{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2528",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 2528,
    "subject": "Castleview Redux",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2001-01-04T10:55:23+00:00",
    "last": "2001-01-04T19:05:45+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0030-0225@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes",
        "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com"
      },
      "date": "2001-01-04T10:55:23+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Castleview Redux",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Okay... Having now reread CASTLEVIEW under somewhat better\ncircumstances (i.e., at home, not lacking massive quantities\nof sleep, etc.), I'm still puzzled by the puzzlement. In \nsome ways, this seems to be one of the most straightforward \nthings GW has written -- an account of some mortals caught \nup in the affairs of Faerie, one of whom turns out to be\nthe brother of the Faerie Queen. Most of the \"Huh? What's\ngoing on here\" sequences strike me as (in retrospect) \nglamours -- mortals facing faeries see a combination of what\nthey expect and what the faeries want them to see. The only \nmajor puzzles I think left by the book's ending are whether \ncertain characters are mortal or fay.\n\nSo what's the problem here?"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0030-0226@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Peter Westlake",
        "address": "peter at harlequin.co.uk"
      },
      "date": "2001-01-04T19:05:45+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) Castleview Redux",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0030-0225@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "At 10:55 2001-01-04 -0800, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOkay... Having now reread CASTLEVIEW under somewhat better\ncircumstances (i.e., at home, not lacking massive quantities\nof sleep, etc.), I'm still puzzled by the puzzlement. "
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "..."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "So what's the problem here?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Does that mean you can answer all, many, or even some of the\nlong list of questions I posted a few weeks ago?\n\nThe ever-optimistic,\n\nSpectacled Bear."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}