t_thrice_widdershins: (Default)
t_thrice_widdershins ([personal profile] t_thrice_widdershins) wrote2012-01-06 06:15 pm

Utility

I think I'm going to use this space as a sort of cork-board for writing. I'll pin up little snippets, throw darts at them, &c. All of the text here is mine, and (though I can't imagine why anyone else would) I'll thank you not to purloin, filch, lift, snatch, pilfer, &c.

===

Court II: The Auk-Hunters

“…We all have a Great Auk to catch!”
Said Lord Pwent through his walrus-mustache
As he saddled his cat,
Donned his cloak and his hat
All of rose and with breeches to match.

“He leads out we hunters each day,”
quipped Sir Bald in his cavalier way.
“We’ve never caught an Auk,
Pwent’s leadership’s a crock
But his wine is as good as his pay.”

“The Great Auk is a right tricky bird:
he evades all our traps—it’s absurd!”
Says Sir Toad with a grin,
“We’re mighty clever men
this new snare’ll do the trick, I’m assured!”

“We’ve been hunting this Auk for an age,”
confided Bumpker, the chronicler-page.
“Outside we’d be gone
but in here we quest on
this labyrinth’s our sustainer and cage.”

Said Sir Gwal, “Why must we speak in verse?”
Said Sir Grue, “Hush! It could be much worse!
Now mount your giant snail!
Grab your Auk-hunting pail!
Ignore our chronic’ler, that scribbler-perverse!”

The oft drink of a mint-tasting schnapps
They prefer over barley and hops
Any normal-sized taste
Lays a big man to waste
So they sip it from thimbles like fops.

And they ride out each morning perplexed
And return in the evenings quite vexed
Then, without Auk or grouse,
They eat roast man and mouse,
Take great care or it might be you next!...”

The primary concern of most Court II specialists is the question of the actually cannibalism of the Auk-Hunters. Certainly, they do espouse the general attitudes and principles of early chivalric codes, but they have also been in Untoward Llyr for at least a millennia, and may therefore have become deranged. Attempts to verify or refute the claims of cannibalism have universally failed due to the fact that participant-observers do not return from their research-trips. It is this author’s position, however, that the attempts by some scholars to construct an argumentum ad silencio from such data are, at best, irresponsible.