Subject: Re: (urth) PEACE: Weer through thick and thin

From: William Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 04:18:55 +0000

At 4:19 PM -0700 10/24/02, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote:
>===
>TEXTUAL VARIATION ALERT
>In the hc it is "twenty . . . pounds underweight" (3).
>In the Berkley pb it is "twenty . . . pounds overweight" (3).
>===

The Orb paperback edition also reads "underweight." If this version 
is correct, then Weer is always skinny, which would seem to throw at 
least a small monkey wrench into your 
time-splice-at-the-doctors-office theory. That is, if we have a 
"thin, prosperous" Weer rather than a "fat, prosperous" Weer, then 
there is less evidence that we have jumped from the Weer of one time 
to the Weer of another. At the very least, we have lost a convenient 
marker.
-- 

William Ansley

--