jsankar1966
Sunday 25th September 2011 12:36 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
nice intro.......
an enigmatic feel ! |
nightwing
Monday 1st March 2010 20:02 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
| good start it is going to be a soul bond or someting else |
Waywren Truesong
Saturday 7th February 2009 10:24 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
| *grins* Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I quite like this prologue. It's fascinating, and the aspects of one could be quite anything at all--which is the best part. Also, 'ordinary miracle' is beautiful. *runs off to read more* |
joncooper
Friday 7th September 2007 00:55 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
| I had a look at this story after seeing kokopelli recommend it on his LJ, read the prologue, and was hooked. You write very well indeed! Looking forward to more. |
| Tuesday 13th November 2007 12:08 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| Thanks very much. |
huskers
Tuesday 3rd July 2007 10:21 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
Oh man, where to start? Some people would find this way to complex to read, but I love it. It is original, thought provoking, and takes effort to understand. I like it. Beyond that, it is just plain intriguing.
I’m sure I could sit here and ask a ton of questions, but I think the ones I most want answered are, how are you, as the author, defining power, presence, perception and purpose? I think I’ve got it pretty well figured out, but would just like the author’s thoughts.
|
| Tuesday 3rd July 2007 10:27 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| Giving you precise definitions of those terms would spoil things, I think. However, rest assured that I have careful, concrete definitions. The thing to remember is that those attributes, as defined from one's point of view, do not cleanly correspond to attributes that we mere mortals can define or even perceive. In any case, I'm sure that your guesses are pretty close to correct. Thanks for reading! |
Ladybug
Tuesday 12th June 2007 23:56 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
Hmm, very intriguing!
Forgive me, but you’ve given me a most enjoyable lunch hour of musing and hypothesising on the nature of the one and metaphysics in general.
So, if the purposeless aspect combined in some way with the purposeful one, they would bring an imbalance to the one? Why would that be a bad thing?
How does the Thinker, having seen that its plan to use benign entities to keep the purposeless one from attaching to the purposeful one is not successful, create a new entity, giving it the necessary presence and perception, which, in itself, already is? (given that the new plan was formed linearly in consequence of the first plan's inadequacies revealing themselves.) And, as the Thinker has no power beyond that of thought, with what does it go away to create such a new aspect?
Aside from these affectatious postulations, I am absorbed with the question of how the new attractive aspect was able to be combined so symbiotically with the older, purposeless aspect when the Thinker’s solution would have it attach to the younger, purposeful aspect. But that, I believe, is probably the topic of Part Two, and, not even having read Part One, is a pre-emptive question, to say the least; particularly where the letters AU burn brightly at the top of the story and where words have limitless power to convey limitless possibilities.
After all that, thank goodness the rest of the story is not in this vein, otherwise I would find myself stuck in an existential void of contemplation for the rest of my life! |
| Wednesday 13th June 2007 07:43 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
Ah, this is the fun stuff. I'll try to answer as best I can without giving too much away, but the nature of this prologue is such that that shouldn't be too hard. It already gives everything away, after all.
Your first question is, surprisingly, the one I don't want to answer fully. You can find a big clue about that in the first 5 chapters of the story, though. The vague answer is that such a combination would do more damage to one than one wants to deal with. Of course, that statement personifies something that is, by definition, unpersonifiable, so it has to be taken with a grain of metaphysical salt.
Your second question is misdirected in two ways. First, Thinker did not have two plans, one of which failed. Thinker had a two-step plan, the first of which involved (regrettably) ending the corporeal existence of two normal aspects. Second, and consequentially, Thinker does not work in a normal timeline. It exists (or existed) outside of time.
That leads to the second part of your second question. Thinker has no power beyond thought, yes, but it is a specifically-crafted aspect of one which is much more closely linked to one than 'conventional' aspects. When it "goes away", it is not traveling or exerting any sort of effort. It is ceasing to exist, because its purpose has been fulfilled. Thinker does not create anything; one creates everything, and one created Thinker to be its mind and 'voice' for that momentless moment. One itself has no problem whatsoever with taking actions that disregard our concept of linear time. If it needs something to have happened 'before' the 'present', then that thing happens, and the 'past' adjusts itself to match. From the universal point of view, the entire story is already over.
Your question about the combination of aspects is, in fact, pre-emptive. A clue to that puzzle is tucked away into the prologue, and the issue is reinforced in the first few chapters of Part One. From there, Part Two bounds off into that realm of limitless possibilities.
Gosh this was a fun review. I hope you enjoy (are enjoying/did enjoy/will enjoy) the rest of Part One. I don't think it will leave you in the void for too long. Thanks!
|
Glodfindel
Monday 11th June 2007 13:51 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
I really think this is a gud prolouge.
I hope the rest of the storry is similary writen.
|
| Monday 11th June 2007 17:09 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| Thanks. |
daniel_r_crazy22
Sunday 18th February 2007 21:54 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
| Wow. That was a great begining. But what was the third memory? The first was Tom, then Harry, then something, then Ginny. But I can't figure it out. Can't wait to see what happens to the 3 marbles. |
| Monday 19th February 2007 21:08 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| The third scene was Harry again, but they weren't exactly memories. They were more like . . . hmm . . . moments, I suppose. Thanks! |
bratatattack5
Friday 2nd February 2007 22:06 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
| I love your work so so so much it is one of the best stories i've ever read and i'm a reaaaading freak |
| Sunday 11th February 2007 00:01 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| Thanks very much! |
jeanne
Saturday 27th January 2007 12:15 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
| wondering??? |
| Sunday 28th January 2007 23:12 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| Me, too! Who did write the book of love? |
GryffindorDragon
Wednesday 24th January 2007 09:06 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
Very intriguing to read. So we've got the birth of Voldemort (Tom Riddle) as the aspect missing its purpose, Harry as the non-omnipresent aspect, his parents as the non-magnetic marbles used to keep Tom and Harry separate, and Ginny as the new aspect attractive to Harry but repulsive to Voldie. That's a creative way to introduce your characters and set your plot.
'The convergence of the two aspects in question' -- doesn't this contradict canon's prophecy which does not envision a merging of the two but one destoying the other (or both)? Perhaps that is why this is AU.
Also by your definition of one wouldn't Voldie be omnipotent etc.? Though perhaps not as he is only an aspect of one
'Two aspects with complementary strengths and deficiencies' -- isn't this only partially the case as presented here? the first (Tom Riddle) aspect is purposeless to the upcoming (Harry) aspect with unprecedented purpose and Harry is low in perception (yet not perceptionless) to Tom's having an abundance of perception (so shouldn't he be not limited to the physical realm as Harry is due to low perception and presence?); yet Voldie does seem to be particularly strong (only above-average) in presence to attract Harry's weakness there and both are strong in power (which would repel?) For such a strong attraction, wouldn't they be strong where the other is weak and viceversa?
Does purposeless describe a Tom Riddle who rises from orphan status to a stellar performance at school, proclaiming himself Lord, and gathering a following significant enough to start a serious civil war?
|
| Wednesday 24th January 2007 16:19 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
I have just learned that adding a reply, when there is already a reply present, replaces the original reply instead of adding another. So here is a consolidated reply. I apologize if you've now received 3 response notification emails.
Firstly, I'm very glad to see a perceptive and thoughtful reviewer. It brings joy to the cockles of my heart.
'The convergence of the two aspects in question' -- doesn't this contradict canon's prophecy which does not envision a merging of the two but one destoying the other (or both)? Perhaps that is why this is AU.
What is a prophecy? Where does it come from? What does 'vanquish' really mean?
Also by your definition of one wouldn't Voldie be omnipotent etc.? Though perhaps not as he is only an aspect of one
Well-spotted. You're correct that Voldemort is merely an aspect. The scale of power/presence/purpose/perception of any aspect is fundamentally different from that of One.
'Two aspects with complementary strengths and deficiencies' -- isn't this only partially the case as presented here?
Yes. Normal aspects are more-or-less balanced, so the Harry-aspect is the most 'attractive' thing around to the Voldemort-aspect, even if some of their attributes, considered individually, might be 'repulsive'. Also, the question of scale comes into play again.
Does purposeless describe a Tom Riddle who rises from orphan status to a stellar performance at school, proclaiming himself Lord, and gathering a following significant enough to start a serious civil war?
Yes. What exactly is purpose, and who defines it? The answers are important.
If you're interested in more discussion of this sort of thing, you might like the Google group I share with two other authors. You can find the link in my profile.
Thanks very much for reading and thinking so thoroughly. |
Chatmandu
Friday 19th January 2007 07:25 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
Good to see your story here at PS. Because the screen presentation is different than at SIYE it is easy to think about your opening anew.
Without giving away too much for future chapters, I still think the centaurs would have enjoyed this opening.
Although, on second thought, some of them might have found it terrible indiscrete! But you are only a human after all (aren't you?) |
| Friday 19th January 2007 08:55 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| I'm human today. Who can say what might happen tomorrow? Glad to see you here on PS. |
Chreechree
Thursday 18th January 2007 02:00 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
But what does "one" mean?
Sorry, dear. Couldn't resist. And you're off and running. I almost feel I should re-review it all. Maybe I'll just continue to pop in and say sarcastic things from time to time. With you guys posting here now, I'm going to have to start doing some reviewing. Street cred, or something like that.
Plus, fun with emoticons!
More MoO! |
| Thursday 18th January 2007 08:12 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
I always knew you wanted a whip to use on your authors. Don't try to deny it now.
One means yes. Duh! You're welcome to review or leave snide remarks as you please. You're just lucky I didn't ask you to go back and beta the early chapters. |
Spark Soliton
Wednesday 17th January 2007 01:25 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
A most intriguing prologue - loved the introduction/foreshadowing of the three main players (I assume) and their connections between themselves! It's deliciously cryptic whilst making perfect sense - a brilliant start!
Can't say more at the moment, a bit overwhelmed! |
| Wednesday 17th January 2007 18:10 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
| Cryptic while making sense . . . that's just what I was going for. Thanks very much. |
moshpit
Tuesday 16th January 2007 22:24 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire |
Oh, where to begin?
A Gaunt Woman? The anti-manger scene? Four men in a cottage? (Talk about cottage cheese...) A later cottage duel... time to throw it out, it's become rank, and then the daughter.
I daresay that part was pretty straightforward. Fun to read, in a different kind of way.
What's more interesting is the notion of One that you've introduced. There's nothing not-One, so there certainly can't be Two, and there can't be Zero. But then, there's a sliver of Two, which makes One and pocket change, which suggests that the penultimate awareness might be getting lopsided with old age.
But a marble? Glass has some rather poor properties -- it tends to shatter rather easily, doesn't take strain well, etc. So how will your marble bear up to the tests of time?
Interesting.... |
| Wednesday 17th January 2007 18:02 | Meaning of One, Part One: Stone and Fire (Author Response) |
Perhaps you need new math. Try calculating in base one.
Who said that magnetic marbles were made of glass? One didn't. |
