From: "Andy Robertson"
Subject: Re: (urth) living dolls Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:47:50 +0100 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Friedman" > > I think you're right that this is how their creators think of them. Wolfe is their creator, of course . . . . .. > As for how we should think of them, I think you're right that in some > artistic sense they're connected with various fictional toys you and > others have mentioned. But I think we're supposed to see them as > equivalent to humans (and Neighbors), just as we're supposed to see > the human characters as humans and not, though Severian remarks people > often do, see them as clients. Yes. When I read Wolfe, sometimes I feel I am in there, rendered into something . . . . . . not a doll, but a human character, but yet as much part of his world as if I was written by him > You can certainly add Dr. Talos to your list, by the way. What about > the homunculus in _Citadel_? Or the aquastors and Hierodules? > It's complex. The gods see these dolls, as dolls only. But how does God see us? Where is the division between toy, doll, robot, domestic animal, underperson, child, created being, and beloved and redeemed Child, to be drawn? So Wolfe tells us - and Smith, too, in his way. hartshorn --