Talk:Davidson, A. R.

From ErrantryWiki

-- *groan* I know I should know this, but where is this guy mentioned in SYWTBAW again? Can't remember... ~Sharky

If my memory serves me correctly, Nita and Kit use Davidson's Minor Enthalpy to search for the dark Book while in the alternate Manhattan. While the amount DD knows about Tiggs would lead you to suspect that he's quite an important character, I don't remember any appearances besides that brief mention. (This leads to the happy thought that he might play an important part in a future book in the YW universe, though that's probably just wishful thinking. Indeed, if we take the Julian Dates in recent books to correspond, year-wise, to the actual time the book takes place, as I do—Peter Murray has essayed several different interpretations—Tiggs is not even alive at the current point in the series.) —Nathan 10:19, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

Considering his work with time, weither he's dead or not may be irrelevent. --Emiwai 15:42, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)

That's quite true—I was mainly using the time argument to point out that Nita and Kit couldn't, say, go and consult him on a routine visit. On a somewhat different tack, I should have also noted that it is surprising that there is no mention of Davidson's Minor Enthalpy anywhere on his page, considering that it is the only reason we know anything about A. R. Davidson, canonically. Additionally, I must wonder if we're ever going to find out more about the McKillip of McKillip's Stricture. (This is the spell that appears in Nita's Manual on the page whose number Kit gives her for Davidson's Minor Enthalpy.) Simply because there has been no mention of him or her in the Concordance, I have to wonder whether it is meant as a reference to (the fantasy and science fiction author) Patricia McKillip. Alternatively, it could be that McKillip just isn't a very interesting wizard—the spell itself doesn't appear to be anything very important, given that it's "for keeping grass short". —Nathan 20:21, 4 Jun 2006 (EDT)

Not very important on Earth anyway. On a planet with very tall or agressive grass, this spell could be a lifesaver. -- Emiwai 05:10, 7 Jun 2006 (EDT)

You're correct yet again: Upon reflection, I severely underrated McKillip's Stricture above, for while it is apparently not of the wide applicability (and perhaps sophistication) of Davidson's Minor Enthalpy, it is most likely a subtle spell, given the presumed difficulty of persuading grass to only grow to a specified height (less than its natural maximum height). Moreover, if it does work on varieties of grass other than standard lawn turf, then your suggestions probably make it a vital spell for wizards in certain areas (and most likely even more complex). However, for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on (and certainly can't substantiate), it strikes me that the stricture may only work on Earth grass—possibly even only on lawn turf—but this may simply be due to my thinking too much "in the box".

All of this has considerably piqued my curiosity about McKillip's Stricture—I wonder whether I should suggest it (along with Davidson's Minor Enthalpy) on the Refrigerator Door. (While DD will probably notice all this discussion, it's probably convenient for her to have all the suggestions for topics for consideration in one place—it would also keep other users from suggesting them unnecessarily.) —Nathan 14:32, 10 Jun 2006 (EDT)

For what it's worth, bamboo seems to be a grass. Maybe McKillip's Stricture would allow a wizard to limit the growth of bamboo to a stated height, allowing it to be harvested in equal-length rods. Then, having been cut down below the stated height, it would grow again until it was ready for harvesting once more. Ancient China seems to have been an astahfrith society, making this viable there as a farming practice

Of course, you could argue that this clashes with I will change no object or creature unless its growth and life, or that of the system of which it is part, are threatened, but the Stricture already seems to contravene that.

And I'm wondering if DD knows Patricia McKillip, and she's very finicky about having a properly-mown lawn, and it's all an injoke. But that's getting silly. --Peter Murray 17:13, 10 Jun 2006 (EDT)

Considering what a lawnmower does and what usually happens to tall grass, I don't think that it contravenes it at all. -- Emiwai 22:35, 12 Jun 2006 (EDT)

I've never taken an Oath to use a lawnmower, but wizards take an Oath for their wizardry. The only thing threatening the growth of grass with this unknown McKillip around is the Stricture! --Peter Murray 15:07, 13 Jun 2006 (EDT) (This indentation is getting out of hand.)

Agreed. -- Emiwai 22:17, 13 Jun 2006 (EDT)

---

(Giving up on the indentation, as it just looks silly for such a long post.)

There are a couple of issues here: First is whether the Wizard's Oath applies only to the practice of wizardry. While a narrow reading of it might imply that it does, I think that it would be a poor wizard indeed (and thus not likely a wizard at all, considering that the Powers would be unwilling to offer such a potential wizard the Oath) who would simply abide by the letter of the Oath, particularly as wizards apply the lessons of the Oath to daily life and not all Errantry requires employing the Art (e.g., conserving electricity and "most of wizardry is just talking"—cf. the anecdote from HW concerning the Altairan wizard related here). The Oath should thus be considered as representative of a wizardly Weltanschauung, not simply rules concerning the use of the Art. (For that matter, any possible offensive use of the Stricture would seem to fall automatically outside of the purview of the "no change" clause of the Oath that Peter Murray quotes.)

However, this must be brought into accord with the second point, which is that wizards (speaking here of human Earth wizards, for simplicity) cannot always be strictly following the "no change" clause, for obvious reasons—in particular, those in suburban areas would seem to have to do yard work. (In fact, I seem to remember vignettes of Tom and/or Carl trimming hedges and possibly also cutting grass at various points of the series.) Of course, such wizards could seemingly maintain compliance with their local ordinances with some sort of illusion and let their true lawn go wild, but that seems an unsatisfactory and wasteful solution, particularly in light of the final—and crucial—point.

But before we reach that, we ought to consider a possible employment of the Stricture in a case where the grass's life (or at least health) was truly in danger (and how I first thought of lawnmowers in relation to it): The case in which aggressive mowing (by someone other than the wizard) is damaging the grass and convincing the grass to remain short is a solution preventing continued damage. (Note, however, that I don't know enough about grass to be able to determine whether this is a truly realistic situation—i.e., whether the grass would be able to survive if it simply grew low enough to evade the mower blades.)

The final crucial fact, however, appears to be that the humans themselves are also part of the local ecosystem containing the grass, and, in fact, are vital—through mowing—to the continuance of that ecosystem's support for the grass. (Otherwise, succession will rapidly take place and the grass will eventually be displaced by a deciduous forest in most suburban climates.) Viewing the situation in this light, wizards would be able to mow (or, equivalently, keep the grass short using McKillip’s Stricture and keep out tree seedlings and other undesirables by some other, possibly wizardly, means) with no ethical qualms, as they are doing their part to prevent harm to the system, or at least maintain its status quo. (This final analysis probably leaves much to be desired from both an ecological and ethical standpoint, considering that I am far from expert in either area, and, indeed, have certain ill-defined concerns about its validity, but it should give at least some sense of the difficulties associated with this issue and a possible resolution. However, much of this may stem from the problems that would undoubtedly arise when attempting to apply this sort of logic to situations where the issue of the inclusion of the wizard in the ecosystem is far less clear-cut [no pun intended]. Indeed, even this case is not nearly as simple as my presentation would imply.) —Nathan 21:06, 24 Jun 2006 (EDT)

---

Just a comment about the grass: The unusual thing about grass when it evolved about 20 million years ago was the way it grow. Most plants grow from the top of the plant, and have to recover when a browsing animal eats the plant.

Grasses grow from the roots (though there must be some growth from the top, or how does corn etc manage to appear?), so don't have to recover when they're grazed. They also have silicon in the stalks, which damages animals' teeth. That's supposed to be why a lot of the big herbivores, and the carnivores that preyed on them, such as brontotheres and sabre-tooth tigers, died out about 20 million years ago.

So it doesn't really hurt grass to use McKillip's Stricture on it, thus I suppose it doesn't really violate the Oath. Peter Murray 23:00, 24 Jun 2006 (EDT)

---

Thanks for the information about grass—it's quite enlightening. However, I'm not convinced that it necessarily implies that the Stricture could be used with complete disregard to the "no change" clause of the Oath: For even if grass is accustomed to being cut off at the top, preventing its growth would still change it—moreover, such a change would not, prima facie, be favourable. In particular, reducing the grass's height (either by cutting it or using the Stricture) reduces its sunlight-gathering area. Also, I have noticed, empirically, that most grasses have to grow to a significant height (quite a bit higher than a normal lawn) in order to seed. (However, as there are certain plants whose seeds will only germinate after a fire, it seems possible that there might be some grasses for whom being cut—e.g., by herbivores—is an important part of their life cycle, but I don't know of any, and the parallel is far from exact. Moreover, the Stricture would seemingly not fulfill such a need, given that I can't imagine that it "keeps grass short" by lopping its tops off!)

Thus, it doesn't matter whether the grass has evolved to be as unaffected as possible by its top being cut (though I can't imagine that there is no trauma involved)—simply being kept short, even by the Stricture, appears to be damaging enough to a grass and would have to be somehow justified—perhaps in a manner similar to that suggested above—for a wizard to cause that change ethically under the Oath. (Note, however, that my above suggestion should be taken with even further caveats, given the problems Nita encounters in treating her mother's cancer in TWD, since that would seem, at first blush, to be an equally straightforward ecological scenario.) —Nathan 01:03, 8 Jul 2006 (EDT)

---

Somewhat randomly, this discussion reminds me of the apartment in Stranger in a Strange Land that had a lawn for a rug. Mike was rather freaked out about walking on living things, until he grokked in fullness that the grass was meant to be walked on. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|Garrett Fitzgerald]] 23:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

---

Also, the link "FAMOUS WIZARDS (EARTH / SOL III)" at the bottom of the page needs updated. --Emiwai 15:44, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)