{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2563",
    "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": 2563,
    "subject": "UotNS",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2001-02-08T21:28:47+00:00",
    "last": "2001-02-08T21:28:47+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0030-0275@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "akt",
        "address": "akt at attglobal.net"
      },
      "date": "2001-02-08T21:28:47+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) UotNS",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "From D'l D-O:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Perhaps this is part of what makes UotNS unsatisfactory\nby comparison? It's hardly a _bad_ book; indeed, by the\nstandards of almost any other writer, it would be a\nmasterpiece. But the things and relations in URTH don't\nreflect each other the way they do in NS proper. (This is\nalso true of LS, and appears to be true of SS, but LS &\nSS have their own, quite different, structures ...)\n\n-- all of which is not to say that URTH doesn't have its\nown (and quite different) structural integrity: it does.\nBut because of its status as a pendant to NS, the reader\nexpects and, more, wants to find those reflections, and\nfinds only their echoes."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I have never, ever understood this PoV, though I have heard it voiced\nagain and again. There seems (to me) to be a political, or perhaps\nreligious, anger against this book, a  feeling that its existence\nbetrays the True Canon (maybe the way the Jews feel about the New\nTestament tacked onto the Hebrew Bible). Myself, I adore UotNS, marveled\nat first reading,  and would feel the series sadly diminished without\nit. The visuals are incomparable--the giant starship where Sev leaps\nfrom deck to deck protected by his necklace, the transformations of Zak,\nthe stateroom of the hierodules, the burst of the New Sun, the undines\nleaping in the waves, also the great, bloody undine crawling into the\nthrone room--what an image!--and the phantasmagoria of images from his\npast judging Sev's life. And much more. Moreover, there seems to me a\nvalid attempt to elucidate the philosophy behind the series. Is this too\nblatant for some? Not for me; I welcomed it. I liked the biblical\nparallels, I didn't find them corny at all. I liked the time-travel\nhocus-pocus with Burgundofara, though I didn't begin to try to make\nsense of it. In fact, I think it is my favorite book of the five--I\nrealize that's an opinion, not a lucid argument. But I am constantly\ndismayed by the denigration of this book. Or perhaps I should say again\nthat I don't quite understand it, and the emotion that seems to lurk\nbehind it.\n\n-alga"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}