Alkoth and discussions

From: Peter Metcalfe (P.Metcalfe@student.canterbury.ac.nz)
Date: Wed 07 Feb 1996 - 09:13:40 EET


David Cake:
===========

>I think the Alkothi are more into the defeat of their enemies, rather
>than Empire per se. Most of the Alkothi Emperors become Emperor in
>times of trouble,

What is the difference between defeat of their enemies and Empire per
se? Surely once you've defeated your enemies, you can compell them
to do anything from paying tribute to pledging to be your undying
catamites (depending on how hard you've defeated them). Alkoth has had
imperialistic designs in the past. Urvairinus did conquer both Naveria
and Diskalta (only to lose them in a revolt because of oppressive rule).
Eusibus poisoned his predecessor to become Emperor IMO and abdicated
when confronted by superior forces who promised him a decent retirement
package or death. Dara Ni is a colony of theirs and Palangio conquered
the Kingdom of Night. I think the Alkothites are just as imperialistic
as every other Dara Happan City.

> Speaking of matters contained in GRAY, I have just noticed a small
>discrepancy in Gregs account of the Goddess, gregged Greg so to speak. Gerra
>and Sedenya are both masks of the goddess, as I understood it, and at
>distinctly different points in the story of the Goddess - yet they appear to
>be contempories. In fact, while Luxarius is married to Gerra, he is
>combating Sedenya.

a) Gerra is the avatar of Sedenya as the Emperor is the avatar of
    Antirius.

b) The actual Goddess of Suffering appears on the Gods Wall which
    is a thousand years at least older before Lukarius's marriage.
I inclined to say that when the Goddess was cast into Hell, she was
condemned to be the Sufferer.

Brian K. Curley:
================

>Still doesn't prove a thing about the Red Goddess "wielding" Argrath and
>being dismembered by him because she wanted to be. True for one, or even
>many, is not true for all.

and

>Agreed. I was not trying to reach an objective, absolute truth. Nick
>was clearly putting forth a view that a loyal Red Moon follower would
>have. I was countering with my version of the Orlanthi perspective.

So what? We already _know_ the Orlanthi PoV having read KoS! What we
didn't know is how a Lunar might have interpreted the events. _That_
was what the debate was about! To say that putting forward the Orlanthi
PoV ('The Red Moon is Dead. There is No White Moon. Case Closed') is
'discussion' stretches the word mildly and helped the debate not one whit.
It helped even less that despite the explainations you appeared not to
comprehend that there was even another side to the coin (until this post).
Recycling polemic from the pages of KoS is hardly a sign of intelligent
criticism.

- --Peter Metcalfe

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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:29:19 EEST