of the most badass sorcer= ers of all the taken, like, well, Stormbringer and Soulcatcher. 3. A more proper tranlsation of Moonbiter's name was Moondog. I can't=20= imagine any woman having "dog" in a name that she chose for herself.<B= R> Michael W Sweet</HTML> - --part1_114.28bb958c.2c986b2b_boundary-- ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:51:40 -0500 From: Stacey Harris <harrissg@slu.edu> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories Hi, all, Have I been missing posts? I haven't seen anything on this list in months, I think. Steve ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:53:42 EDT From: BaronetCorvu@cs.com Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories - --part1_ca.21d68f48.2c98b636_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/16/2003 12:53:49 PM Central Standard Time, harrissg@slu.edu writes: > > Hi, all, > > Have I been missing posts? > > I haven't seen anything on this list in months, I think. > > Steve > There have been a dozen or messages concerning showmasters, Taken, which were which, etc, over the last week or so. Michael W Sweet - --part1_ca.21d68f48.2c98b636_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML>In a message dated 9/16/2003 12:53:49 PM Central Stand= ard Time, harrissg@slu.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Hi, all, Have I been missing posts? I haven't seen anything on this list in months, I think. Steve </BLOCKQUOTE> There have been a dozen or messages concerning showmasters, Taken, which wer= e which, etc, over the last week or so. Michael W Sweet</HTML> - --part1_ca.21d68f48.2c98b636_boundary-- ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:33:14 EDT From: Axemaster2001@aol.com Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories - --part1_1e9.fb61ccd.2c98cd8a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/16/2003 9:36:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, BaronetCorvu@cs.com writes: > The Lady was a better sorcerer than the Dominator, but he had more raw > force to his magic Interesting debate going on. However, I dont think this comment is true. Why else would Lady do everythign she could to keep him down? Why fear him breaking free, and admit to Croaker that if he was freed he would make a new empire and no one could oppose him. The Dominator was much more powerful than any of the taken or Lady. - --part1_1e9.fb61ccd.2c98cd8a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML>In a message dated 9/16/2003 9:36:03 AM Eastern= Standard Time, BaronetCorvu@cs.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The Lady was a better sorcerer than the Dominator, but he h= ad more raw force to his magic</BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting debate going on.= However, I dont think this comment is true. Why else would Lady do everythi= gn she could to keep him down? Why fear him breaking free, and admit to Croa= ker that if he was freed he would make a new empire and no one could oppose=20= him. The Dominator was much more powerful than any of the taken or Lady.&nbs= p; </HTML> - --part1_1e9.fb61ccd.2c98cd8a_boundary-- ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:42:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Win Barker <winb99@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories - --0-1674154395-1063744976=:59576 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii How about we say that the Lady was more subtle and cunning in her use of magic whereas The Dominator was merely a bruce force sorceror? Axemaster2001@aol.com wrote:In a message dated 9/16/2003 9:36:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, BaronetCorvu@cs.com writes: The Lady was a better sorcerer than the Dominator, but he had more raw force to his magic Interesting debate going on. However, I dont think this comment is true. Why else would Lady do everythign she could to keep him down? Why fear him breaking free, and admit to Croaker that if he was freed he would make a new empire and no one could oppose him. The Dominator was much more powerful than any of the taken or Lady. - --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software - --0-1674154395-1063744976=:59576 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <DIV>How about we say that the Lady was more subtle and cunning in her use of magic whereas The Dominator was merely a bruce force sorceror? Axemaster2001@aol.com wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">In a message dated 9/16/2003 9:36:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, BaronetCorvu@cs.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" TYPE="CITE">The Lady was a better sorcerer than the Dominator, but he had more raw force to his magic</BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting debate going on. However, I dont think this comment is true. Why else would Lady do everythign she could to keep him down? Why fear him breaking free, and admit to Croaker that if he was freed he would make a new empire and no one could oppose him. The Dominator was much more powerful than any of the taken or Lady. </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com">Yahoo! SiteBuilder</a> - Free, easy-to-use web site design software - --0-1674154395-1063744976=:59576-- ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:01:02 -0500 From: David Ainsworth <dbainswo@students.wisc.edu> Subject: Re: (glencook-fans) plot theories At 04:33 PM 9/16/2003 -0400, Axemaster2001@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 9/16/2003 9:36:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, >BaronetCorvu@cs.com writes: > >>The Lady was a better sorcerer than the Dominator, but he had more raw >>force to his magic > > >Interesting debate going on. However, I dont think this comment is true. >Why else would Lady do everythign she could to keep him down? Why fear him >breaking free, and admit to Croaker that if he was freed he would make a >new empire and no one could oppose him. The Dominator was much more >powerful than any of the taken or Lady. I think it's a distinction between subtlety and brute force. Or perhaps, the difference between playing the drums and beating holes in the floor with a mallet. Then again, we do get to see Soulcatcher eventually use both kinds of magic, though she depends more on brute force when there's nobody around powerful enough to oppose her. We also find out that the Dominator had several rather subtle plots running in order to free himself. Without the intervention of the Company, the whole Castle seed plot might well have worked for him. Perhaps all we really know is that Lady was much better at tricking the Dominator than he was at tricking her... David ======================================================================= 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 #266 *********************************** ======================================================================= To unsubscribe, subscribe, or access the archives of this list, visit <http://www.xmission.com/~shpshftr/GC/GC-Mail.html>.