In just under a month, my fantasy novella Perilous will be available to read. You can pre-order it here.
What's the novella about?
It follows the history of the Sangreal (the Holy Grail) from the Sangreal's point of view. It is a spirit trapped inside a jewel forged by the Archangel Lucifer and fallen to Earth during the war in Heaven. Perilous is primarily an Arthurian story, following the half-Archangels Merlin and Nimue whose lives become tied to the Sangreal and the fate of the kingdom.
Posted by
Mary-Jean
comments (0)
Posted by
Mary-Jean
comments (0)
In
a previous blog entry, I quoted from The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and today, I’ll look at something else in
the book, since it’s a really fascinating book with lots in it (though you don’t
have to have read the previous post to understand this):
From The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John
Barrow and Frank Tipler (1988):
“Unified
theories also show us why we observe the World to be governed by a variety of ‘fundamental’
forces of apparently differing strengths: inevitably we must inhabit a
low-temperature world…and at these low energies the underlying symmetry of the
World is hidden.”
Before getting into the real idea of this, this picture gives the basic idea of what we'll be looking at:
The
key point to remember is that higher energies mean smaller scales: so if you go
inside atoms and probe fundamental particles, that will be at higher energies and
temperatures than, say, the energy of a baseball flying through the air,
despite the fact that it’s a lot bigger. Early in the history of the universe,
energies and temperatures were much higher than they are now, and that is when
these forces would be truly unified. This might be easier to grasp if you think
of nuclear fusion and fission: there’s a lot of energy stored up inside atoms, as
we can see with nuclear bombs that use only a small amount of matter but
release huge amounts of energy.
In
many physics theories, these are only the first hints of what is known as grand unification, which is not, as it
sounds, some political scheme for world domination, but the unification of the
physical forces at high enough energies. The ideas is that at low energies, we
see these forces as separate, just like with, say, electricity and magnetism,
but as you go up to higher energies, which represent smaller scales and smaller
particles, these forces unite. Although we haven’t observed it yet, this means
that the strong force will also join forces with the electroweak force to form
a single “grand unified force” (“electrostrongweak”, perhaps?) at energies of
about 10 to the power of 16 GeV (a GeV is a giga-electron volt. It’s big, let’s
just say. And 10 to the power of 16 is 10 followed by 16 zeros. Also big).
There are many different theories that can realize this unification, and they
are all called Grand Unified Theories, or
GUTs. This can be seen in terms of
group theory: for example, the electroweak force is called a SU(2) x U(1) and the strong force is SU(3), so
combining them gives SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) = SU(5).*1 That’s
not so important, but what is important is that this SU(5) force acts as its
own force, not simply a patchwork of the other forces, but something different
entirely. This is the hidden “underlying
symmetry” mentioned in the quote: although, fundamentally, all forces are the
same, they split up when the universe cooled to lower energies and so we usually
observe them as distinct, whereas they are actually united, forming a larger
symmetry that we can now only observe when we collide particles at very high
energies to recreate conditions similar to the early universe.
As
can be seen in the picture above, the three forces converge at high energies.*2 This
means that their strengths become equal, and we can see them as being the same
force. The strong force, then, decreases in strength as you go to smaller and
smaller distances, whereas the electromagnetic and weak forces increase in strength
until they meet up.*3 This is very important because if the strength
of the strong force didn’t decrease, it would never meet up with the electroweak
force and would never be united.
Gravity,
however, is a slightly different story. The electromagnetic, strong, and weak
forces all act on very small scales (of course, we observe electromagnetism on
larger scales too, but it’s also very strong on the scales of elementary
particles), but gravity is usually negligible for elementary particles, because
it is so weak (weaker than the weak force, even). But at very high energies, at
what is called the Planck scale (10 to the power of 19 GeV), it is thought that
gravity will also be united with the other three, forming not a GUT this time,
but a TOE (a Theory of Everything). Of course, even if we are able to work out a
theory that united the four known forces, that doesn’t mean that we’ll have a
TOE: there may still be many things left out, such as other forces, other
dimensions, souls, etc. But uniting gravity with quantum mechanics (the other 3
forces that act on a small scale) would certainly be a big step forward.
So
that’s the basic physics idea behind GUTs and TOEs. But if we take it a step
further, it could be possible that this is only a small segment of a larger
process that occurs in the universe. Take one of our “separate” forces, say, the
strong force. What if that force is really the unification of other forces that
have already merged? It would then be a more basic force than they are, but would
split when the universe cooled to lower temperatures. You could go the other
way around too. After gravity, when you have your TOE force (sounds awful, I
know. I’ll call it the Everything-1 force, or E-1), there could be other forces
that could merge with it too. So as you go to higher and higher energies, ones
that are hardly imaginable now but that we may reach in the future, you could
get an Everything-2 force (E-2), then an E-3 force, and so on.
This
could also tie into the notion of higher dimensions, whether physical
dimensions, such as adding a new “direction,” or a spiritual dimension that
encompasses a higher level of existence, like a more enlightened state where
things are less bounded by restrictions imposed by matter. What appears to be
many forces here can in fact be united under a universal law when you are at
higher energies or some form of higher state. As usual, the analogy of the
glass prism works perfectly here: you have a very basic force that acts on
everything, say E-100, and that splits into multiple forces as you go to lower
levels of being, just like white light is split into colours as it passes
through a prism. All the more particular forces, like all the colours, are all just
aspects of E-100, but won’t be united unless they pass back through a
converging prism that reunites them.
This
ties right into Plato’s Forms: the more complex Forms derive from simpler ones
that are more fundamental. These continue splitting as you go to lower levels
of existence until you reach the world here, where there are particular objects
that partake in many of the individual Forms. To reach enlightenment, one must
ascend to higher levels of existence and eventually become one with the higher
Forms. This is common in Neoplatonism, where the goal is to ascend to the One,
which is the highest level of being. This can also be seen in Buddhism: the
more enlightened one becomes, the simpler one’s existence is. Matter is much
more complicated than the Forms, and the lower Forms are much more complicated
than the higher ones of, say, Number, Symmetry, Beauty, and Motion (for
instance, a moving baseball is much more complicated than Motion in general,
because Motion is not a particular motion, but the source that all instances of
motion derive from). In understanding and becoming in tune with the higher
Forms, you can return to the source of all those levels of existence below you
and be able to understand them in a unified way rather than as fragmented from
one another.
So
from a philosophical point of view, the ideas from GUTs and TOEs belong to a
more universal pattern of getting to a more fundamental source, whether that is
a more basic physical law or a higher spiritual existence, and thus, it will
hopefully lead to a more comprehensive view of our universe. But the question
is, where does it stop?
*2 The picture is slightly deceptive because it doesn't show electromagnetism and the weak force uniting before converging with the strong one.
*3 The reason that the electromagnetic force’s strength is greater at smaller distances is because of virtual particles. Electrons can emit virtual photons that can then turn into positron-electron pairs (a positron is an anti-electron). The positrons, being of a positive charge, are attracted to the original electron and screen its charge by cancelling some of it off with their positive charge. At larger distances, there are more of these pairs, and so the force is screened more, but as you get closer and closer to the electron, there is less screening, and so the strength of the force increases on smaller scales, which is at high energies.
Tweet
*3 The reason that the electromagnetic force’s strength is greater at smaller distances is because of virtual particles. Electrons can emit virtual photons that can then turn into positron-electron pairs (a positron is an anti-electron). The positrons, being of a positive charge, are attracted to the original electron and screen its charge by cancelling some of it off with their positive charge. At larger distances, there are more of these pairs, and so the force is screened more, but as you get closer and closer to the electron, there is less screening, and so the strength of the force increases on smaller scales, which is at high energies.
Posted by
Mary-Jean
comments (0)
I just finished reading War in Heaven by Charles Williams, which is now one of my favourite books, so I thought I'd give a brief book review to share what I thought of it and hopefully convince more people to read it. Note that I'm not giving away any major spoilers, and although there are some things I mention that happen later in the book, it won't ruin the story to know them ahead of time.
***
This was an AMAZING book! I'm surprised it isn't more well known. It had an exciting plot, the characters were great, it was very insightful, suspenseful, and it was beautifully written. It blended mystery with adventure and the occult, and the setting of England in the 1930s gave a quaint, homely feel to it that nicely complemented the otherworldliness of the Holy Grail and the strange occult rituals Gregory and co. were engaged in. The whole story, in fact, was a blend of everyday reality with a supernatural world that lies both hidden within it and beyond it. Most of the characters worked at a publishing house, and besides Gregory and the Archdeacon, none of the main characters had any connection to the supernatural before the events of the story began. I didn't find the book at all creepy or over the top in any manner, but there were definitely uncanny parts to it.
Although the book itself wasn't creepy, the villains-- Gregory Persimmons, Manasseh, and the unnamed "Greek"--were all extraordinarily creepy people. I liked how Gregory became one of the main characters though, because although he really has no morals, he is still a fascinating character. It was just so fun being in his head as a reader and seeing him plot out his evil plans while others remained unaware. The fact that he isn't as powerful and vindictive as Manasseh and the Greek makes him a more realistic and multi-dimensional character and so is probably the most interesting character in the book. Other than him, I really liked Kenneth Mornington, and one of my favourite parts with him was when he confronted Gregory and was going to resign from his job at the publishing house. That part went: "Kenneth had an impulse to say that he resigned, and another to knock Gregory down and trample on him." The Archdeacon was also a great character, at the same time sublime and at peace with the universe but also getting flustered at hilarious trivialities. Also the way he would leap out and snatch the Grail and somehow get away with it was priceless. The inspectors were great fun too, in all their bafflement at solving the murder case and how Gregory, Lionel, etc. fit into it.
Besides the characters, the story was very unique and the writing and descriptions often made me pause and think. It wasn't difficult to understand, but there were some amazing comparisons and descriptions that made me wonder "How did he think of that??" For example, describing the Archdeacon "glinting like a small, frosty pool" when he is acting cold and reserved. Also the quest for the Grail was not at all typical: the chalice they're all after was suspected to be the Grail but it isn't until later on in the story that anyone finds out that it definitely is. It was mentioned in the manuscript of an unpublished book and everyone really went off from that. And throughout the book, it is not the Grail itself that is important, but the connection with the divine that it represents. Hence why both Gregory and the Archdeacon are loathe to bring the police into the case, and why, at one point, Gregory, Manasseh, and the Greek work to destroy it remotely through some supernatural power.
There were also many philosophical ideas about religion, predestination, and the connection one can obtain with higher powers. Gregory was a particularly philosophical character in his own evil little way, well, I shouldn't say "little" because he really takes the whole universe into consideration and tries to connect with some dark demonic power (his "master") which he sees as someone/thing that will allow him to become a greater being. Lionel also had a very peculiar mentality. We saw more of him at the beginning of the book but then he fades to a more minor character later on. He has a deep-set fear of some unnamed horror that might emerge from the world around him and snatch his life or the lives of his family. It's as if he feels he needs to be prepared for a god to swoop down and blot them out of existence. He can never shake of the unearthly dread which for him seems to creep at the edge of ordinary life. When there is a murdered man found in his office and when his wife seems to be possessed, these fears are only confirmed. I feel like there could be a sequel with him as a main character because despite his odd ways of thinking, he's a very captivating character.Prester John (who is the caretaker of the Grail and somehow also the Grail) is also an interesting character. He is more remote and has a strange effect upon everyone who meets him. He seems to amplify the qualities in people that might have been hidden but that nevertheless define them. For those who are immoral (Gregory, his servant Ludding, etc), he seems to make them besot with hatred or revulsion, though it was very subtle so that didn't seem "magical" at all. As for those who are good, he amplifies those good qualities, or certain peculiarities like the talkativeness of Mr. Batesby. John is like a mirror that reflects one's spiritual condition and makes it clear to others, though the person in question might be unaware of how they appear themselves. Though I wouldn't call John a moral character himself. He's not human (at least, not any more, because I assume he's based on the actual Prester John) and so is beyond human morality of good and evil, which ties in to the predestination theme, in that he does what must be done in accordance with the order of the universe, and will not step up to save a life, for example. He is not a god who will fix their problems, but he will help them see more clearly so that they can choose the right path to follow. How he is related to the universe at large and if he is aware of the future (if it is even set) is not clear though.
All in all, it was a great book, but although it was my cup of tea, I can understand that it might not be everybody's, so I wouldn't generally recommend it to everyone. However, I do think a lot of people would really enjoy this and that it is a delightful masterpiece.
Tweet
Posted by
Mary-Jean
comments (0)
It’s
common to think of “dimensions” of space and the “dimension” of time, but what
if there was more than one dimension of time? I’m not going to present any real
theory about this, but just some idea that I’ve been thinking about that offer
some interesting possibilities.
First
of all, what is a dimension, really? It’s easy to see for space: we live in a
three-dimensional world, the three dimensions corresponding to length, width,
and height. Everything, from cats to particles, can be located in space with
three coordinates (x, y, z). If there was a fourth spatial dimension, we would
be unable to perceive it because we are three dimensional beings and so don’t
have the capacity to interact with it directly. However, higher dimensions can
still have effects upon us (see my previous article on multiple worlds
here).
If
we were 4-dimensional beings, it would be perfectly normal for us to use 4
coordinates to locate objects in space, so we would have something like a cat
at point (x, y, z, *) where * is the coordinate in the fourth
dimension. Of course, this can be extended to many more dimensions, as is
common in string theory and other physics theories.
So
how does time fit into this? We can’t think of it in exactly the same sense as spatial
dimensions, because, first of all, there is just one dimension, so it would be
a line rather than a 3D grid. Second, we can’t move back and forth along it or
even forward along it at any speed we want, but everything moves along it at
the same rate. In space, we can stop at a certain point, go forward, backward,
change our speed, but time is restricted to forward motion at a constant
“speed” along the inevitable conveyor belt of time.
From
Einstein, we have learned that it is possible to alter our perceptions of time
and the rate at which we pass through time (as seen in his special and general
theories of relativity), but it still isn’t possible to truly reverse time. We
can’t just stop and head backwards in time like we can stop on a path and
reverse our direction. It is possible to greatly alter the rate at which we
pass through time by travelling at high speeds or going close to a massive
object (massive as in black hole massive), and perhaps even to go to a
different time entirely via a wormhole that cuts through the fabric of
space-time, but in our general lives, these things don’t happen often, if at
all (I’m still waiting for a TARDIS to land in my backyard though…), so we
won’t consider that here.
So
if time is indeed a dimension, it isn’t at all like the ones of space. Indeed,
in physics, time is treated differently than space for other reasons as well.
For example, we can characterize motion through space and time with a “metric”
that describes an interval of space-time. For example, the metric in flat non-expanding
space-time is
where c is the speed of light, ds is the interval in both time and space, dt is the change in time, and dr is the change in space coordinates (x, y, and z). It’s basically just saying that moving in time and space can be written in a combined manner to give the total “interval” that you moved. We can see that space and time are treated differently just by a quick look at the equation: the interval of time is multiplied by c, and it doesn’t have a negative sign like the spatial interval does.
where c is the speed of light, ds is the interval in both time and space, dt is the change in time, and dr is the change in space coordinates (x, y, and z). It’s basically just saying that moving in time and space can be written in a combined manner to give the total “interval” that you moved. We can see that space and time are treated differently just by a quick look at the equation: the interval of time is multiplied by c, and it doesn’t have a negative sign like the spatial interval does.
However,
we know that space-time is not stationary: our universe is expanding. This
doesn’t change the time part of the metric, but it does change the spatial part
because every point is moving further away from every other point. It’s like
blowing up a balloon with gridlines on it: as the balloon expands, the distance
between the gridlines enlarges. In this scenario, the metric is
All this is to say that it isn’t obvious
what would happen if there are multiple dimensions of time. If there are more
dimensions of space, we just add coordinates to Dr that will also expand with the
expansion of space. We can also add additional coordinates of time to the
metric, but what would the scale factor be? What is the preferred direction to
move in time if there are two time dimensions? It was easy when we had a
straight time-line: everything just moves forward along it. But if you have two
dimensions, you no longer have a time-line, but a time-grid (see picture). Let’s say we can only move forward along each
dimension of time (into the future). So for time 2, t2, time must
move up (that is the forward direction) and for time 1, t1, time
must move to the right (also the forward direction). But if the times are combined, where can you move? There are
plenty of options depending on how fast you go, for example, see the lines on
the grid. In each case, you’re moving forward in t1 and t2,
but for some, you’re going faster in t1, and for others,
you’re going faster in t2. Only the blue arrow has you going forward
in time at the same speed in each time.
But
what is this “speed” at which we go through time? After all, speed is defined
by as the rate at which we cover a certain distance (with “rate” corresponding
to a passage through time). So what can we compare the speed of time to? Unless
there is a more fundamental time to compare our time to, it doesn’t make sense
to talk about a “speed” of time. You can talk about the relative speed of time
of one person compared to another (as in special relativity, when one person
can appear to age more slowly than another because they’re travelling close to
the speed of light), but it doesn’t make sense to talk about the speed of time
itself.
However,
when we have two times, we can specify the relative speed of the two times with
each other: we can have t1 passing more quickly than t2,
or vice versa. The orange line in the picture has t2 passing more
quickly, since for every step through t1, you go forward 2 steps in
t2. The green one is the opposite: for every step in t2,
you go forward 2 steps in t1. But you could also have more fanciful
patterns on the grid like the pink line: here, although you’re going forward in
both times, the speeds at which you move forward in each time keeps changing.
What
this would be like for someone experiencing two times is hard to say. Assuming
that you can only move forward in both of the directions and at a certain speed
(since that is what our one-dimensional time is like now. If not, everything is
more complicated!), you probably wouldn’t even notice it unless there were some
things that only moved in one dimension of time rather than two. In that case,
how would an object just moving along t2 (call it O2) appear to
someone two travels through both t1 and t2 (call them
P12)? I think there are a few options. The first is that O2 appears stationary for
P12: the object would appear to be “locked” in one direction. Since it doesn’t
travel along t1, it could be just stationary at all points in t1.
This is hard to imagine: what would an object travelling along one time
appear to someone travelling in two times? Would it appear “blurred” in part,
or somehow less substantial? I really don’t know. This requires a great stretch
of the imagination!
Another
option is that O2 appears at a single moment in P12’s time. It’s like you have
a straight line to represent O2 on the grid and a slanted line to represent
P12, like this:
Here’s
another scenario that’s easier to understand. Let’s say you’re confined to one
dimension of time, but that there are really two dimensions in the world around
you. This would mean that things that can travel in both time dimensions could
appear to come in and out of existence. Making another analogy with space, it’s
as if you were on a 2D sheet and a sphere was passing through you. You wouldn’t
see it as a sphere, but as a series of disks that start out small, become
larger as the centre of the sphere passes through you, and become small again
as the sphere finishes passing through your sheet.
And
if there were things that travelled in t2 while you only travelled
in t1, they would either appear to you to be stationary, since you
can’t perceive their motion in the other dimension, or you just wouldn’t see
them at all (like in the first example).
You
could also have three dimensions of time, and then you’d get a 3D grid of time
like you do in space. There will be many more possible directions of travel
through this grid, leading to much stranger things! But whether any of these are
really possible isn’t that clear. After all, could someone even exist in
multiple dimensions of time? Our bodies function in one dimension of time,
relying on cause and effect for our bodily systems to function, and this wouldn’t
be straightforward in more time dimensions. Our thoughts are also sequential:
we think one thing after another (“discursive thinking”). Yet introducing more dimensions
of time might actually correspond to what philosophers and mystics have strived
toward throughout the centuries, namely, “noetic thinking,” where we can grasp
multiple concepts at once without having them being fragmented them due to the
restricted nature of our thoughts. This, however, might only be possible if we
can travel anywhere on the “grid” of time: forward and backward, which
encompasses a more complete view of existence. Though whether or not this is
possible is another matter entirely.
So,
having more than one dimension of time is certainly not as clear as adding more
dimensions of space. But there’s nothing that says it’s impossible. It’s
possible that we already live in two dimensions of time, or three, or ten, and
that things that we’re unable to explain with our current science could be due
to the fact that there are multiple times.
Tweet
Posted by
Mary-Jean
comments (1)
I can’t
believe I only read this book recently: I probably should have found it and
loved it long ago. In any case, Peter Beagle’s fantasy classic The Last Unicorn is a wonderful story
about a unicorn in search for her missing people and two humans who accompany
her on her journey. The first part of the story focuses on the unicorn’s point
of view, which is important to help us understand at least a glimmer of how the
unicorn thinks and understands the world, but the majority of the story follows
the magician Schmendrick and the woman Molly. The story was written
beautifully, and many of the descriptions held me in awe, making me read them
again and again. It’s not a predictable story either, although it has the feel
of a heroic adventure story, Prince Lir being the hero, though he comes into
the story quite late and in many ways is not a typical hero. I’m not going to
summarize the book, but I’ll point out some of my favourite parts and some
interesting themes the story evokes.
First off
is the magic within the story. Besides magical creatures such as the unicorn,
magic is possessed only by magicians who study it or who have a particular gift
for connecting to its powers. The unicorn is the embodiment of pure magic and
eternity, not aging and not affected by the turmoil in the world around her (for
the most part). Her magic is more subtle than that of humans, who have to study
it rather than having it outflow from them naturally. However, it is also
possible for humans to have a direct connection to magic in vision-like bouts
of power. Schmendrick is usually unable to perform real magic (he performs
tricks and illusions mostly), yet there a true power comes through him at times,
and instead of letting him direct the magic himself, uses him as a vehicle. The
magic works through him rather than being directed by him. This is interesting
because it shows that the most powerful magic lies in magical beings who use it
naturally as well as a higher power that can work magic through others as is
deemed fit. Yet as to the identity of this power, we can only speculate.
A further
consideration of magic lies in the manipulation of time. The talking skull in
King Haggard’s castle speaks about this when he says:
“When I was
alive, I believed — as you do — that time was at least as real and solid as
myself, and probably more so. I said 'one o'clock' as though I could see it,
and 'Monday' as though I could find it on the map; and I let myself be hurried
along from minute to minute, day to day, year to year, as though I were
actually moving from one place to another. Like everyone else, I lived in a
house bricked up with seconds and minutes, weekends and New Year's Days, and I
never went outside until I died, because there was no other door. Now I know
that I could have walked through the walls.”
This is what the greatest magicians can accomplish, to be
able to sidestep time itself. As Schmendrick says, the essence of being a
wizard is “seeing and listening,” and so it is necessary to see and listen to
the world in order to go beyond the bounds of time. Normally everyone, no
matter how great their powers are, is bound by the forward motion of time. It
is a train we are all confined to, taking us from the past to the future. Yet
what if we could step off the train and go backward to another time along the
tracks? Or forward? This is not the natural spontaneous magic of the unicorn,
but another dimension of magic. Though with the unicorn’s healing powers, it
may very well be that she is also tapping into this magic of time: restoring
someone’s body to a time before they were injured. She is not entering a
different time herself, but the person she is healing might be imperceptibly
travelling back in time. Likewise, her agelessness could also tie in to this
power of time, for although her memories accumulate from the past to the
present, her body exists in some eternal state unbounded by the moving train of
time. She “walks through the walls” and is not bound by this “house bricked up
with seconds and minutes,” for she can enter and exit it at will.
Yet despite the unicorn’s powers, King Haggard’s Red Bull
still proves to be a formidable enemy that has trapped many of her kin. We
never find out what the Red Bull really is, though I take it to be a
manifestation of fear and hate in contrast to the unicorn’s pure magic. It’s
not that she has the magic of love and the Red Bull that of hate, because, as
we see in the story, apart from the time that the unicorn becomes human, she is
not a force of love, but is beyond human emotions and concerns. This is
expressed clearly when she says, “How can I be cruel? That is for mortals…so is
kindness.” This might seem callous from a human’s point of view, but for an
eternal being, it is inevitable that they see things from a more remote
viewpoint since they are essentially outside of the endless cycles of life and
death. This is a very different take on unicorns than we normally see in
fiction: it isn’t until the unicorn becomes (part) human that these sorts of
sentiments arise in her, and this seems more realistic.
But back to the Red Bull: since the unicorn is not
omnipotent, he still has an effect on her by evoking a deep fear in her,
forcing her under his sway, as he did with the other unicorns before her. It is
a more primal force on par with the unicorn’s own powers, not the “parlour
trick” magic of humans such as Schmendrick, but the manifestation of a deep
power, the only kind that can threaten a unicorn. We also see this with the
harpy, which is another ancient creature with great powers that the unicorn
fears. It is fear that these evil creatures evoke in the unicorn, yet when she
can overcome this fear, she is able to realize that she is more powerful than
they are. And this, surprisingly, was only possible after she had turned into a
human: even after returning to unicorn form, she retains some human aspects,
one of which is the love for someone else and a passion to pursue her mission
to save her kin. This allows her to overcome her fear, something she was unable
to do while in a purely “unicorn frame of mind.”
And lastly, to give you a sense of the amazing descriptions
in the story, some of the particularly good ones are:
“The sky was low and almost black, save for one spot of
yellowing silver where the moon paced behind thick clouds.”
“The thin night wind lifted and spilled her mane, and the
moon shone on the snowflake crafting of her small head.”
“the murderous smell of it seemed to turn her bones to sand
and her blood to rain.”
“Fear came back to her eyes like a great stone falling into
a pool: all was clouded and swirling, and quick shadows were rushing
everywhere.”
“The horns, the seashell shining of the horns! The horns
came riding in like the rainbow masts of silver ships.”
And one of the many humorous quotes:
“Prince Lir bowed to her; a quick, crooked bow, as though
someone had hit him in the stomach.”
There are lots of others, but you’ll have to read the book
to see!
Although I’ve only touched on a few themes, the book is much
richer than this and I’d highly suggest reading it.
Tweet
