Subject: (urth) Typhon's scene - (sorry - last time)

From: maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:56:24 +0000

Roy has a very fixed idea of the Typhon scene in mind - and I admit I am 
guilty (all the time) of paraphrasing.  Even in quotes.  We should agree to 
disagree about this scene - I can't read it without thinking that the 
Conciliator and the New Sun are equated, no matter how many times I look at 
it, and that Typhon of course recognizes that Severian is both the 
Conciliator, and that he is the New Sun, who will kneel before him if Severian 
does so.  I just can't read it any other way.  What's the point of having him 
tempt the "savior" figure here if he doesn't understand the importance of 
deterring him?  Isn't there some kind of allegorical resonance here?  Doesn't 
Satan know what's up?

No big deal.

Marc Aramini

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:19:37 +0000

On 06/01/2003 13:56:24 maa32 wrote:

>guilty (all the time) of paraphrasing.

Which is unfortunate, the more so for those who might read posts without
the text at hand.

>  Even in quotes.

But that is unforgivable.  To do so is duplicitous.

Matthew

--

---

From: Andrew Bollen <abollen at internode.on.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:21:56 +0000

> But that is unforgivable.  To do so is duplicitous.

That's a bit harsh. Marc's paraphrase includes some paraphrased reported
speech, so he puts it in quotes. It's not like he's faking up a reference or
something. Maybe it'd be helpful if he flagged it as a paraphrase, but it's
not that big a deal, I think.

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:20:00 +0000

>not that big a deal, I think.

Marc ascribed to Typhon words that are not in the text.

The use of quotation marks is conventionally to indicate a direct
citation.

Unless you propose that we abandon the conventions what was presented to
us was an interpretation apparently textually supported but for which in
reality no such text exists.

Matthew

--

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:31:06 +0000

I don't think anyone's disputing that Marc's quotes were incorrect. To use 
the word "duplicitous" indicates that he intended to mislead, whereas it 
seems clear that he believed what he put into his post. This is what seems 
harsh.

>reality no such text exists.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:19:57 +0000

> >Roy has a very fixed idea of the Typhon scene in mind - and 
> > I admit I am guilty (all the time) of paraphrasing.

[...]

> But that is unforgivable.  To do so is duplicitous.

Oh, hey, get a grip here. This is parlously close to 
namecalling ... this is a pretty flame-free sort of a list
and I, for one, would like for it to stay so.

I might add: it would only be duplicitous if the paraphraser 
_intended_ to deceive the reader into believing that the
paraphrase was a quote. I don't get the impression Marc
intended that at all.

It's a pity we're limited to ASCII here ... in the old days
of mimeo'd fanzines and such, we had a way cool bit of 
invented-for-the-purpose punctuation called the "quasi-quote," 
formed by typing the double-inverted-comma character, 
backspacing, and typing a hyphen in the same place: meaning, 
"I'm quoting this from memory, so the exact wording may be 
wrong." Almost as useful as the interabang (? typed over !)
for rhetorical questions and the often-discussed but never
quite created "irony mark."

--