Subject: (urth) uncritical acceptance

From: maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:53:36 +0000

Mark,
As far as the distance, we want to believe it is pretty close because the 
einhumu have to travel between the two whorls.  It's odd - so many of the 
claims I've made have been argued against by a literal interpretation of the 
text - now the distances themselves are called into question.

What purpose does the distorted distance of Green serve the text?  I am 
claiming that the narrator's inability to recognize the signs that urth is 
blue (possibly) ties in with the theme of the book: after a long separation, 
both your home and you yourself have changed beyond recognition.  You don't 
belong to each other anymore.    That's why the narrator can decieve you about 
Urth and Blue: to him, they ARE two different places, and his perception makes 
it seem so.  For everyone else, he is Silk, even though he seems to be Horn.  
The final words of  his narrative are: "I should not have come home."  Home 
has changed beyond all recognition, and so has he; they don't belong together 
anymore.

The deceit in the narrators in this book should serve a discernable purpose 
which can be figured out and set aright.  We can know things that the narrator 
can't.  However, we can't know to question figures unless there is need to 
replace them with new ones. Should we really question everything that comes 
from the second hand account?  What about The Book of the Long Sun?  All of 
that could be totally bogus.  But we have to believe something.  I think 
reliability should only be questioned to match an overwhelming theme or 
message.

Honestly, I think I've accepted the least of what the text actually says of 
almost anyone. (How many times have I heard: "the text ACTUALLY says ..." to 
argue against me? I can't believe I've been called a textual literalist!  Me! 
Oh well.

Marc Aramini

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:19:09 +0000

--- maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> What purpose does the distorted distance of Green serve the text?

I think this is a very good question.

...

> Should we really question everything that comes 

First of all, the distance to Green is probably the *most* overtly
unreliable information in the trilogy.  Silkhorn says that Inclito
says that Gagliardo says that it's 30,000 leagues, and I find it
very hard to see how Gagliardo could know.  On the other hand,
Wolfe could easily make the most unreliable-seeming statement
actually be true.

Second of all, it's kind of begging the question to believe things
that fit a theory and doubt things that conflict.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--