The Count of Years

[Shm Jay]

I guess I thought the creation of the universe would be a topic for high language.

I liked the story of the giants and the ogres and the war between them. It is nice and charming and courtly. Though it must take about half an hour just to say in Giantish, "Please give me a glass of water".

I can just see trying to learn Giantish:

Human: What is that?
Giant: Limatliscāiesc?spāstir?x.
Human: Why is the word so long?
Giant: Because everything important in our language has a long word.
Human, pointing to two iliu indulging in gōutāne: What is that? What are they doing?
Giant: That? Oh, we call that Ə.



Anyway, I am sure that every teenage boy and every old rou? must learn that passage by heart, hoping it will serve as a magic charm, especially if said in the original Cuzeian. It just sounds so 60s/70s to me, like the kind of thing Alex Comfort would have put in his book had he known about it.

I suppose I get tired of reading about alien cultures (even imaginary alien cultures) whose advanced relaxed different attitude towards sex is to be strongly contrasted with us uptight prudish Canadians or English or Americans. Some of us are still Victorian at heart and wish the sexual genie had not been let loose from the bottle in the 60s. Those on this board who are creating new worlds of their own, please take note: I would be intrigued to read for a change about a culture that had an advanced relaxed different attitude towards flatulence and where there were 100 words for the different types of flatulence or defecation similar to the 100 words for snow in Inuktitut and the 100 words for camel in Arabic and the 100 words for fast food in American. OK, maybe not "intrigued": "very amused and enjoying the opportunity to have a nice jolly laugh" would be more like it, yet sometimes I think we would have been better off if the 60s generation had discovered flatulence instead of sex.

[zompist]

I guess I thought the creation of the universe would be a topic for high language.

Well, you can't really have high language till something has made it so... normally, classics from the past. But those classics were young and non-classic once. When they were written (or spoken), there was no creaking old model to follow.

(cute stuff about Giantish deleted)

I suppose I get tired of reading about alien cultures (even imaginary alien cultures) whose advanced relaxed different attitude towards sex is to be strongly contrasted with us uptight prudish Canadians or English or Americans. Some of us are still Victorian at heart and wish the sexual genie had not been let loose from the bottle in the 60s. Those on this board who are creating new worlds of their own, please take note: I would be intrigued to read for a change about a culture that had an advanced relaxed different attitude towards flatulence (...)

Gah, it's been done, and I'd much rather have the sex.

I think you're mistaking frankness for permissiveness. The scene from the Count of Years is explicit, but it's a depiction of married love.

As well, though there could be a culture more uptight than ours in every way (Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, perhaps?), most different cultures will probably be shocking in one way or another. Frankness isn't a continuum; one culture may be franker in one way and less frank in another. (After WWII, Americans and Japanese each shocked each other: the Japanese because men and women bathed together; the Americans because they kissed in public.) The Cuzeians would not find that we're prudish about sex; they'd consider that we trivialize it. They wrote about it in a holy book because they consider it holy.

[-]

I suppose I get tired of reading about alien cultures (even imaginary alien cultures) whose advanced relaxed different attitude towards sex is to be strongly contrasted with us uptight prudish Canadians or English or Americans. Some of us are still Victorian at heart and wish the sexual genie had not been let loose from the bottle in the 60s.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but I can't say I'm too sympathetic on this one. What Zomp says about frankness not being a continuum is perfectly on point. Attitudes toward sex are, I think, a tad more complex than you're representing them. And maybe, just maybe, one of the benefits of imaginative literature should be to take us <i>outside</i> our comfort zones.

It's also worth pointing out that even the Victorians really weren't "Victorian" in the popularly-imagined sense. Permissiveness was a matter of class and context; for a certain class of aristocratic gentleman, it was possible to get away with things behind closed doors that would <i>horrify</i> the most hardened pornographers of our "permissive" age. And of course, the "lower" classes were simply assumed to be licentious. I think you'll find that so-called "prudish" societies actually tend to exhibit a heightened preoccupation with sex and "sexuality" in their literature -- in the guise, of course, of moralizing about it or being horrified by it.

[Shm Jay]

I would be intrigued to read for a change about a culture that had an advanced relaxed different attitude towards flatulence (...)

Gah, it's been done, and I'd much rather have the sex.

Where? Where? Who wrote it? I want to read it!

I think you're mistaking frankness for permissiveness. The scene from the Count of Years is explicit, but it's a depiction of married love.

I also picked up that is was also a depiction of not having gōutāne until you are able to provide for a family, which is also a Victorian idea

Poor Mark, you have such a strange lot of followers. Some would prefer that the iliu wear clothes, and some would prefer that the iliu not have gōutāne at all.

[P.S. You need a laugh emoticon.]

[Glenn]

Poor Mark, you have such a strange lot of followers. Some would prefer that the iliu wear clothes, and some would prefer that the iliu not have gōutāne at all.

And some of us are walking around naked (as ilii) at the moment...

Seriously, I can see and empathize with both sides of the reaction, both in general, and from my own personal perspective. It's true that there have been both fictional settings with less restricted attitudes toward sex and sexuality, as well as far more restrictive and puritanical ones (American authors apparently tend to approve of the former (wishful thinking?) and condemn the latter, but there are examples of the opposite as well). However, "real life" and real cultures, as noted, tend to be more complicated.

The mention of the meeting of U.S. and Japanese culture above reminded me of something I was told by my American colleague who lived for twenty years in Japan: an example of "compartmentalized" vs. "universal" morality. In Japan, he said, many people compartmentalize the different elements of their lives, values, and sense of morality, depending on context. For instance, in the gay quarter of Tokyo, homosexual men can openly admit their homosexuality, talk about it, and act on their feelings, without anyone (gay or not) condemning them--because their behavior is appropriate in that setting. On the other hand, if they were to admit to being gay or talk about their orientation at work, for instance, or in other social settings, it would be considered utterly inapproprate--once again, in that setting. Americans, by contrast, tend to try to apply our standards universally--if we consider some belief or behavior to be right or wrong, it's always right or wrong, and that basic standard remains the same in all contexts (one can be diplomatic about one's views, of course). My friend admitted that the Japanese method of compartmentalization can seem contradictory or hypocritical to Westerners (since it means people apply different standards at different times), but he felt that it was also useful, since it meant people were less likely to get caught in psychological hang-ups or moral dilemmas created by the attempt to reconcile their own inner views. It's an example of a different mindset: something worth playing around with. (For that matter, in my time in the former Soviet Union, I've encountered some attitudes a bit different from customary Western ones--toward rules and regulations, for instance--which might entail some "compartmentalizing" of their own.)

Or I could be entirely off base. Any comments?

Sorry for the long message, but I wanted to stick that in...

p@,
Glenn

[Jaaaaaa]

This "compartmentalizing" reminds me of soemthing Earendel (one of Tolkien's characters; the founder of N?menor) said... I forgot the exact quote but it was soemthing like "Rules have exceptions." the point of what he was saying was that "laws" were set-in-stone with no exceptions, whereas "rules" are used to help, but if they start hindering in a great way, they can be broken. It's an interesting idea to toy around with for us conworlders. (e.g., a country whose government makes sperate "rules" and "laws" or soemthing like that. I dunno, I'm better with history than culture)

[So Haleza Grise]

This "compartmentalizing" reminds me of soemthing Earendel (one of Tolkien's characters; the founder of N?menor) said... I forgot the exact quote but it was soemthing like "Rules have exceptions." the point of what he was saying was that "laws" were set-in-stone with no exceptions, whereas "rules" are used to help, but if they start hindering in a great way, they can be broken.

Um, okay - do you mean Elros Tar-Minyatur? He was E?rendil's son. It would really help if you can remember the source - was it in one of Christopher Tolkien's works?

[Jaaaaaa]

No, it was in The Lost Road. Earendel tells Alboin that he can go back in time if he wants to, but Alboin says its against the law (e.g., the laws of nature). Earendel replies that it is against the rule.

[Aidan]

The mention of the meeting of U.S. and Japanese culture above reminded me of something I was told by my American colleague who lived for twenty years in Japan: an example of "compartmentalized" vs. "universal" morality. In Japan, he said, many people compartmentalize the different elements of their lives, values, and sense of morality, depending on context.
<snip>
Americans, by contrast, tend to try to apply our standards universally--if we consider some belief or behavior to be right or wrong, it's always right or wrong, and that basic standard remains the same in all contexts.

I think it's more complicated than that too. Isn't it always . I think Americans very much do compartmentalize as well. But it's much easier to see someone else's compartments, because one tends to just assume/accept ones own. When the compartment lines are where (and what) you expect them, you don't notice them, but when they are different, they jump out at you.

I like the line about rules and laws. Interestingly, I think I might reverse them. My first association with "laws" are as the regulations of a governing body. Where as "rules" I think of in terms of a game. A game is more or less defined by rules, so that if you don't follow the rules, you aren't really playing the game.

So I think of "laws" as the guidelines which are intended to help the workings of society, but are only human created abstracts, and are not always correct. But a "rule" defines a context, if you break the rule, by definition you are not within the context.

But then, I well know I have weird semantic idiosyncracies.

[eodrakken]

Small point: You can say "as a general rule", but you can't say "as a general law". So yeah, you're being semantically weird. Join the club. (Wait, you already did...)

Edit:
Oh, heck, since I'm posting anyway.

Remember that our preoccupation with sex isn't an accident, and neither is the fact that the 60s revolution had to do with sex rather than some other bodily function. From a biological standpoint, sex is our primary purpose. We're here to reproduce. The rest is applesauce.

It's rather intriguing (to me) that something as important as sex has ever been taboo to discuss. Of course, when you look closer, that's designed to increase reproductive success too -- just from the individual standpoint instead of species-wide. It's linked to the need to guarantee that the children one cares for are one's own, unless I'm very much mistaken.

As to getting around this in conworlding or storytelling, I've tried a few different tacks. The obvious one is to make something else the central cultural concern. The only one that makes sense to me is food (you have to eat to stay alive long enough to reproduce, after all, and it's more immediate to the individual). Food taboos are commonplace as it is; it's not hard to picture a society that forbids eating in public, or discussing it.

Another one is to imagine a species that focuses on something besides reproduction on the basic biological level. But the difficulty lies in how that species manages to stay in existence, if they have no reproductive drive. Maybe if there were no competition from other species with reproductive drives, but you'd basically have to eliminate evolution for that state to occur. The slightest mutation in a libido-like direction would throw off the balance, and the reproducers would take over. But I do wonder what peculiar kinds of life might have existed on Earth before the effects of runaway reproductive drives in other species crowded them out.

(I hope none of this causes a political stir -- I'm only speaking from a biological standpoint.)

Topic? I thought the sex in the Count of Years sounded fine. You did a good job of being neither too lurid nor too clinical -- perfect for a culture which had no need to be either one.

[Raphael]

I would be intrigued to read for a change about a culture that had an advanced relaxed different attitude towards flatulence (...)

Gah, it's been done, and I'd much rather have the sex.

Where? Where? Who wrote it? I want to read it!

By now, there's an entire culture of fart jokes in the more stupid parts of popular entertainment. And I agree with Mark that we don't really need that. Mentioning sex is much more interesting.

[zompist]

Chapter 4 is up.

[Glenn]

The War of Machines caught my attention, as I'm sure it was intended too--apparently the ilii and ktuvoki were once very advanced indeed! (According to legend, anyway--but such legends presumably hold a grain of truth.) I note that the war occured in the northern hemisphere only, beyond the Zone of Fire, so there is no convenient evidence available near Erelae; I also note that it has been said that the north now contains only "primitive" peoples, at least among the humans. However, the primitives of Palthuknen and Lebiscuri may well live amongst the scattered remains of a much more advanced civilization...a fascinating possibility.

(Palthuknen seems to have attracted the most admirers, but I find Lebiscuri, the "New Lands," increasingly intriguing--particularly since it also contains such major populations of the non-human races. Of course, the ktuvok empires in Curym are also interesting, as are Tellinor and Vipodokh...I will be satisfied, however, to wait for the Historical Atlas of Arcel. And the Xurnash grammar and additions to Almean Belief Systems, of course. )

I note that the Cuzei (and presumably the ilii) credit the Zone of Fire to the Fourth War, and this may be the case; Mark's page on Almea, however, indicates that it probably came into being millions of years before (and I suspect that this is the "factual" state of things). The Cirome says that the "substance" of the star was used to create the Zone; is the idea that the star sacrificed itself previously to defeat Soxaeco, or later to give of itself for the Zone? Or do such concepts apply to the Cuzeian concept of stars at all?

p@,
Glenn

[zompist]

I note that the Cuzei (and presumably the ilii) credit the Zone of Fire to the Fourth War, and this may be the case; Mark's page on Almea, however, indicates that it probably came into being millions of years before (and I suspect that this is the "factual" state of things). The Cirome says that the "substance" of the star was used to create the Zone; is the idea that the star sacrificed itself previously to defeat Soxaeco, or later to give of itself for the Zone? Or do such concepts apply to the Cuzeian concept of stars at all?

The usual explanation is that the star sacrificed itself to defeat Soxaeco, leaving it substance to become the Zone. The story itself may derive from an instinct that anything as grand as a Star (and a First Spirit's House) must itself be a rational being; and as a corollary, magicians, mystics, and alchemists have always maintained that the Zone is (still) alive in some way and will cooperate with you if you just know how to approach it...

As for its age... who knows? Even Eledhe fundamentalists don't take the chronology of the Eight Wars very seriously. It's possible that this period covered millions rather than thousands of years. Or perhaps it's an artefact of some unimaginably earlier time. (Or, combining the two ideas: perhaps it's an ancient artefact that's intermittent, and it happened to 'turn on' during the iliu-ktuvok wars.)

[Jaaaaaa]

Very good! This is really good so far!

The illiu story-telling, um, skills, reminds me of Tolkien's Quendi.

[jburke]

No, it was in The Lost Road. Earendel tells Alboin that he can go back in time if he wants to, but Alboin says its against the law (e.g., the laws of nature). Earendel replies that it is against the rule.

You're thinking of Elendil, not Earendil. Elendil was a Numenorean prince who came to Middle-earth at the end of the Second Age; Earendil was the mariner who went to Valinor to seek the aid of the Valar against Morgoth in the First Age.

[Jaaaaaa]

Oh yeah... I'm stupid

[Jaaaaaa]

Hey,I'm suprised nobody's asked thi question (if someone has, I guess I didn't see it or forogt about it. Sorry):

What are the Cuzeian views on life after death, and how will it fit into the Cout of Years?

[zompist]

Life after death wasn't a great concern of the Cuzeians; almost all of the focus of the religion was on the present life. Most believed that the spirit (landa:ua) persisted in some form after death, but were satisfied with vague statements that it was resting or communing with Iainos and other pure spirits.

The Arashei had more elaborate views about the afterlife... perhaps because, after the fall of Cuzei, present-day life was much more miserable.

[Jaaaaaa]

I see... thats an interesting contrast to many popular Earth religions.

[Glenn]

The Arashei had more elaborate views about the afterlife... perhaps because, after the fall of Cuzei, present-day life was much more miserable.

Could you say a little more about the Arashei view of the afterlife, and how Arashei beliefs differed from the original Cuzeian religion more generally?

By the way--Merry Christmas, everybody!

p@,
Glenn

[Guest]

I see... thats an interesting contrast to many popular Earth religions.

Not all. (I think) Judaism and many eastern religions (I'm thinking Confucianism and Daoism mainly, but I don't know anything there) simply aren't that concerned with where you go, or if you go anywhere. It's comprehensible; only in life do you do things that are observable, obviously.

Oh, yes, and Merry Christmas all, wherever and however you are spending it . . .

[So Haleza Grise]

I see... thats an interesting contrast to many popular Earth religions.

Not all. (I think) Judaism and many eastern religions (I'm thinking Confucianism and Daoism mainly, but I don't know anything there) simply aren't that concerned with where you go, or if you go anywhere. It's comprehensible; only in life do you do things that are observable, obviously.

Oh, yes, and Merry Christmas all, wherever and however you are spending it . . .

Whoops, that was me. Oh, and I'd just like to stress - this is entirely supposition on my part, and more than possibly completely wrong.

[zompist]

Could you say a little more about the Arashei view of the afterlife, and how Arashei beliefs differed from the original Cuzeian religion more generally?

The Arashei-- probably because the present was so grim-- began to be much more interested in the future. There were hints in Cuzeian theism about a glorious future, which the Arashei turned into an expectation of a vengeful apocalypse followed by a renewed Almea where the Second Spirits would be more glorious than the First.

Actual beliefs didn't change that much; but the new context made it a rather different, darker religion. Cuzeian religion was essentially sanguine, almost careless. The Arashei were poor and persecuted, and blamed the fall of Cuzei on backsliding and corruption. So they tended to codify everything and insist on following rules and spiritual disciplines, and even with that, there wasn't any guarantee that Eledh would listen.

Not all of this was negative; the Cuzeians could be annoyingly self-satisfied and condescending. Being (usually) powerless, the Arashei paid more attention to individual character, and insisted that the poor were important to Iainos, but that virtue was not a guarantee of prosperity.

[Jaaaaaa]

the poor were important to Iainos, but that virtue was not a guarantee of prosperity.

that part at least reminds me of Christianity. Interesting...