It is currently Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:59 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
Magic88889 wrote:
From the official explanation of all things linking:

Quote:
From what we know of D’ni history, it was standard for D’ni writers to complete their works before ever linking to them... No changes to the book were generally allowed after it had been stamped by the maintainers.


You're talking about a prohibition, in the D'ni society, about making changes to a completed Age. Can you provide a date for WHEN D'ni enacted this prohibition-- in Ri'neref's lifetime, or later? -- Can you document whether such a prohibition was ever enacted in Garternay?

My problem with this, is that clearly D'ni was a separate culture from Garternay. Ri'neref was TRAINED in the Art, not in D'ni, but in Garternay. Ironically, his authorship of the D'ni Age-- by definition-- predates ALL of D'ni culture and all of D'ni law.

Certainly he wouldn't have adhered to laws which weren't written yet.

You mention a 'falling out' between Ri'neref and the Guild of Writers. This is specifically due to the fact that he was asked to write an Age from which 'book-worlder' inhabitants could be harvested as slaves. Clearly, the laws of Garternay allowed slavery. However.... In "Myst: The Book of D'ni", a reference is made of the fact that Atrus provided D'ni lawbooks to the freed slaves in Devokan, and he pointed out to them, that the D'ni people had outlawed slavery.

This is evidence of the fact that D'ni had certain laws & customs which were distinctly different from Garternay.

Quote:
There are innumerable manuscripts that document making changes to Descriptive Books and their associated Ages, once the Ages had been visited. The procedure required meticulous attention to detail and was attempted by only the highest levels of writers.


In your earlier quote, you claimed changes to existing Ages were 'generally' not allowed; that quote and this one both confirm the fact that, in unique situations, such changes WERE allowed and WERE made.

You claim yourself, Ri'neref was an "extremely talented writer". Even if Garternay DID have a similar standard, whereby existing Ages were "generally" not changed---except by the "highest level of writers".... well, Ri'neref would have been among the "highest level of writers" in Garternay, and therefore considered competent to make changes.

Quote:
The second factor was a group of waterfalls that flowed from the ceiling of the cavern to an area adjacent to the line of the Great Zero. The fresh flowing water was perfect for drinking.


Your quote references the LOCATION of these waterfalls and their relevance to the location of the ciy--- it neither confirms nor denies either your point or mine, whether Ri'neref changed the D'ni description in order to allow for those waterfalls to exist.

Quote:
I don't see how he would make a simple mistake of not providing enough water for his people to live on.


But if the best authors NEVER made mistakes, NEVER made unstable Ages, if new Ages by 'very talended writers NEVER contained hidden or unexpected dangers--- there would be no need for Maintainers.

I'll acknowledge a mistake like that is unlikely.. but not impossible.

Quote:
If changes were written into the Book that contradicted previously observed features of the Age, it was possible that the Descriptive Book would divert its link to an Age that more closely resembled the changes described. It would appear that the link to the “pre-diverted” Age would be lost, and it would be impossible to reestablish the original link.


This is basically what I said, tho... I accurately labeled a 'retroactive' change as one which would cause "contradictions to previously observed features", and a 'proactive' change as one which would take those "previously observed features" into account, and move FORWARD from them. I think this quote allows for MY allegation: that a skilled writer, like Ri'neref, could have made proactive changes to the D'ni description, without 'diverting' the existing link.

Again.. I'm not saying it DID happen, just that it COULD have.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:13 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 91
I will concede your point that it could have happened. I just don't think it likely.

Ri'neref would have modeled most of the laws of D'ni after the Ronay society that he, and all the people who came with him, came from. Many of those rules would have stayed the same. Ri'neref's disagreements with the Guild of Writers was of a moral and religious matter, not a matter of policy (as I see a very practical prohibition against altering ages).

The entire guild system was in place on Garternay. It originated there. Even the existence of a King was in place on Garternay. So there are significant similarities, and while Ri'neref was reported to have made significant changes to the Guild of Writers at least, Ri'neref's points of change were religious ones. Outlawing slavery isn't a law of writing, it's a moral one. He was a devout believer in Yahvo, and he didn't see slavery as a proper part of that belief. He changed the "why", not the "how".

A prohibition (and records say it was a strong one) against altering already written ages is a purely practical matter. The Ronay had discovered writing some time ago. They would have known that altering an age is extremely dangerous. Why wouldn't the Ronay have had this rule?

Further, I believe that a writer of Ri'neref's skill would not have needed to make changes. The only reason we see Ghen and Atrus making changes is that he didn't have these rules drilled into them.

And again, even if Ri'neref did have the skill to successfully alter an age, it is still an extremely risky process. Not undertaken lightly. He would only have done so if he were forced to. While I will admit that I can see that situation arriving, from what we know, it would very likely been much easier to simply write a new age.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
Quote:
A prohibition (and records say it was a strong one) against altering already written ages is a purely practical matter. The Ronay had discovered writing some time ago. They would have known that altering an age is extremely dangerous. Why wouldn't the Ronay have had this rule?


I can't agree with this. My understanding is that there are ALL manner of unexpected dangers that may exist in a newly written Age-- things never intended, never even expressed by the author-- but which exist due to happenstance, the uncertainty principle, and the sheer randomness of the Art itself-- not EVEN due to any mistake on the part of the author. Seems to me, it is much less risky to make a single change to an Age you already know is otherwise safe, stable and capable of sustaining life... than to write an entirely new one which is just as like as not, to turn out to be unstable or unusable.

I mean, to be honest, if you have written an unsuitable or disappointing Age.... what if nobody is actually visiting as you MAKE changes to it? No harm comes to any PERSON if you happen to make the Age unstable or 'divert' your link via the changes. This risk, this danger, therefore, is ONLY to the Age itself.

It just seems like a difference of style, to me--- you write an Age; it turns out to be unsuitable for some reason... So, under D'ni law, it's going to be discarded and you'll have to write a NEW age.

But yet.... if nobody is actually IN that unsuitable Age right now, what is the harm in TRYING to 'improve' or 'repair' it? The worst thing that will happen is you CAN'T fix it, you'll make it worse.. you'll make it MORE unstable. So? So you'll discard it--- The end result being you discarded the Age after it became 'more unsuitable'... how is that riskier than if you'd JUST discarded it?

Seems to me, there is an advantage in trying to FIX an age that is ALMOST usable. Possibly, the link WOULD 'divert' to a new Age and you'd lose contact with the original-- But what's the harm in losing contact with the original Age--- if it was already unsuitable ANYWAY?

The best case scenario is you might actually keep the good aspects of the Age, and eliminate the bad ones.

There's no best case scenario in JUST discarding the Age. It was unsuitable, it will never be used. That's the ONLY scenario.

Seems to me, it's entirely a matter of opinion-- and therefore open to cultural interpretation--- whether Garternay would see more value or danger in trying to 'fix' an Age... I could easily see the people of Garternay feeling Yahvo created ALL the Ages, even the unstable ones.. and perhaps his followers would be more protective of existing Ages, to the point they even have an obligation to 'improve' upon a damaged or unstable Age they link to, rather than merely discarding it & writing new.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:17 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 91
I'm going to post this last one and them I'm done on this subject. I've spent a lot of time studying this subject and I believe I'm correct. We are obviously not getting anywhere with this discussion. Unfortunately, there is no proof either way about this. I believe that the evidence we have supports my claims, but we don't have enough material to make a definitive determination. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.



Those dangers you mention are real, which is why the Ronay (and the D'ni) begin instruction at a very young age (Ri'neref began at age 5, Ghen was a similar age). And there are strict rules about writing ages to prevent just such an occurrence. Plus, the Guild of Maintainers (which evidence shows did exist on Garternay) has the job of approving ages before anybody links to it.

The Art was not a new thing to the Ronay when Ri'neref began D'ni. It was a major part of their society, just as it was in D'ni. Rules and regulations governed the Art and everything surrounding it.

The D'ni are an offshoot of the Ronay people, just as Catholics and Protestants are offshoots of the same religion. Same religion, they just see a few things differently. The D'ni are only different from the Ronay is in their view of how the Art is supposed to be regarded. Everything I know about how civilizations change and evolve, and split up supports my theory that the Ronay and the D'ni are more similar than not.

Quote:
Ri'neref was apparently very concerned with the society's views pertaining to the purpose of writing and the challenge of acting responsibly with the "…great gift given to us by Yahvo."


And besides when it comes to the rule about changing an existing Age. The rules were well known to the Ronay by the time Ri'neref came around. So the dangers of making changes would also be well known. So it stands to reason that there would be a rule against it, not because of some moral or religious stance, but because it is so darn dangerous!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
Waaait a minute.. I am editing what wrote here previously.

Magic88889 wrote:
"From what we know of D’ni history, it was standard for D’ni writers to complete their works before ever linking to them. Once the Age was written, the maintainers would inspect the book’s description, and travel there, then approve the book. No changes to the book were generally allowed after it had been stamped by the maintainers. "


"... Then approve the book"? " No changes to the book were generally allowed after it had been stamped..."?

What about BEFORE it had been stamped?

Let me ask you this... wouldn't a stamp, aka a "Maintainer's Mark" be considered a sign that an Age was seemed safe, stable, and approved for use? Would a maintainer REFUSE to 'stamp' a book, if he considered it unstable or unsuitable?

Of COURSE, it would be dangerous to take a stable Age, an inhabited Age, a useful, fruitful Age--- an APPROVED Age--- and make changes to it. Such changes would result in all the dangers you indicated: making a stable Age into an unstable one, diverting the link away to a different Age that might not be stable, losing contact with people IN the original Age by diverting the link.

Can you provide any documentation, tho, that shows the D'ni had any prohibition on changing an Age:

* After it had been inspected or visited, but
* PRIOR TO receiving any 'stamp of approval' from the Maintainers,
* Or in the absence of such a stamp?

Your data certainly suggests there was a prohibition on altering APPROVED Ages, AFTER being stamped by the Maintainers.

But THAT is not what I am talking about. I am talking ONLY about Ages that were NOT approved, that were in fact considered unusable or unsuitable-- and whether there was an allowance for changes made to unsuitable Ages, if it was believed they could be made into suitable ones.

Quote:
There are innumerable manuscripts that document making changes to Descriptive Books and their associated Ages, once the Ages had been visited.


"...Innumerable..."? That implies there are innumerable examples of when it was deemed acceptable to MAKE changes to an Age. How do you know this doesn't refer to exactly the kind of situation I am inferring... an Age that was determined to contain SOME value, but has not been approved for use because of some underlying problem that makes it unsuitable?

Exactly what kind of situations are included in those innumerable texts? By what criteria was it considered acceptable to change an Age? Because clearly there WERE criteria for allowing such changes.

_________________
Image


Last edited by HarveyMidnight on Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:01 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:06 am
Posts: 614
Location: UK: Now with added Magic
Harvey, we've been round this block before and agreed to differ, so I'm not going to go there again.

What I find difficult is your romantic insistance that our prehistory should have been changed dramatically by D'ni interventions using the Art of Writing. Is it not more romantic to imagine them dealing with difficulties by using their own resources, rather than an appeal to the Writers to "make it didn't happen", to remove inconvenient obstacles by a little rewrite here and there, (made with all due caution, of course)?

After all, if the cleft had been made by D'ni magic then why did they need to engage in a long, difficult and dangerous mining and tunnel-boring expedition to reach it from below? Much easier to just rewrite the book a little bit more?

Come to that, why was Garternay abandoned at all? Surely they could just have made changes to the age, with due diligence, after evacuating the inhabitants first? At that point it is a doomed age in any case, so measures to save it could have been more drastic than were normally accepted.

I am drawn to the conclusion that any change to a book moves the link from one branch of the tree of possibilities to another. Provided those branches are not too widely separated, the indigenous inhabitants will share enough background to be recognisable by you and to retain memories of you when you link to the changed age. The question becomes one of how much change can be tolerated before your previous interactions with the people in it are wiped out. That was Atrus's problem with Riven - Catherine was there and he had to balance the stabilisation of the age against the possibility of losing her forever.

If you accept the Tree of Possibilities view (the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) then there already exist many branches in the sheaf of possibilities that include Riven where the age collapses and is destroyed *and there is nothing you can do about it*. By rewriting the age you are shifting your link to a similar but longer branch, one that still retains the same path leading up to the change, so that the people and your interaction with them is still part of their history.

Let me be clear. Rewriting the book shifts the link to another branch of the tree of possibilities. In the new branch, the changes you wrote into the book *have already happened* History has not been changed, it was never any different. It's a new world.

_________________
KI numbers:
11981 AlanD
12305 AlanDJ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
AlanD wrote:
What I find difficult is your romantic insistance that our prehistory should have been changed dramatically by D'ni interventions using the Art of Writing. Is it not more romantic to imagine them dealing with difficulties by using their own resources, rather than an appeal to the Writers to "make it didn't happen", to remove inconvenient obstacles by a little rewrite here and there, (made with all due caution, of course)?


I would say either could be EQUALLY romantic, depending on how it was done.

Quote:
After all, if the cleft had been made by D'ni magic then why did they need to engage in a long, difficult and dangerous mining and tunnel-boring expedition to reach it from below? Much easier to just rewrite the book a little bit more?


That is a very good point.

Quote:
Come to that, why was Garternay abandoned at all? Surely they could just have made changes to the age, with due diligence, after evacuating the inhabitants first? At that point it is a doomed age in any case, so measures to save it could have been more drastic than were normally accepted.


This would be a good point-- except the people of Garternay may never have had access to any Garternay descriptive book. If the Art was invented in Garternay, the very nature of the Art suggests they could never have written a description for their OWN Age-- as it was an Age that already existed.

Besides which.. if you're already going to evacuate ALL your inhabitants of your entire world.. wouldn't you want to evacuate them to a stable world where they could STAY, that would support their lives & your entire culture... if it turned out you couldn't fix Garternay? And if you've already gone to the trouble of writing Terahnee, they've all moved there... migrating over several decades, including a whole generation of babies born and grown who don't even recall Garternay as their home... why ALSO go to the trouble of saving Garternay... just to make another grand exodus and move everyone BACK?

Not to mention--- seeing as we're talking about ancient times shrouded in myth and mystery, how do we know someone didn't TRY, but fail, to repair Garternay in this way?

Quote:
I am drawn to the conclusion that any change to a book moves the link from one branch of the tree of possibilities to another.


Quote:
If you accept the Tree of Possibilities view (the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) then there already exist many branches in the sheaf of possibilities that include Riven where the age collapses and is destroyed *and there is nothing you can do about it*. By rewriting the age you are shifting your link to a similar but longer branch, one that still retains the same path leading up to the change, so that the people and your interaction with them is still part of their history.


NO, I cannot buy that.. because that suggests the Catherine whom Atrus actually fell in love with, DIED when Riven (1) collapsed, and Atrus married to some duplicate of her from Riven (circa 47), who only remembers falling in love with an alternate version of Atrus.

It also suggests that the Gehn who
[Reveal] Spoiler:
became trapped at the end of Riven
is just a duplicate of Atrus' "real" father. In that case, careful scrutiny would need to be made TO that version of Gehn, and his personal history-----
[Reveal] Spoiler:
even MINOR differences in his personal history allow for the possibility that THAT version of Gehn, that doppleganger never actually TRIED to kill HIS version of Atrus and therefore he doesn't deserve to be imprisoned for that crime.


Many inquiries would have to be made, before accepting some duplicate/doppelganger from a slightly different timeline in an alternate Age, as a replacement for a relative or loved one.

That's just too big a can of worms to open!

The "Fringe fan" the "Sliders" fan in me, tells me that however similar somebody's doppleganger is, they are still a separate individual, NOT to simply be accepted as the same person, nor blamed for the actions of their doppelganger. I feel if Atrus truly believed he couldn't save HIS own Catherine... he would not have made changes to Riven as he did; he would have gone there himself, to die with her. He wouldn't have settled for saving and marrying an identical replacement of her, knowing that the 'true' Catherine from his own personal history, was dying.

Quote:
Let me be clear. Rewriting the book shifts the link to another branch of the tree of possibilities. In the new branch, the changes you wrote into the book *have already happened* History has not been changed, it was never any different. It's a new world.



There's just TOO much of canon that would be contradicted, or which at best you'd have to pretend was 'entirely misleading', in order to see it this way.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:04 pm
Posts: 516
Location: A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
My problem with Ri'neref draining the surface water to fill the Cavern is this: he deliberately wrote the Age with only an adequate air supply for initial D'ni population. Because their population grew, they needed to install the fans. If Ri'neref would drain water from the surface to give the Cavern more water, why not also widen the tunnels supplying air to the Cavern?

_________________
Aka KathTheDragon (literally everywhere else on the internet)
Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
tumblr: kaththedragon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
KathAveara wrote:
My problem with Ri'neref draining the surface water to fill the Cavern is this: he deliberately wrote the Age with only an adequate air supply for initial D'ni population. Because their population grew, they needed to install the fans. If Ri'neref would drain water from the surface to give the Cavern more water, why not also widen the tunnels supplying air to the Cavern?


Well, there are natural alterations that happen on their OWN, in the world... things like lakes draining, fertile land becoming desert... water flowing downward, into pockets under the surface.

Making an intentional change like that in the Age-- pulling down the water-table so the water is present in the Cavern, could be done in a way that is consistent with nature and wouldn't contradict the existing elements of the Age.

This is what I would call a "proactive change".

BUT.... Widening the tunnels supplying air would be a change that, as has been previously said, would contradict the established elements of the Age. Those tunnels, air shafts, natural presence of air in a cavern.. those are established elements of the Age, formed over time, in the past of this Age. Widening those tunnels would be UNnatural changes... altering the shapes and patterns of stones, shafts, etc, that would be what I call a 'retroactive' change--- in order for those tunnels and natural air-shafts to become wider, you'd have to contradict the way things already HAPPENED and the way they were already formed by nature. That is the kind of change everyone is talking about, that would 'divert' or 'sever' the link, sever the connection to the existing Age of D'ni, or even make D'ni transmorph into an unstable Age.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:38 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:04 pm
Posts: 516
Location: A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
But you've already said that such changes would surely be fine on an Age that's not yet inhabited by Ri'neref's followers, in this case. But that's not even the point. The point is he wanted it that way, he wanted life for the D'ni to be enough of a challenge to keep them more humble than the Terahnee. This makes me doubt that he'd trigger such a change as draining the surface just to make life easier for the D'ni.

_________________
Aka KathTheDragon (literally everywhere else on the internet)
Moula KI: 00005310
DI KI: 00205116
tumblr: kaththedragon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
KathAveara wrote:
But you've already said that such changes would surely be fine on an Age that's not yet inhabited by Ri'neref's followers, in this case. But that's not even the point. The point is he wanted it that way, he wanted life for the D'ni to be enough of a challenge to keep them more humble than the Terahnee. This makes me doubt that he'd trigger such a change as draining the surface just to make life easier for the D'ni.


Still, tho.. they'd need enough water to survive on!

But one thing I think is true---- I do seem to recall a mention in Myst: The Book of Atrus, where Anna explained, SHE believed the area around the caldera entrance to D'ni, and the lands around the Cavern were specifically written by Ri'neref to be a desert--- to keep surface dwellers away from the Cavern.

That wouldn't be a 'change' made to the Age, tho, it would have been included in the original description. He wrote an Age that would support life, so he took into account the likelihood that the new Age might already be inhabited-- -and he took steps to keep the Cavern relatively isolated from any indigenous people.


Edit to add-- ya know, that's actually a happy compromise. If we were to assume Ri'neref described the presence of an underground lake in the Cavern, with a harsh desert above... then, it's possible there was some major shift in the ecosystem that took place years before the Ronay ever arrived.. causing those lakes to dry, the water to shift into the cavern.. and the land above to become desert--- but not a change CAUSED by the Art, just a coincidental change due to nature and happenstance, that made the description a match for this region.

6 of one, half-dozen of the other... I suppose I could work with that.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:45 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:46 pm
Posts: 846
Location: The Cleft, New Mexico
Shorah everyone!

Some very active conversations at work here, I see! Very nice (it's always interesting to see an animated discussion). :D I will throw a few data points out there for folks to "chew on", just in case this might add more grist for the conversational mill.

New Mexico's geologic history can be viewed in a fuller form through my Geology presentation from September. But some relevant bits from it include these:

  • The entire North American continent was split north-south by an enormous shallow sea during the Cretaceous period (85 MYBP); New Mexico was almost entirely under water during this time but in spite of this big difference from today, the entire continent was becoming a recognizable shape to our current-day eyes back then. This was the reign of the dinosaurs and although mammals existed, they were tiny and did not occupy an important niche within the ecology of those times. This period came to a sudden end with the most massive extinction event yet on Terra, with nearly everything on the surface dying out (both plants and animals) and with about 70% of all marine life dying out.
  • Over the course of the next 35 *million* years (Tertiary/Eocene, 50 MYBP), mammals came to dominate the surface, diversifying into all the ecologic niches once occupied by the dinosaurs. The North American shallow sea was replaced with a series of north-south mountain chains (a pretty dramatic shift in elevation); this was a time of intense geologic upheaval, as two tectonic plates collided and created the series of mountain chains all along the western edges of North America. A secondary outcome of the west coast mountain building was the formation of the Rocky Mountains, the Rio Grande rift and the still-current magmatic/geologic activity all along this north-south corridor.
  • Geologically, the formation of the Rio Grande rift is key to the eventual formation of the D'ni cavern (I believe). In New Mexico, the subtropical forests of the Eocene give way to grasslands and savannahs of the Tertiary/Oligocene (25-5 MYBP). New Mexico is both a lush landscape and a hotspot of supervolcano activity. Megafauna are plentiful, with many of the ancestors of the more familiar current-day breeds becoming well established. New Mexico is still very wet but is gradually becoming drier.
  • Quaternary times (2 MYBP to current day) usher in the last great Ice Age, which reaches as far south as some of the mountain peaks of New Mexico. Proto-humans have been evolving over the prior 2 million years; modern humans become established as a species at about 200,000 YBP. At the time the D'ni arrived here on Terra, all of the New World was home to human hunter-gatherers who followed the remaining megafauna species (mastodons and the like); New Mexico was temperate with extensive grasslands, plentiful mountain forests, snow-capped peaks and active rivers. Over the millennia since then, New Mexico has become gradually more and more arid, with only a handful of active rivers, no snow-capped peaks and a number of different desert life zones.
  • It's important to remember that the Rio Grande river flows along the rift junction; it did not create this geologic feature but flows within in because it forms a natural north-south channel. And the bulk of this river water flows *beneath* the land surface.
  • Current day mapping of sub-surface water formations is practically non-existent. The oil industry does the most exploratory drilling and mapping, but even so only achieves a mile depth at most (with a number of notable exceptions). Even so, we know surprisingly little about any network of underground waterways and channels. As of today, we can do little more than speculate about the true nature of the water and geology along the Rio Grande rift at D'ni-cavern-like depths (6 miles and deeper), let alone anywhere else on Terra.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
Still... I feel like I made a point, and had a question about it that hasn't been anwsered.

Okay... Put aside entirely the issue of whether Ri'neref made changes to the D'ni Age that caused effects on ancient Earth.

But 'Magic' quoted some text that indicated Maintainers would review the descriptive text of an Age, then visit the Age to inspect it. .and then approve it, by putting a stamp on it.

"Generally", Ages were not updated nor changed, after the Maintainers had stamped the Age. AFTER they stamped it.

Okay... that suggests a prohibition on altering completed and approved Ages. My point is, that quoted text doesn't say anything about whether D'ni laws allowed a 'completed' Age to be edited or changed PRIOR to the Maintainers putting their stamp on the Age.

My question is.. was there any kind of prohibition on making changes to Ages at THAT point, before the maintainers had placed their stamp on the Age?

Because magic's quote suggested there were 'innumerable' instances where Ages WERE changed after completion, by high-level authors.

I could easily see the maintainers getting to the point of completing an inspection, then deciding the Age had SOME value but was lacking in certain criteria, so they wouldn't approve it-- however, there might be an option there, for the author to consult with another. more experienced author, on ways of altering the description in order to improve the Age--- so that it might be approved on re-inspection. This just seems like a prudent 'business' practice. But IN those situations, there would be changes made-- and we'd see the kinds of effects within the Age that Magic had described... severing or diverting links.. or else what was a stable Age might become unstable--- but in SOME cases, the changes would improve the Age.

Anyone have an answer for that?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:31 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:06 am
Posts: 614
Location: UK: Now with added Magic
I have always thought that the Maintainers stamp was a black/white decision and if your age was not approved it was scrapped.

I think it comes down to the difference between making revisions to a finished book and rewriting from scratch, using elements of the previous failed age but incorporating changes in the writing ab inito.

In one case you have a seamless path down the branches of the tree, in the other you make a backtrack, but what the effects of the backtrack, doubling your path down then up a failed branch are, is open to question.

_________________
KI numbers:
11981 AlanD
12305 AlanDJ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:37 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 91
I don't have the time to go through everything to find the exact quote, but from what i remember, the Maintainers were always the first to visit an age. And it made sense, because an untested age is an unknown. The linking panel is blank until the first person travels through. Even one that looks good in the writing can be lethal. Take what happened in BoD. They visited an age that looked good, but it was essentially a supernova.

The Ronay, and the D'ni after them wouldn't want to risk their prized Writers in such an endeavor, so the Maintainers were the first ones to visit an age, after which they stamped and approved it, or destroyed it.


And those instances where changes were made, could have been made when the Ronay were still discovering the Art, or by students who didn't know better yet. Some people have to learn the hard way after all. Plus we have good examples just from Ghen's history to pull from as well. He obviously didn't know better.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: