GRGR(3) talking dog 44.20

[calbert at pop.tiac.net]

RJ:

(brilliantly laying the issue to rest)
> In GR definitive semantic resolution is something like the reader's
> "quarry" as well, and, as with Pointsman's dog, it is an endlessly
> elusive proposition with lots of comical chicanery along the way.

throws a curve:

> ps I find that, more even than Blicero or Major Marvy, it is Katje
> Borgesius who personifies craven and wilful amorality in this novel.

I wonder whether "a"moral is the appropriate term here. Can 
"a"morality be conditioned, or is it a "birth defect"? If 
conditioned, is residual morality as much of a problem as Slothrop's
"beyond the zero" de-conditioning? I see Blicero as less amoral than 
classically decadent (compare to Crutchfield's MO, the apparent 
conviction that "taking" pards improves their lot) - he clearly is 
not blind to the consequences of his depradations either as officer 
of empire or sexual avatar.

It is certainly fair to suggest that Katje exhibits a distressing 
moral sense (if any at all), but I recall there being some trigger 
event described, some betrayal which sent her over the edge. 
I find it difficult to describe her actions as "craven". Perhaps she 
is less amoral than emotionally neutered.

love,
cfa