{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3115",
    "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": 3115,
    "subject": "pale face",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2002-03-31T22:13:48+00:00",
    "last": "2002-04-01T05:26:11+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0203-524@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "maa32",
        "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu"
      },
      "date": "2002-03-31T22:13:48+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) pale face",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Roy commented that the pale face under water in chapter 6 might have been \nseawrack.  Wasn't he already with Seawrack by then?  Is that a flashback? He \nshould know that she plumbs the depths in her swim - I don't know.  Seawrack \nseems to be such an odd answer to an event that disturbs the narrator a great \ndeal.  He reacts strongly to the face and thinks it might be driftwood, \nproviding a weird rationale when he already has an excuse in the form of \nSeawrack.  Why would she scare him so much?\n\nLet's not argue about misrepresentations: when I said immediately, I mean in a \nthree or four page span unseparated by any spaces or whorls in the text, a \n\"section\" that is included as one unit, in this case a section of only three \npages in the SFBC edition.  That would seem to be immediately following.  I \napologize if my semantics were obscure in any way.\n\nAny comments about the stuff I said about the \"scarcely\" business in IGJ and \nhow the narrator can't believe that a creator would make two related species \nin two different places?   Wasn't that important to the context: if you can \nposit a direct relationship between the vanished people and normal people, \nthen the narrator is in effect saying they would not have sprung up in two \ndifferent places, when one would do.  This is the sentence immediately \npreceding the one you quoted on p 349, I believe. Right?\n\nMarc Aramini"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0204-525@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Roy C. Lackey",
        "address": "rclackey at stic.net"
      },
      "date": "2002-04-01T05:26:11+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) pale face",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0203-524@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Date: Sunday, March 31, 2002 4:15 PM"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Marc wrote:\nRoy commented that the pale face under water in chapter 6 might have been\nseawrack.  Wasn't he already with Seawrack by then?  Is that a flashback? He\nshould know that she plumbs the depths in her swim - I don't know.  Seawrack\nseems to be such an odd answer to an event that disturbs the narrator a\ngreat"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "deal.  He reacts strongly to the face and thinks it might be driftwood,\nproviding a weird rationale when he already has an excuse in the form of\nSeawrack.  Why would she scare him so much?<<\n\nNo, Horn was not with Seawrack then, and it's Chapter 5, not 6. (OBW, 139)\nThe next day he and Babbie encounter the bat-fish, then meet Seawrack when\nthey get back to the boat."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Any comments about the stuff I said about the \"scarcely\" business in IGJ\nand"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "how the narrator can't believe that a creator would make two related species\nin two different places?   Wasn't that important to the context: if you can\nposit a direct relationship between the vanished people and normal people,\nthen the narrator is in effect saying they would not have sprung up in two\ndifferent places, when one would do.  This is the sentence immediately\npreceding the one you quoted on p 349, I believe. Right?<<\n\nSure, \"scarcely\" could in some contexts be intended as ironic, but I don't\nthink that was intended  in this case. Hide had, in effect, just posited a\ndirect relationship between humans and the Neighbors:\n\n    \"Aren't they people like us, only four arms and four legs?\"\n    \"I doubt very much that they looked exactly as we do, Hide. No doubt the\nOutsider made them from the dust of this whorl, just as he formed us from\nthe dust of the Short Sun Whorl [ . . . ] Besides, the dust of that whorl\ncan scarcely be identical to the dust of this one.\"\n\nSilkhorn was correcting Hide; he was making a fundamental distinction\nbetween humans and the Neighbors that was more than cosmetic. At least,\nthat's how I read it.\n\n-Roy"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}