DirkF wrote:There is something that is much easier to use as an opening round, and much harder to ignore.
"Check your own language:
If a tree is nearly an oak (nearoak), then what is an oak?
If a fish is nearly a tuna (neartuna), then what is a tuna?
If an animal is called spider-monkey (two words, not one), then what is a spider and what is a monkey?
Comparative naming works only if you have something to compare to, another place before Safehold. Those names where given by those who still remembered what was before but gave an oath to never tell those that were made to forget"
The opening round doesn't need to be impressive - but it needs to be something that can't easily be ignored or explained away.
Add a few pictures of earth that were "misteriously found" somewhere and you'll have something that strikes at the heart of the writ without even breaking the proscriptions.
Because once it is clear that there was something before creation that was just hidden to be forgotten, then you can ask a lot of other questions...
Doubt it, because 'nearoak', 'neartuna' etc can be explained Platonically. 'The nearoak just isn't as good as the perfect heavenly oak that the Archangels knew, because it will die.'
Remember that even the Sisters of St Khody argued about whether the Adams and Eves were physically somewhere else or only their souls were somewhere else. And they knew that the Testimonies, at least, had been altered.
It's possible that Narhman's opening round is simply the Wylsynn's hologram of Schueler. That 'Lost Testament of Schueler' would start up questions about the inerrancy of the Writ; what the Schueler in the 'mystic' recording (and there are similar recordings in the Temple) says doesn't really agree with the Book of Schueler. It would also raise questions - that might chime with the Sisterhood's claim that they know the Testimonies were edited - about why Schueler felt he had to leave a secret set of instructions for the Wylsynns.