Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Inconsistencies, Regarding Gholas? Impossible?

Frank Herbert in HoD wrote:The hatch opened and two women dressed much like his Honored Matre entered. Their dark capes carried less decoration and both women were younger. Waff stared at them. Were they both . . . He tried not to show elation but knew he failed. No matter. The older one would think he admired the beauty of these two. By signs known only to the Masters, he saw that one of the two newcomers was a new Face Dancer. A successful exchange had been made and these Scattered Ones could not detect it! The Tleilaxu had successfully passed a hurdle! Would the Bene Gesserit be as blind to these new gholas?

inhuien wrote:Inconsistencies, Regarding Gholas? Impossible?

Frank Herbert in HoD wrote:The hatch opened and two women dressed much like his Honored Matre entered. Their dark capes carried less decoration and both women were younger. Waff stared at them. Were they both . . . He tried not to show elation but knew he failed. No matter. The older one would think he admired the beauty of these two. By signs known only to the Masters, he saw that one of the two newcomers was a new Face Dancer. A successful exchange had been made and these Scattered Ones could not detect it! The Tleilaxu had successfully passed a hurdle! Would the Bene Gesserit be as blind to these new gholas?

How is that an inconsistancy?

The people entering the room are improved Face Dancers but they are referred to as Gholas in the final sentence of the quote.

inhuien wrote:The people entering the room are improved Face Dancers but they are referred to as Gholas in the final sentence of the quote.

I think you got it wrong. He was wondering if the bene gesserit will notice the changes in the new gholas as they noticed the changes in the new face dancers.

However at that point in the story the Bene Tleilax were unaware that the Bene Gesserit could detect their new Face Dancer.

No, that has got to be a typo. I'm sure Waff was wondering if the BG could detect the new FDs. I read the quote and didn't even notice.

IIRC that is just before the BT attack on the BG Gammu Keep, yeah???

I first noticed it when I was listening to an audio book and then confirmed it in one of my PDFs and that was where I copied the quote from. All my hard copies are in a box in a cupboard but I can double check if I get the chance. You're right with your timeline, it's when the Bene Tleilax first meet the Honoured Matres on the Guild Lighter.

Tleilax Master B wrote:Possible, I suppose. The difference in ghola techniques is one of three things:

1) an evolution or advancement in BT
techniques/technologies, etc. from "reanimating" or "regenerating" cadavers >>>>>creating whole new bodies from cadaver cells.

OR

2) it was always possible to do either (that is, reanimate a cadaver or grow a new one from cadaver cells) at the time of Messiah, but having the actual body of Duncan was intended to have a greater impact on Paul. It also alleviated the need for a lot of physical training as the same reflexes, developed muscles, etc. were maintained by "reaminating" the original body.

OR

3) Frank simply changed the concept as he developed them over time.

(I will not accept possible item 4, that it was an inconsistancy)

If you accept three, then your possible four is what ends up happening - if he changes it later, but doesn't fix it earlier, then the books are not consistent with one another.

I'm pretty sure number one and two, though, are not only the most likely explanations - given that I believe the BG mention, at some point, that the new gholas are technically not gholas in the traditional sense at all, but rather clones (correct me if I'm wrong, as I've taken glances at the BH and KJA books from time to time) - but they're also not inconsistent with one another. That is, the fact that they have the capability to create a clone does not mean they have to make them. In fact, it would be odd if they couldn't make clones, given all they're capable of.

Of course, it's also possible that their entire aim, from the get go, was not just reanimating a corpse, but to bring a person back from the dead - memories and all. There were no successes until Duncan, but before that, why not turn a profit on your experiments?

I've had look at my 1986 NEL pb, ISBN 0 450 05777 1 and it's right there on page 93.

inhuien wrote:However at that point in the story the Bene Tleilax were unaware that the Bene Gesserit could detect their new Face Dancer.

I stand corrected then.

EsperandoAGodot wrote: I'm pretty sure number one and two, though, are not only the most likely explanations - given that I believe the BG mention, at some point, that the new gholas are technically not gholas in the traditional sense at all, but rather clones (correct me if I'm wrong, as I've taken glances at the BH and KJA books from time to time) - but they're also not inconsistent with one another.

See, that crap has poisoned your mind They are only clones if they are taken from living cells, such as what happens with Teg. If the cells are taken from a cadaver, they are still considered a ghola.

Why? I understand that that's the common fan explanation, but it doesn't jive with anything actually scientific.

No, that's the author's explanation.

Considered a ghola, fine, but it doesn't carry actual substance. It's still a clone, even if it's called a ghola.

Notwithstanding, if the definition of ghola was expanded to include clones after the discovery that memories could be reawakened in clone as well as in reanimated cadavers/partial cadavers regrown and reanimated, because the memories were stored in the genes...that's the explanation that makes the most sense to me, or at least preserves Frank Herbert's work as internally consistent. The technology advanced over thousands of years. Labels were reapplied.

Um ... what was all this about again?

Oh yeah.

I'm not bothered much either way; it's FH's show and his definitions.

Are there any differences between the genetic material/DNA in living cells and that in dead cells? I don't know but I assume there is something, so the processes of "cloning" a ghola and of making a normal clone are necessarily going to differ somewhere along the line, right?

Well, there's decomposition down the line, but the BT have always made a big deal about getting their material as soon as possible after the death of the being, and as much of it as possible - heck, in one instance the ghola isn't made until after a person's death, but from cells scraped off his living neck, right? I imagine they're storing the material in freeze over thousands of years, too (or there'd be nothing left to clone), so there probably isn't much of a problem, there.

Anyway, I've thought since my first time reading the books that what became salient and marketable about the Tleilaxu replicating dead people - after they proved they could do it - was their ability to restore memories. Once it became clear that this could happen without paying to ship dead bodies or large chunks of dead bodies about, or worrying about storage of said chunks or about wanting to make multiple copies - i.e. through cloning - the Tleilaxu just discontinued the old ways.

::shrug::

I'm sorry, but aren't you mixing periods there in your first paragraph?

The Duncan ghola Hayt was a repaired and reanimated corpse, not a clone. Chani no doubt would have been the same. (I wonder which would have been the more difficult repair: Duncan's ruined head or the damage done to Chani by the battle between the contraceptive and excessive spice...?)

The Teg clone, created from a cell taken from the original's neck while still alive, was actually grown by the Bene Gesserit, using Bene Tleilax technology and much, much later.

To me it only makes sense to assume development in the technology over time.

Not mixing eras, merely assuming that the BT practice of collecting their materials - either cellular material, tissue samples or full on cadavers - ASAP in order to minimize the effects of biological breakdown would not change no matter how many millenia passed. It's just good sense, and the fresher the better, whether we're reanimating tissue or cloning it.

So I think we're in total agreement, except that I think even if the BT make it a practice of referring to their clones of dead people as gholas, they're still clones.

Except for the early ones ... which were repaired and reanimated corpses.

Hate the Hayt, not the ... um ... never mind.

SandChigger wrote:Except for the early ones ... which were repaired and reanimated corpses.

EsperandoAGodot wrote:Not mixing eras, merely assuming that the BT practice of collecting their materials - either cellular material, tissue samples or full on cadavers - ASAP in order to minimize the effects of biological breakdown would not change no matter how many millenia passed. It's just good sense, and the fresher the better, whether we're reanimating tissue or cloning it.

The Tleilaxu wanted their corpses fresh, vacusealed, and refrigerated.

Like I said, we're agreeing, here.

You're completely right. I obviously scann/skipped through your post too quickly.

Sorry. Reading really is fundamental.

You think that Ix helped the Bene Tleilax by developing their Cling-Film?

SandChigger wrote:Um ... what was all this about again?

Oh yeah.

I'm not bothered much either way; it's FH's show and his definitions.

Are there any differences between the genetic material/DNA in living cells and that in dead cells? I don't know but I assume there is something, so the processes of "cloning" a ghola and of making a normal clone are necessarily going to differ somewhere along the line, right?

Theoretically.... no. There will still be intact living cells in a cadaver weeks after brain death. However, realistically, once the body ceases to give out certain signals, and the lack of certain key factors (ample oxygen, for one), DNA can begin to degrade rapidly. This process is further accelerated by cells themselves, using methods such as apoptosis to "kill" cells which have deteriorated. HOWEVER this process also becomes impaired as nearby cells die.

The further argument is that dying is damaging enough on the cell as it is, producing numerous toxic factors (endonucleases and so forth), that the ACT of dying can damage DNA.

Lastly, once a cell "dies" it's epigenetics (the organisation of the DNA at a level above the base code) deteriorates. Methylation patterns change, histones and binding molecules breakdown and are not restored, and so on.

So realistically, yeah, DNA from a creature dead for any significant period of time will have degraded, how long? I dont know? long enough for idaho?

SandChigger wrote:You're completely right. I obviously scann/skipped through your post too quickly.

Sorry. Reading really is fundamental.

Haha. Old habits - disagreeing with me - die hard.

I wouldn't say that was the cause.