LMB Quote Game

[E Pericoloso Sporgersi]

purely by erratic memory :

Book ? Passage
XXX ? Dag
yyy ? lakewalkers
Whom does XXX speak to ? Whit
aaa ? eat
bbb ? sleep

[voralfred]

purely by erratic memory :

Book ? Passage
XXX ? Dag
yyy ? lakewalkers
Whom does XXX speak to ? Whit
aaa ? eat
bbb ? sleep

Well, well, well....

All the answers concerning the main question are wrong, unfortunately.

But the two verbs are correct, and even in the right order. So you get the bonus !
I'll only update the sherlocks when the main question is found but I won't forget your 1/2 point then !

Since this is a new page, I'll repeat the question for better visibility

"You know," xxx murmured, "good yyy never pass up a chance to eat or sleep. They never know how much they'll be called on to do, before the next chance.”

xxx is the personal pronoun corresponding to the gender of the speaker XXX
yyy is a noun (plural)

Book ?
XXX ?
yyy ?
Whom does XXX speak to ?

Hint: neither XXX nor the person spoken to are yyy, technically, though XXX has been one, earlier. But whether they eat and sleep, or pass the chance, they are still, in practice, among the best yyy around.

[voralfred]

Oooops
I mistakenly edited this post rather than quoting it, to give a longer quote and more hints. But because of that the date of the page was not changed, and it did not appear as "new".
So I quoted it and repeated it wit a new date, below. And there is no point trying to remember how this post was, before I edited it. It contained more info than the previous one, but less than the next one, so, dear players, just concentrate on the last version below.

[voralfred]

OK, so I give you yyy

XXX slipped within, and closed the door gently. "You know," she murmured, "good soldiers never pass up a chance to eat or sleep. They never know how much they'll be called on to do, before the next chance."

"I'm not hungry." ZZZ too had a folded-in look, as if caught in some trap within herself.

"Want to talk about it?"

She grimaced uncertainly, and moved away from the bed to a settee in the far corner of the room. XXX sat beside her. "Tonight," she said lowly, "was the first time I (see bonus 1)"

So "she" is the personal pronoun corresponding to the gender of the speaker XXX


Book ?
XXX ?
ZZZ (the person XXX speak to) ?
If you answer by memory, you don't have to give XXX and ZZZ exactly as in the text, any unambiguous naming will do.

Hint: neither XXX nor ZZZ are soldiers, technically, though XXX has been a soldier, earlier. But whether they eat and sleep, or pass the chance, they are still, in practice, among the best soldiers around. And the reason they cannot technically be soldiers is that both XXX and ZZZ are female. However, earlier in her life, XXX lived somewhere else, where she could be, and actually was, a soldier. At that time she was single. Later she went to where she is now, and married someone who was indeed a soldier, technically.
At the time of the quote, XXX and ZZZ were in a party of four, the other two being both technically soldiers, (thus male). ZZZ will later marry one of them but the other one is not XXX's husband. But all four were equally (if differently) excellent soldiers, in practice.

Bonus #1 :
What was it that ZZZ did "tonight" for the first time ? Again any unambiguous formulation will do, if you answer by memory.
(I realize that in the quote as it stands, it is not completely obvious that the last "she" refers to ZZZ rather than to XXX that just "sat besides her" but what follows shows it quite clearly)

Bonus #2 :
Why isn't ZZZ hungry (in addition to the answer of Bonus #1, which certainly contributes to this lack of appetite, but does not fully account for it)

Bonus #3
In fact I have slightly simplified things, above. The third member of the party, the one who will marry ZZZ is indeed technically a soldier. But the fourth member, though he has been a soldier earlier, technically, is not exactly one anymore at the time of this dialogue, but only almost. What is the small nuance that makes him not-quite-a-soldier ?

(Bonus #0 has already been found by EPS : the verbs "eat" and "sleep")

[voralfred]

Once more, I edited instead of quoting, so it did not appear as a new post. So I now quote it, but I don't bother to change back the previous edited one to its previous form (all the "soldier"s were "yyy"s)


OK, so I give you yyy

XXX slipped within, and closed the door gently. "You know," she murmured, "good soldiers never pass up a chance to eat or sleep. They never know how much they'll be called on to do, before the next chance."

"I'm not hungry." ZZZ too had a folded-in look, as if caught in some trap within herself.

"Want to talk about it?"

She grimaced uncertainly, and moved away from the bed to a settee in the far corner of the room. XXX sat beside her. "Tonight," she said lowly, "was the first time I (see bonus 1)"

So "she" is the personal pronoun corresponding to the gender of the speaker XXX


Book ?
XXX ?
ZZZ (the person XXX speak to) ?
If you answer by memory, you don't have to give XXX and ZZZ exactly as in the text, any unambiguous naming will do.

Hint: neither XXX nor ZZZ are soldiers, technically, though XXX has been a soldier, earlier. But whether they eat and sleep, or pass the chance, they are still, in practice, among the best soldiers around. And the reason they cannot technically be soldiers is that both XXX and ZZZ are female. However, earlier in her life, XXX lived somewhere else, where she could be, and actually was, a soldier. At that time she was single. Later she went to where she is now, and married someone who was indeed a soldier, technically.
At the time of the quote, XXX and ZZZ were in a party of four, the other two being both technically soldiers, (thus male). ZZZ will later marry one of them but the other one is not XXX's husband. But all four were equally (if differently) excellent soldiers, in practice.

Bonus #1 :
What was it that ZZZ did "tonight" for the first time ? Again any unambiguous formulation will do, if you answer by memory.
(I realize that in the quote as it stands, it is not completely obvious that the last "she" refers to ZZZ rather than to XXX that just "sat besides her" but what follows shows it quite clearly)

Bonus #2 :
Why isn't ZZZ hungry (in addition to the answer of Bonus #1, which certainly contributes to this lack of appetite, but does not fully account for it)

Bonus #3
In fact I have slightly simplified things, above. The third member of the party, the one who will marry ZZZ is indeed technically a soldier. But the fourth member, though he has been a soldier earlier, technically, is not exactly one anymore at the time of this dialogue, but only almost. What is the small nuance that makes him not-quite-a-soldier ?

(Bonus #0 has already been found by EPS : the verbs "eat" and "sleep")

[voralfred]

Longer quote, and I kill the old bonus #1
the two other bonuses are just renumbered

XXX slipped within, and closed the door gently. "You know," she murmured, "good soldiers never pass up a chance to eat or sleep. They never know how much they'll be called on to do, before the next chance."

"I'm not hungry." ZZZ too had a folded-in look, as if caught in some trap within herself.

"Want to talk about it?"

She grimaced uncertainly, and moved away from the bed to a settee in the far corner of the room. XXX sat beside her. "Tonight," she said lowly, "was the first time I was ever in a real fight."

"You did well. You found your position, you reacted--"

"No." ZZZ made a bitter hand-chopping gesture. "I didn't."

"Oh? It looked good to me."

So "she" is the personal pronoun corresponding to the gender of the speaker XXX


Book ?
XXX ?
ZZZ (the person XXX speak to) ?
If you answer by memory, you don't have to give XXX and ZZZ exactly as in the text, any unambiguous naming will do.

Hint: neither XXX nor ZZZ are soldiers, technically, though XXX has been a soldier, earlier. But whether they eat and sleep, or pass the chance, they are still, in practice, among the best soldiers around. And the reason they cannot technically be soldiers is that both XXX and ZZZ are female. However, earlier in her life, XXX lived somewhere else, where she could be, and actually was, a soldier. At that time she was single. Later she went to where she is now, and married someone who was indeed a soldier, technically.
At the time of the quote, XXX and ZZZ were in a party of four, the other two being both technically soldiers, (thus male). ZZZ will later marry one of them but the other one is not XXX's husband. But all four were equally (if differently) excellent soldiers, in practice.


Bonus #1 :
Why isn't ZZZ hungry, in addition to having been earlier for the first time in a real fight, and the consequences of this fight, which certainly contribute to this lack of appetite, but do not fully account for it ?

Bonus #2 :
In fact I have slightly simplified things, above. The third member of the party, the one who will marry ZZZ is indeed technically a soldier. But the fourth member, though he has been a soldier earlier, technically, is not exactly one anymore at the time of this dialogue, but only almost. What is the small nuance that makes him not-quite-a-soldier ?

(Bonus #0 has already been found by EPS : the verbs "eat" and "sleep")

[voralfred]

OK, let's call the quote above cold.

It will still bring a full and each of the attached bonus 1/2 indefinitely

Moreover, if someone finds the answer before the answer to my new quote below is found, this one will return to "main" status, the player who finds it will ask the next quote, and my new one below will become a full "bonus", not valid for the next quote.

"At least this should be simpler than (....) Straight-up good guys and bad guys."
"Great," said XXX. "Which are we?"

I have shortened the quote, you don't have to elaborate on the details of the (...) I have hidden
Book ?
Who speaks first ?
XXX ?

[voralfred]

The previous quote will still bring a full and each of the attached bonus 1/2 indefinitely

"At least this should be simpler than (....) operation, no relatives, no politics, no high finance. Straight-up good guys and bad guys."
"Great," said XXX. "Which are we?"
YYY was still thinking about the answer to that one when the (...).

The quote is still somewhat shortened but I filled in part of what was hidden under (...) before, and I added part of one extra sentence.

Book ?
Who is YYY, who is also the first character to speak ?
XXX ?[/quote]


Bonus : for 1/2 point
YYY speaks of "relatives"
There are two sets of relatives who play an important role in this book. Who are they ?

[voralfred]

The previous quote will still bring a full and each of the attached bonus 1/2 indefinitely

Hmmmm
The previous version of the new quote was a bit misleading. Let me add a few more words

"At least this should be simpler than (....)" he said hopefully. "A purely zzz operation, no relatives, no politics, no high finance. Straight-up good guys and bad guys."
"Great," said XXX. "Which are we?"
YYY was still thinking about the answer to that one when the (...).

The quote is still somewhat shortened but I filled in part of what was hidden under (...) before, and I added part of one extra sentence.

Book ?
Who is YYY, who is also the first character to speak, the hopeful "he" ?
XXX ?


Bonuses and hints, for 1/2 point each

Bonus #1
Find zzz (an adjective)
Bonus #2
YYY speaks of "relatives"
There are two pairs of relatives who play an important role in this book. Who are they ?
One pair includes YYY himself

Here is a very strong extra hint :

YYY's relative is very close genetically to YYY himself.
YYY does not have any genetic relation to the other pair of relatives in the book (which consists of a father and his son)
However, in a very twisted way (and I am using twisted on purpose), YYY's relative could be considered as another son of the father belonging the other pair.
Moreover, in later books of the series, some new form of (rather vague) family connection will form between YYY's relative and the son in the other pair. Two more characters that will only appear in later books will share this family connection.

Bonus #3
Describe this vague family connection, and list all four characters involved in it, YYY's relative, the son of the other pair and the two ones that appear later.

I have erased the previous post and posted this so it appears as a new post but this third version just a small edit from the deleted second version

[KarenHunt]

Can I play? I'm new here, but I know most of the answer to the newest quote (if I look it up I can get zzz right, if I go by memory I can get the rest of it and make a good stab at zzz.

[E Pericoloso Sporgersi]

Can I play? I'm new here, but I know most of the answer to the newest quote (if I look it up I can get zzz right, if I go by memory I can get the rest of it and make a good stab at zzz.

Oh YES! You're highly Weeellcooome!

It's quite acceptable if you look it up in a book or e-book, because you have to remember which story in the first place.
Also CAS online or on the notorious CD can be OK, but then ONLY IF you admit it.

Note that you can't possibly cheat any player except yourself.

P.S. CAS = Computer Aided Search.

[KarenHunt]

Ok, I think I know how to play...

Book = Brothers in Arms (the last few sentences of the book)
XXX = Elli Quinn
YYY = Miles Vorkosigan
zzz = military (I'd have to peek to be sure that's the adjective, but it should be pretty close)

The pairs of relatives are:
1. Miles Vorkosigan and his clone-brother Mark
2. Duv Galeni and his father Ser Galen

Connecting Miles to Duv goes thusly: Mark semi-married to Kareen Koudelka, sister of Delia Koudelka, who marries Duv Galeni. (Plus the fact that Ser Galeni is foster-father to Mark, thus making Mark a step-brother to Duv and therefore Miles, who is genetically identical, is sort of a brother to him as well.

That's from memory. I could improve the last paragraph by looking things up in A Civil Campaign.

[voralfred]

So sorry, Karenhunt ! I've been very busy and forgot to check !

Yes, you have everything right !

So 2 and a half points !
And hte next question is yours !

And most important :

Welcome !!!!!!!!

You can also try your chance on my previous question (before or after posting your own question). It is cold in the sense that it won't give the right to post (you already have it) but it stills carries a full point and the two bonuses are also valid for 1/2 each. So you can reach 4 and 1/2 points in all !

Ooops !
I made a mistake, sorry.
In fact, I just realized that I forgot what my own intention was, concerning the third bonus.

You safely have the next quote, plus first and second bonus. I give you a 24 hours exclusivity on the third bonus (you and only you can answer) and after 24 hours as long as noone else answers it , you can still answer it anytime you want.

The "loose family connection" I meant involved four male characters, Mark and Duv indeed but also two more. I'm not removing your third bonus yet, since I am sure you'll find it !


BTW, what is your avatar ? The Zangre ?

[KarenHunt]

Two parts here:

1. For the previous question, and again entirely from memory:
"XXX slipped within, and closed the door gently. "You know," she murmured, "good soldiers never pass up a chance to eat or sleep. They never know how much they'll be called on to do, before the next chance."

"I'm not hungry." ZZZ too had a folded-in look, as if caught in some trap within herself.

"Want to talk about it?"

She grimaced uncertainly, and moved away from the bed to a settee in the far corner of the room. XXX sat beside her. "Tonight," she said lowly, "was the first time I (see bonus 1)"

XXX = Cordelia Vorkosigan
ZZZ = Drou
Bonus 1: fought in a real fight / used weapon for real
Bonus 2: Drou is feeling bad about having actually killed somebody
Bonus 3: Bothari is not a soldier any more because he was given a medical discharge. However, he is a Vorkosigan Armsman, which is pretty close.


2. What are the limits for this challenge?
a. Material: I assume Lois's book _Sidelines and Essays_ is out, but what about the various short stories? Or the very newest Penric tales, such as Orphans of Raspay? I think I saw at least one question from The Spirit Ring, so I'm guessing it is in...
b. Difficulty/obscurity/famousness: I'm guessing something very short might not be a good pick, though there's a moderately favorite line of mine that might work otherwise. (It's only 4 words long...)
c. Repeating older quotes: I haven't seen all 150 pages, so I can't be sure I won't repeat one of them. Is that ok, or would you prefer I look them over more closely? (I am willing, but it will add some time before I can respond.)

3. Yes, my picture is the Zangre/Alcazar!

[KarenHunt]

That was 3 parts. For symmetry I will add a guess as to the answer to the bonus.

4 men are married or semi-married to Koudelkas and are therefore brothers-in-law:
1. Mark Vorkosigan
2. Duv Galeni
3. Enrique Borgos
4. Dono Vorrutyer

[voralfred]

Many answers needed. Easiest firsr

That was 3 parts. For symmetry I will add a guess as to the answer to the bonus.

4 men are married or semi-married to Koudelkas and are therefore brothers-in-law:
1. Mark Vorkosigan
2. Duv Galeni
3. Enrique Borgos
4. Dono Vorrutyer

Yes, that was the answer I expected for the 3rd bonus.

I already granted it (by mistake) but correctly assumed you'd guess it right. So nothing to change.

[voralfred]

Two parts here:

1. For the previous question, and again entirely from memory:
"XXX slipped within, and closed the door gently. "You know," she murmured, "good soldiers never pass up a chance to eat or sleep. They never know how much they'll be called on to do, before the next chance."

"I'm not hungry." ZZZ too had a folded-in look, as if caught in some trap within herself.

"Want to talk about it?"

She grimaced uncertainly, and moved away from the bed to a settee in the far corner of the room. XXX sat beside her. "Tonight," she said lowly, "was the first time I (see bonus 1)"

XXX = Cordelia Vorkosigan
ZZZ = Drou
Bonus 1: fought in a real fight / used weapon for real
Bonus 2: Drou is feeling bad about having actually killed somebody
Bonus 3: Bothari is not a soldier any more because he was given a medical discharge. However, he is a Vorkosigan Armsman, which is pretty close.

Main question and bonuses 1 and 3 are OK so already 2 more points
But for Bonus 2 Iasked what was the other reason beyond the answer to bonus 1 (and, maybe, the main reason) for her loss of appetite. Your answer is jsut bonus 1, not what I am waiting for.
I give you 48 hours exclusivity to give me the correct answer. After that, I'll update the sherlocks. Until no other player answers (after 48 hours) you can still answer at any time, I'll re-update the sherlocks, no problem

2. What are the limits for this challenge?
a. Material: I assume Lois's book _Sidelines and Essays_ is out, but what about the various short stories? Or the very newest Penric tales, such as Orphans of Raspay? I think I saw at least one question from The Spirit Ring, so I'm guessing it is in...
b. Difficulty/obscurity/famousness: I'm guessing something very short might not be a good pick, though there's a moderately favorite line of mine that might work otherwise. (It's only 4 words long...)
c. Repeating older quotes: I haven't seen all 150 pages, so I can't be sure I won't repeat one of them. Is that ok, or would you prefer I look them over more closely? (I am willing, but it will add some time before I can respond.)

3. Yes, my picture is the Zangre/Alcazar!

c) You are certainly not supposed to read all 150 pages. However there is a pretty good "advanced search" engine. Typing a few keywords of the question (or answer) you have in mind combined with "Lois McMaster Bujold" as sub-forum should usually eliminate most duplicates. But if your keywords somehow miss the old question, no big deal. We are all here for fun, a duplicate will harm noone !

a) Indeed, no non-fiction; also excluded are the stories that only appear in the collection 'Dreamweaver Dilemma' since few people own it. Of course "Mountains of Mourning" which also appears in many other places is allowed.
So Spirit Ring, Vorkosiverse, The Sharing Knife and the "World of five Gods" except maybe the most recent.
Normally we vote at unanimity to include new books. I am pretty sure we already allowed "Flowers of Vashnoi". Anyway, it is old enough. I use my discretionary power as creator of this thread to include it.
The only ones we heae not yet explicitly allowed if I am right are "Knife Children" and "Orphans of Raspay"
I am in favour of both.

I understand you agree with "Orphans of Raspay". What about the other one ?

Since besides you and me, only E Pericoloso Sporgersi Caroline Tredez and JKCade have played recently, I'll ask them by PM and wait for a few days for their answer. So please don't use those in your first question, till I hear from them (or give up waiting for an answer)

b) In the first formulation of the question there are no restriction on obscurity. So please yourself and ask your 4 word quote.
Then check for answers. If more than a week goes by, give a hint, or a longer quote. Thsi can be done by small increments, giving more and more hints every week or so. There are cases I gave 4 versions of my question ! At long last I decided to call "cold" the one you just answered now, Drou and Cordelia, though I had expected it to be an easy one, so you see, it is difficult to know what is easy and what is hard !

By all means, ask your 4 words question, even if it is in Orphans, after all ! Have fun !

[KarenHunt]

All right, then I'll try the quote (and no it isn't from Orphans or Knife Children or the very old short stories, so it is safe):

XXX said nothing, yyy.

yyy is an adverb: what is it?
Who is XXX?
To whom is XXX not speaking?

Bonus 1: What is the reason XXX has responded in this way?
Bonus 2: Who did XXX learn to converse in this manner from?

[KarenHunt]

And 2nd try for why Drou is not hungry: She thinks she's a bad-guard because she hesitated to kill and she thinks that's why Padma Vorpatril ended up dead.

And: I'm fine with including Flowers of Vashnoi and Knife Children and The Orphans of Raspay.

(As a note, for the older short stories: There is an alternate source for them for anyone so inclined: Proto Zoa, an ebook published by Spectrum. I'm not particularly advocating for inclusion of them in this game, just thought it was worth mentioning.)

[voralfred]

Re: Bonus 2
No, your second try is still around Bonus 1. Whether because she killed or because she missed, it is stil this first real battle.
The other reason is totally different. And it is in fact the main reason.

Re: Proto Zoa
I just asked again JCKade, Caroline and EPS about the stories in that non-print edition.
I personally am in favor, but I son't want to make a decison alone


Note that there is still one piece of fiction in the (paper) collection "Dreamweaver Dilemma" that is absent from "Proto Zoa", a Sherlock Homes pastiche "The Adventure of the Lady on the Embankment", whose main character is a redhaired very energetic woman called.... Cordelia Naismith, though the action is in victorian London. So that one should stay out, right ?

I am eager to see your 4 words question

[voralfred]

Ooooops ! Sorry ! I missed your question, in the middle of all that discussion. I'm quoting it here to improve visibility !

All right, then I'll try the quote (and no it isn't from Orphans or Knife Children or the very old short stories, so it is safe):

XXX said nothing, yyy.

yyy is an adverb: what is it?
Who is XXX?
To whom is XXX not speaking?

Bonus 1: What is the reason XXX has responded in this way?
Bonus 2: Who did XXX learn to converse in this manner from?

[JKCade]

I'm in favor of adding the stories, they have been out long enough I think.

[voralfred]

OK, so let's see what Caroline will answer. If by the time KarenHunt's quote is found, Caroline has not objected, then "Qui ne dit mot consent" (Who says nothing is supposed to agree) the next quote can use any fiction, except the Sherlock pastiche. Too bad it is only in "Dreamweaver Dilemma", this other Cordelia Naismith is real fun !

[KarenHunt]

WWW = Prince
XXX = Hamlet
YYY = Nikki Vorsoisson
aaa-bbb = fast-penta
ZZZ = Miles Vorkosigan
CCC = Alexei
DDD = Vormoncrief

Bonus 1: Ekaterin Vorsoisson is also present
Bonus 2: The play is Shakespeare's "Hamlet"
Bonus 3: The informant was a ghost, thus un-druggable
Bonus 4: Fast-Penta would be useless on Miles Vorkosigan primarily because he has a wild, unhelpful reaction to the drug. It also would not be permitted to be administered to him, even if he responded normally to it, because the details surrounding Tien Vorsoisson's death are highly classified.
Bonus 5: The other play is King Richard III, which Miles quoted in entirety while under his first dose of fast-penta. (Brothers in Arms)

"So in the play, WWW XXX comes home for his father's funeral, to find that his mother has married his uncle."
YYY's eyes widened. "She married her brother?"
"No, no! It's not that racy a play. His other uncle, his da's brother."
"Oh. That's all right, then."
"You'd think so, but XXX gets a tip-off that his old man was murdered by the uncle. Unfortunately, he can't tell if his informant is telling truth or lies. So he spends the next five acts blundering around getting nearly the whole cast killed while he dithers."
"That was stupid," said YYY scornfully, uncoiling altogether. "Why didn't he just use aaa-bbb?"
"Hadn't been invented yet, alas. Or it would have been a much shorter play."
"Oh." YYY frowned thoughtfully at ZZZ. "Can you use aaa-bbb? CCC DDD . . . said you couldn't. And that it was very convenient." YYY precisely mimicked DDD's sneer in these last two words.
"On myself, you mean? Ah, no. (.......)

Here the first " . . ." are actually in the text, YYY apparently hesitates before quoting CCC DDD, but the final "(.......)" is mine, to mean that ZZZ keeps talking, giving the answer to Bonus #4, see below. (Incidentally, DDD is right in this respect, ZZZ does confirm aaa-bbb is useless on him).

Book ?
Who is ZZZ , the character that speaks first, third , fifth, seventh and last?
Who is YYY (all even lines) ?
What is aaa-bbb (a noun in two words with a hyphen) ?

Bonus #1 : who else is present ?

Bonus #2 : the “five acts” and the “cast” refer to a play, XXX being a character of this play. For a 1/2 point, which play, and who is XXX (well, both questions have the same answer - incidentially WWW is just an honorific, you don't have to mention it.) ?

Hint : even if aaa-bbb had been invented at the time of the play, it would have been difficult to administer it to XXX's informant.
Bonus #3 : Why ? (you have to specify at least aaa-bbb here, if you have not answered the main question)

DDD is a name, CCC some kind of honorific. If answering by memory, you don't have to specify CCC, but for a half
Bonus #4 : Who is DDD ? (in fact, if you answer by memory you can even answer if you don't remember the name, if you describe the character's role well enough "the guy who...") And why would aaa-bbb also be useless on ZZZ ? The reason is not at all the same as in Bonus #3.

Hint : the reason of Bonus #4 has some connection with a different play by the same playwright as the one of Bonus #2
Bonus #5 : what other play, and in what earlier book of the same series is this connection described ?


A longer quote does not reset the 5-days "no-ping-pong" rule, JKCade can answer even the main question now.
Any player can try to answer any bonus(es) without trying to answer the main question (though except for bonus #2, it seems difficult to answer the other ones without knowing the context, but not completely impossible, in fact, one can guess what aaa-bbb is, and answer also bonuses 3 and 5, even without solving the main question)
I give you a chance of winning a full with a sixth bonus, because it is extremely difficult.
In still another book in the same series, earlier even than the one of bonus #5, a few lines of the same play as that of bonus #5 are quoted.
What book ?
Who quotes this play ?[/quote]

[KarenHunt]

Shards of Honor
XXX = Cordelia Naismith
yyy = Vorkosigan's

Bonus 1: Ensign Dubauer is also present
Bonus 2: the vampire balloons reappear in Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen. Not sure of role: biologically the tiny version are like mosquitoes, the larger ones are more on the floating jellyfish theory. The tiny ones are irritating and people use creams to discourage them. The larger ones are fun to blow up, rather as Cordelia and Aral did in Shards of Honor. Teen kids did that and got in trouble when skatagators showed up. The ones that swarmed Jole's birthday party and became a rain of flaming snot ... I'm not sure where they are in the size range, but not especially large. That marked his decision to stay on Sergyar and take up a new career as a marine biologist instead of returning to Barrayar to become Head of Ops.
Bonus 3: In the drabbles at the end of Cryoburn, Cordelia remembers him and mentally apologizes to him (for rescuing him)
Bonus 4: In Diplomatic Immunity, the mad ba gives its name as Dubauer when it's in quaddie space.
Kudos 1: Dubauer shows up in Dreamweaver's Dilemma; he's the engineer trapped in time.
Kudos 2: Cordelia Naismith shows up in the Sherlock Holmes tale, The Lady on the Embankment
Irony: A lack of Sherlocks for spotting a Sherlock Holmes pastiche does seem somewhat ironic...

Here's my take on odd naming: I always thought Yuan Oser turning out to be a good guy's name in The Lady on the Embankment was ... unusual.

OK, not just a longer one, but also a hint and several bonuses.

"What appalling creatures."
XXX almost laughed at yyy revolted look. "As a carnivore yourself, you can't really condemn them."
"Condemn, no; avoid, yes."
"I'll go along with that."
They continued upstream past a frothing, opaque tan waterfall. ....

("..." just means the paragraph does not end there. There are no "..." in the actual text.)

Hint: these "appalling creatures" will reappear in a much later book in the same series, where they will play a role more important than just a side remark in passing, describing the surroundings, as in this quote.

Book ?
XXX ?
yyy is a "genitive" pronoun (his, her, its, their...) but whose is the revolted look ?
What is "appalling" ?

Bonus #1: in addition to XXX and the character of the revolted look, there is a third, silent character present. For a half Sherlock, who is that ?

Bonus #2: in what book of the same series do the creatures come back ? what role do they play ? (a further half Sherlock)

Bonus #3: in what book does XXX briefly reminisce, in a very emotional moment, about the silent character of Bonus 1 ? (again a further half Sherlock)

Bonus #4: in what book does a character assume the last name of the silent character of Bonus 1, but it later becomes evident that it is not this character real name ? (again a further half Sherlock)

Speaking of names, it appears that LMB has a fondness for some names. There is a collection of early short fiction called "Dreamweaver's Dilemma", which however has been explicitly excluded from this game by mutual agreement (though Ghost, I remember, had disagreed at that time, but was outnumbered), in which names appeared which were reused.
So answering these next two questions will not bring any fraction of sherlock, but only my personal kudos:

- in which story of this collection does a character share the same last name as the silent one of Bonus 1 (here it is the character's real last name, not like the one of Bonus 4)
- in which story of this collection does a character share both the first and the last name of XXX, and even some physical and psychological traits, but in a totally different context ?

edit
- and does anybody see the intrinsic irony in this "non-bonus", in particular with respect to the question just above this one ?