Sparrow’s verbal stumbling here is one of those “exaggerated for the benefit of readers/for Rule of Funny” situations. Not something that’s as glaringly-obvious to Rosen in-universe.
This chapter has answered a bunch of reader theories, but this page in particular kicked off a flurry of new ones:
- so Cohen is keeping it secret because he feels guilty? which is also why he hasn’t gone looking for Patrick
- or it’s a carefully-planned cover story to keep other Being researchers from following him down the same path
- or maybe Cohen was so drunk that, when he sobered up with patchy memories, he actually believed he had turned Patrick into a pile of dirt?
- or could it be that he did, and “our” Patrick has been an imposter all along??
Dr. Rosen: Mr. Cohen is . . . ambitious! Sometimes he finds it is backfiring upon him.
This is a sigil that we have been reconstructing from archaeological remains for several years now. We believe it is intended to make a golem transcend its contract. To develop free will.
Sparrow: Whoa. Sounds like the Holy Grail of Being research.
Rosen: Not the analogy I would have used . . .
Sparrow: Look, I grew up in a majority-Christian culture. And on Monty Python. So sue me.
Rosen: It is . . . important, yes. Such a thing could change the existence of the golems forever. Have you noticed that Mr. Cohen’s own golem, the Dog, has not been seen for several months?
Sparrow: What? Noticed? Why would I have noticed? That sure is not suspicious or anything.
Rosen: The reason is . . .
. . . that Mr. Cohen tried to improve its Contract . . . and failed. It lost its definition, and deteriorated into a heap of inanimate soil.
Sparrow: Oh, is THAT how he’s explaining it? — I mean — THAT explains it!
My headcanon says Patrick left a parting gift, and Cohen mistook the parting gift for Patrick.
… Um, I kind of have the feeling that one of the updates indicated that beings don’t leave those sorts of parting gifts ever. But I may not have internalized that since them never eating or leaving gifts basically would make Beings perpetual motion machines that don’t even try to claim any efficiency reasoning for their behavior. Alternatively, if they eat but don’t leave gifts, then it’s a violation of conservation of mass and energy the other direction. And, yes, I decided to run with the metaphor.
Remember it’s mass AND energy, and beings lose mass during fights, not speaking about energy. Them not having any … waste products could just mean they are very effective.
Not speaking about fact that waste can be solid, liquid or gaseous. During breathing, for example, you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide, meaning breathing results in considerable mass loss.
… on the other hand, not sure if being are even breathing.