{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3128",
    "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": 3128,
    "subject": "uncritical acceptance",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2002-04-08T14:53:36+00:00",
    "last": "2002-04-08T20:19:09+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0204-554@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "maa32",
        "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu"
      },
      "date": "2002-04-08T14:53:36+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) uncritical acceptance",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Mark,\nAs far as the distance, we want to believe it is pretty close because the \neinhumu have to travel between the two whorls.  It's odd - so many of the \nclaims I've made have been argued against by a literal interpretation of the \ntext - now the distances themselves are called into question.\n\nWhat purpose does the distorted distance of Green serve the text?  I am \nclaiming that the narrator's inability to recognize the signs that urth is \nblue (possibly) ties in with the theme of the book: after a long separation, \nboth your home and you yourself have changed beyond recognition.  You don't \nbelong to each other anymore.    That's why the narrator can decieve you about \nUrth and Blue: to him, they ARE two different places, and his perception makes \nit seem so.  For everyone else, he is Silk, even though he seems to be Horn.  \nThe final words of  his narrative are: \"I should not have come home.\"  Home \nhas changed beyond all recognition, and so has he; they don't belong together \nanymore.\n\nThe deceit in the narrators in this book should serve a discernable purpose \nwhich can be figured out and set aright.  We can know things that the narrator \ncan't.  However, we can't know to question figures unless there is need to \nreplace them with new ones. Should we really question everything that comes \nfrom the second hand account?  What about The Book of the Long Sun?  All of \nthat could be totally bogus.  But we have to believe something.  I think \nreliability should only be questioned to match an overwhelming theme or \nmessage.\n\nHonestly, I think I've accepted the least of what the text actually says of \nalmost anyone. (How many times have I heard: \"the text ACTUALLY says ...\" to \nargue against me? I can't believe I've been called a textual literalist!  Me! \nOh well.\n\nMarc Aramini"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0204-560@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Jerry Friedman",
        "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com"
      },
      "date": "2002-04-08T20:19:09+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) uncritical acceptance",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0204-554@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "--- maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:\nMark,\nAs far as the distance, we want to believe it is pretty close because\nthe \neinhumu have to travel between the two whorls.  It's odd - so many of\nthe \nclaims I've made have been argued against by a literal interpretation of\nthe \ntext - now the distances themselves are called into question.\n\nWhat purpose does the distorted distance of Green serve the text?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I think this is a very good question.\n\n..."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Should we really question everything that comes \nfrom the second hand account?  What about The Book of the Long Sun?  All\nof \nthat could be totally bogus.  But we have to believe something.  I think\n\nreliability should only be questioned to match an overwhelming theme or \nmessage.\n\nHonestly, I think I've accepted the least of what the text actually says\nof \nalmost anyone. (How many times have I heard: \"the text ACTUALLY says\n...\" to \nargue against me? I can't believe I've been called a textual literalist!\n Me! \nOh well."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "First of all, the distance to Green is probably the *most* overtly\nunreliable information in the trilogy.  Silkhorn says that Inclito\nsays that Gagliardo says that it's 30,000 leagues, and I find it\nvery hard to see how Gagliardo could know.  On the other hand,\nWolfe could easily make the most unreliable-seeming statement\nactually be true.\n\nSecond of all, it's kind of begging the question to believe things\nthat fit a theory and doubt things that conflict.\n\nJerry Friedman"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}