[UA] [UA]: Odomancy

[Chris Milne]

On Friday, May 05, 2000 11:13 PM, brighoff at lexecon.com 
[SMTP:brighoff at lexecon.com] wrote:
>
>
> Y'know, Tracy was very nice and polite when first posting to the list.  How
> quickly the innocents are corrupted.

Well, if we will associate with 'Tentacle' Tynes...         :-)

> As far as the True Ruler being a man,
> well, as there are no Official Rules on the subject (at least until 
Statosphere
> comes out), there's nothing that says the King has to be a man.

Maybe I've just been reading too much Tim Powers recently. But I get the 
feeling that there's a definite bias towards men in the job.

> History is full of strong female rulers.

Granted.

> Most of them, like Elizabeth I,
> had to deny their femininity to some respects (Elizabeth could not marry,
> and had to remain officially sexless so as to not lose her power to a royal
> husband).  This could be a slightly different path, with denial of romantic
> relationships (much like the Pornomancers) as a taboo.  This is not 
necessarily a
> denial of sex.

Or it could be a sign that they were making themselves more masculine in order 
to channel the Archetype more effectively

> Cleopatra, for example, used sex quite effectively, but met her downfall when
> she dared to love (if the Bard can be trusted).  For the Arthurian minded, 
maybe
> Morgan le Fay was a rival of Arthur for the Rightful Ruler of England.  No 
need
> to go pomo on this, sources abound which are mo or even pre-mo.

Of course. My conception of this was that historically the TK was almost 
invariably associated with men. I was just wondering _how_ that initial 
position might have been warped in more recent eras (by modernism, 
postmodernism or anything else).


> Ben Brighoff

Chris
(who, briefly, thought he'd typed porno instead or pomo)

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua