# Silk-23 apology *The Urth list — 4 messages, 4 voices, 18 Jul 2002* > 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. --- ### Michael Andre-Driussi *18 Jul 2002, 15:31* I apologize for bringing up the whole "Silk-23" thing. I never intended it to take the place of the "submerged Silk, hidden in plain sight" reading, which I readily admit is much stronger and the best candidate. I'm not sure what I was thinking, but I do know that I did not want to debate anything about LS/SS. I have not re-read LS/SS since the last discussion; I am not now re-reading; I have no plans to re-read in the near future. I have not taken notes, I have no essays written, nor plans for essays. So I am not in a position, nor an inclination, to discuss. So it was foolish of me to post such messages. And I apologize for this foolishness. If it could be "stricken from the record" I would gladly do it. A few weeks ago I located and read "Thou Spark of Blood," and I thought of posting a message about that, but why? Just to brag about reading it? No (at least I like to think that wouldn't be the case) -- just to share notes about it. But who cares? It is hard to get, few are inclined to make an attempt, and it probably isn't worth the effort to get it and read it. LS/SS is where the action is, and I count myself out of that material. =mantis= Sirius Fiction booklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley 30 copies of "Snake's-hands" until OP! http://www.siriusfiction.com/ --- ### James Jordan *18 Jul 2002, 17:09 · follows Michael Andre-Driussi* > At 08:31 AM 7/18/2002 -0700, mantis wrote: > I apologize for bringing up the whole "Silk-23" thing. Hey! Don't apologize! This is all for fun anyway, and you're thoughts are always interesting. Nutria --- ### Mark Millman *18 Jul 2002, 17:56 · follows James Jordan* mantis, I, for one, would be interested in hearing your thoughts on "Thou Spark of Blood", if you still feel that you have something to say about it. I can't promise you that it will generate much discussion, but your insights are al- ways worthwhile. Or could you make the same observations about "When I was Ming the Merciless" (which is so much easier to find)? I can't easily think of a story that treats the aspects of "Spark" that aren't similar to "Ming", (maybe "The Other Dead Man" or "Silhouette", though the other point is more difficult) but perhaps a good analogue will occur to you. If only we weren't so ethical!--the story is short enough to e-mail without much trouble. Would anyone be inter- ested in helping to organize a lending-library system for the more obscure stuff? I'll volunteer the texts and the postage. Nacre > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote: > [snip] > > A few weeks ago I located and read "Thou Spark > of Blood," and I thought of posting a message > about that, but why? Just to brag about read- > ing it? No (at least I like to think that > wouldn't be the case) -- just to share notes > about it. But who cares? It is hard to get, > few are inclined to make an attempt, and it > probably isn't worth the effort to get it and > read it. LS/SS is where the action is, and I > count myself out of that material. > > =mantis= > > > Sirius Fiction > booklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley > 30 copies of "Snake's-hands" until OP! > http://www.siriusfiction.com/ --- ### Adam Stephanides *19 Jul 2002, 14:50 · follows Mark Millman* As Nutria said, no need to apologize; it was an interesting discussion. And you're not the only one to hold the Silk-reboot model; in fact, it may be the majority view among those who've posted on the topic. And I haven't reread LS/SS either. (No need to apologize for not wanting to continue the discussion, either.) And thanks for posting on "Thou Spark of Blood." Sounds like something worth looking for after all, though not worth paying an exorbitant amount for. --Adam ---