Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:52:17 -0700
From: maa32 
Subject: (urth) no, no - Horn must be the one who is moved

There is one problem with Babbie being the one whose soul is transported into 
the narrator - there is no mechanism.  When Horn goes into Silk, there is a 
vanished person right there.  When Horn goes into Babbie, there is a vanished 
God right there - "A tree like there is on green".  There is nothing to 
transmit Babbie through that distance.  There has to be something at the 
senders end - and we have direct textual evidence of that tree above Horn as 
he sleeps. (Whenever Silk undergoes astral travel, he always has his branch 
staff made from a tree vine with him, and it becomes very important that he 
look for it every time he goes or it is taken away).

I really don't understand how you can say that Babbie going into Horn makes 
any more sense than Horn going into Babbie, when it is QUITE clear that the 
narrators of On Blue's Waters and In Green's Jungles have a very, very 
different outlook on life, and one deals with the past, while one deals with 
the present and tells the past sometimes in the third person, indicating that 
it happened to someone who seems to be a different person.  What good is 
Babbie except as a receptacle for both Mucor when she wants to get away and 
Horn when he needs a place for his soul?  Remember the couch in the dream of 
Horn's son - there is a couch with eight legs and ten, and someone hiding 
underneath - this is Babbie, with Horn or Mucor hiding with it (8+2 legs, eh?)
 Babbie is a receptacle, not a paradigm of courage.

Oh well.  I think you should believe what you think fits the text the best for 
you.  At least I know what to believe.

Marc Aramini



--