Re: Zorak Zoran

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:15:30 +0800


Julian Lord
>Mikko Rintasaari :
>
>> > ZZ is not a descendant of Kigor Lytor, so he can't be a troll.
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>
>Well, NO actually.
>
>ZZ "is not a descendant of KL" and "can't be a troll" is just a
>GodLearnerism, and should be dumped. When ZZ was born, the
>difference between Uz and non-Uz was essentially non-existent.

        I don't think it is just a God Learnerism. I think the trolls in the early years did distinguish between Uz and non-Uz, even if their definition of Uz was a bit broader.

>In actual 17th Century Uz communities, ZZ is certainly thought
>of as a troll. Bizarre genealogy and consequences therefore unnecessary
>in a Short Form write-up. If you want to do the full Long Form version
>though, ZZ would be a very looooooong and somewhat frustrating job.

        I'm definately not sure - he has always been represented as looking different (third eye and so on), and characterised as somewhat demonic. And he has never been one of the seven sacred ancestors or anything like that.

At 8:29 PM +0200 10/10/00, Julian Lord wrote:
> > When ZZ was born there were no uz.
>
>Evil God Learnerism Strikes Again !!
>
>Sorry, but that is not true. ZZ's is a relatively modern cult.

        The modern ZZ cult was created in the first age from the combination of a few cults, including Zolan Zubar (darkness demon god of the Kitori - definately not an Uz - the Kitori at this stage where human only), Zorak Zoran, etc - possibly Amanstan was a separate cult, Hell Roar a separate cult, we don't know. Kwaratch Kwang is assumed to be the main protagonist, and he had Arkat helping him (who we know was pretty good at this theological engineering stuff). However, the component parts of the cult predate the Dawn. Some of these component parts definately were not Uz.

        Personally, I think ZZ not being Uz is one of the reasons why he is/was so commonly worshipped by non-Uz, such as the cult of Black Arkat, the Zorakarkat cult, the human Kitori.

At 6:26 PM +0200 11/10/00, Julian Lord wrote:
>Because they don't really care one way or the other, and
>therefore assume that ZZ iz Uz. Falsely or not is one for the GLs.

        I think the idea that we should be looking at what we know of actual Uz behaviour and not historical/theological arguments well beyond most cult members is a reasonable one. I think the assumption that common trolls all therefore assume ZZ is Uz is not - we know that they have gods that they do not think of as trollish (the various Gorakiki forms and Aranea most obviously), and we know that they refer to ZZ as Lord Demon. I think the most reasonable assumption, given that they refer to him as a demon, is that they think of him as a demon.

At 4:27 PM -0400 9/10/00, Weihe, David wrote:
>Let's see. If you go up to your friendly neighborhood Death Lord,
>and tell him that his god is NOT a troll, he will say, "Yes,
>because he is a pre-Uz demon."

	He says 'he is a great demon'. Whats the problem with that?
	Other trolls worship beings that trolls understand to not be 
trolls - Subere, all the Gorakiki cults, etc. What is the problem with Zorak Zoran being among this group. I can't see how the arguments that have been presented for ZZ being necessarily referred to as an uz don't lead to the absurdity of Gorakiki-locust being thought of as an uz.

At 4:08 PM +0100 10/10/00, Thom Baguley wrote:
>Also, I'd bet
>that ZZ fathered uz children, so some uz probably trace ancestry to him as
>well as KL. I bet they wouln't regard themselves as half-breeds.

        And the fathers of all great trolls are non-troll darkness spirits. They don't regard themselves as half-breeds either. That doesn't mean trolls don't distinguish between darkness spirits and trolls.

At 3:02 PM +0000 11/10/00, Wulf Corbett wrote:
>Personally, if I cared what he looked like (which I don't, much), I'd
>just look for some old illustrations. Was ZZ shown in print anywhere?
>Surely in the old RQ trollpack? If so, whatever that looked like will
>do me. I'd bet he looked distinctly Troll-ish, but like I say, it's
>not vital to me...

        If you go back too far (pre-Trollpak), you don't even know consistently what trolls look like. And I don't think any single illustration would be definitive (if it was by Dave Dobyski especially). Instead, lets go for the Prosopaedia - which says that he is depicted as troll or human in form, but is depicted with 3 -eyes. I think the three eyes is intended to distinguish him from 'real' trolls.

	Cheers
		David

Powered by hypermail