FIND in
<--prev V203 next-->
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:12:58 -0700
From: maa32 
Subject: (urth) Meschia and Meschiane

I thought I'd just throw this out here at you guys.  I believe I owe this 
information to Mantis, so thanks!
We all agree that the play Eschatology and Genesis closely echoes what really 
goes on, with the first man and first woman getting dropped off to recolonize 
the planet or whatever, and the threat of flood and all that good stuff.
The names Meschiane and Meschia are persian ... they spring to new life out of 
a golden tree instantaneously after that demon wench Jahi fools Mainyu into 
poisoning Gaya.  Once again we have life simlutaneously springing into being 
from foliage after the poisoned Urth is reborn.  (Opposing the story of 
Hyacinth from mythology, the closing quote of the book: flower springs from 
dead man).

People seem to be primarily arguing about the indentity of Blue as Urth - and 
I use the trees to justify it.  Is it the trees that are one step too far for 
most people, or do most people agree that the trees can eat people and spit 
out copies sans Blue=Urth? Is it the actual hybridization between plant and 
human that is too hard to accept, or is it the idea of sentient trees?  
Whatever else I may have done, I have made a huge case for the carnivorous 
sentience of these trees, and I have tied them to the vanished people 
regardless of whether eating humans creates new neighbors. Does anyone want to 
argue that vital first step? Trees = or approximate primitive neighbors; vines 
= or approximate primitive inhumu.

Blattid said I should drop Blue=Urth.  I'm not, but let's pretend for a second 
that I did.  Where does my argument then go too far?  As far as I can see, 
it's all tied together inextricably - just say Horn is in Babbie? My only 
mechanistic proof (I mean, how it was done) for that transfer is the presence 
of the huge tree at the end of On blue's Waters where Horn/Silk has a vision 
of being Babbie. This of course explains a lot about the narrative changes and 
Babbie's later behavior, as well as the changes in the narrator at this point.
 I just don't see how I could back off from one position and keep anything at 
all of my theory. All the way back to "Seawrack is a spy"? (Nicely confirmed 
by GW, I might add.)
Marc Aramini


<--prev V203 next-->