July 29th, 2010


└ Tags: ,

Discussion (62)¬

  1. Hunter says:

    You’d BETTER be thankful she’s not crude…

  2. Megrims says:

    I can’t help but feel that Boneclaw Mother still has another point to present.

    Also, I want a plushie that makes politely gruesome death threats.

  3. Hawk says:

    This is great!

    I’m waiting for Boneclaw Mother to REALLY pull out her big guns, though. The Hyena tribe still has a trump card on the Veiled, and one that she could use if things get sticky. If Jhalm is really so dedicated to the service of the gods, can he ignore the expressed wish of a dying god to be allowed to die?

    And just as a note, in much mythology, a god’s death is not an obliteration. It’s a transfiguration. Just look at the Christian doctrine (sorry, folks, it counts as myth from a literary point of view – I’m Christian so don’t get your hackles up). Christ **could not** have become Deity – could not have ascended – without first being dead.

    What if He-Is has been being kept from death to sustain Sweetgrass Voice, and as a result (or even as an extra intention on the part of the demon!) he cannot complete the next step of his deific path? What if He-Is *needed* to die, before all this? How much more must he need Digger to free him, now?

  4. alondro says:

    *Boneclaw Mother continues* But as much as I do love this little tit for tat we have going on here, there’s something I simply must see to. And that is to FIRE MY LAZER!!! BAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

    *Boneclaw Mother wins. Fatality.* ;3

  5. Nicole B says:

    Oh, man, Hawk. I think you just opened a whole new can of worms right there, but it all works together so well. I might actually be disappointed if Digger doesn’t end up panning out like the situation you described! (Though I’ll love it all the same, no matter how it ends, of course!)

  6. Oh, absolutely — Boneclaw Mother has the upper hand — and it’s holding on to Jhalm’s arm… I love the smug little grin…

    The sweet little old lady reminds me a lot of an Australian Cattle Dog who went to her ancestors too many years ago — a barely civilized Hyena who was polite until someone pushed her just too far, then look out! Come to think of it, she was Mom to the rest of the pack, too.

  7. Meteorfire says:

    *dies of laughter* Well, the trolls were MENTIONED…I think that counts.

    Anyways, even if Boneclaw Mother is taken out during the attempt on Jhalm’s throat, she’ll still probably take a huge chunk out of him. Then, the only question is: will he bleed out before Grim Eyes can get her butt over there and take her eye for an eye?

  8. Nivm says:

    Ursula did the same thing she did with the statue here, in that she drew something inanimate just a slightly different way to give it expression (the stones tied to Boneclaw’s mask).

  9. Maureen says:

    First of all, I totally agree with Hawk’s basic point about the value of dying in myth and legend. But the way he’s putting it is mistaken.

    (Pretty much all Christian denominations, except Jehovah’s Witnesses and the like, agree that Jesus was completely true God and true Man at all times. The point of dying was to transfigure death into eternal life and a sort of apotheosis, yes — but only for the rest of us humans who would become part of His Body. It wasn’t any necessity for Him to get back to Heaven; He was omnipotent at all times and could have skipped the whole thing if He wanted — as the Transfiguration shows. Sorry for the theology PSA, but I don’t want anybody to go all Adoptionist or Pneumaticist or whatever.)

  10. Tara says:

    @ Tindi and Tuima: Just wait until she starts to clean out her ears (a major production on a hyena, at any stakes)!

  11. BunnyRock says:

    What about the Arian heresy? If what we know about them is true, and given the accounts are all from the authorised roman histories of the Council of Nicaea (i.er. the other side) we have no particular reason to, the belief in Jesus as an equal to God the Father either before or after his crucifixion was never universally held to be true: it was always doubted by a minority of Christians from the inception of Christianity. They admitted he was both god and man, but a lesser form of god until his death, and still subservient unto God the Father after it. Unless the roman histories are lying, our understanding is incomplete, or they were just wrong (but with no intention to deceive) from the day they were written and they in fact believed something entirely different, which is possible.

    Personally, I’ve always held that although Jesus could have at any time being omnipotent, it was in the same way that I could, in theory, at any time rob a bank or attack people with a hammer: their is noting physically preventing me from doing so but I do not because I have entered into a Hobbsian socal contract not to, where i agree to respect certain artificial limits on the natural inherent freedoms I have always had in exchange for the preservation of the public good. It may be harder at times than at others to obey these artificial and arbitrary restrictions, but I do so anyway because I hold the social contract they represent to overall important and good even if elements of it vex me. That said if the contract became manifestly unjust I’d feel well within my right to ignore it, but given that in the aforementioned case the person making the contract with them self is God, someone who prides her/him/it self on being just, the matter should not arise.

    I would also mention Unitarians at this point, but it’d just confuse the issue and besides, I have no desire to go the way of St. Dodus and get martyred by Unitarian Universalists.

    It rather raises the question what Jesus would do if something unexpected happened, which given he’s god and so all-knowing should not, which obliged him to either use his powers or let his plan to sacrifice himself and save the world fail, in which case I think He’d probably break the contract. In much the same way I would, despite being English and about as patriotically English as it’s possible to be withiest believing all politicians are if not bad then do no harm to the cause of badness believe and adopting farming and inventing the nation state were bad ideas, would still have felt myself obliged to join the Boston tea party had I been present at the time. Admittedly, It would have bent disobeying the rule of law and breaking my social contract, and far more importantly have required me to ruin a very large amount of perfectly good tea, but falling to join in would both have meant failing in my duty as an Englishman to oppose unjust laws and falling in my duty as an archaeologist to take every advantage of a free drink when offered: if someone told me their plan to rebel against a slightly-evil non-representative government involved getting massively drunk of rum punch and claret, drunkenly deciding to dress as some very white Native Americans on the basis no-one would find it suspicious to see them making their way to the dock whilst by turns talking loudly in English, vomiting, and stopping at pubs on their way, in order to then smash stuff up, I’d be right there. The fact is it’s a lot easier to be moved by righteous patriotic spirit if other spirits are involved to help you over the initial bump.

  12. jayneerc says:

    “Talking loudly in English, vomiting, and stopping at pubs on the way”. That’s not too long a title for an autobiography, is it?