{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5494",
    "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": 5494,
    "subject": "Hero as Werwolf",
    "messages": 4,
    "voices": 3,
    "first": "2009-09-25T15:44:12+00:00",
    "last": "2009-09-25T18:39:51+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<37bfbeb60909250844pcb52bf7k584c505e926aed8c@mail.gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Jonathan Goodwin",
        "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2009-09-25T15:44:12+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Hero as Werwolf",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I'm teaching Island of Dr. Death, etc. in an introduction to short\nfiction class this semester. We covered \"Hero as Werwolf\" yesterday,\nand I had some questions about it that came up during class.\n\nI've looked as best I could through the archives, though I'm sure I\nmust have missed several things. What I saw didn't address these\nquestions, though again I'm sure it's been discussed.  Anyway, here's\nthe first one:\n\nWhen the recording starts, here is what Paul hears:\n\n\"I am sorry to detain you, but there is reason to think that you have\nundergone a recent deviation from the _optional_ development pattern.\nIn a few minutes, it may be useful for us to review what is meant by\n'_optimal_ development.' Look at the projection.\" (emphases mine)\n\nIt is such in both the Island collection and the Best of. I didn't\ncheck the original. I asked the class whether they thought it was a\nmisprint, and, if not, why the two words were used. Most seemed to\nagree that it was not a misprint but were unsure of the implications.\nThe possibility was raised that the masters intended to use homo\nsapiens (the \"optional\" development) to colonize the moon or similar\n(this being their \"optimal\" use) for resource extraction perhaps:\n\n\"Later one's peer group becomes, for a time, all-important--or nearly\nso. The boys and girls you see are attending a model school in\nArmstrong. Notice that no tint is used to mask the black of space\nabove their airtents.\"\n\nBut then we remembered the woman that Paul kills speaking of how in\n\"another year, everything would have been alright.\" Some thought that\nimplied that she would be leaving, though others assumed that the\nmasters had not created a needless egalitarian society and that she\nmay have been supporting herself via prostitution.\n\nWe also discussed why it was Hugo De Vries, of all people, in\nfour-dimensional projection, though this seems relatively clear."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<20090925160441.F2D644800E@diego.dreamhost.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Mo Holkar / UKG",
        "address": "lists at ukg.co.uk"
      },
      "date": "2009-09-25T16:04:44+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Hero as Werwolf",
      "in_reply_to": "<37bfbeb60909250844pcb52bf7k584c505e926aed8c@mail.gmail.com>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "At 16:44 25/09/2009, you wrote:\n\"I am sorry to detain you, but there is reason to think that you have\nundergone a recent deviation from the _optional_ development pattern.\nIn a few minutes, it may be useful for us to review what is meant by\n'_optimal_ development.' Look at the projection.\" (emphases mine)\n\nIt is such in both the Island collection and the Best of. I didn't\ncheck the original. I asked the class whether they thought it was a\nmisprint, and, if not, why the two words were used. Most seemed to\nagree that it was not a misprint but were unsure of the implications.\nThe possibility was raised that the masters intended to use homo\nsapiens (the \"optional\" development) to colonize the moon or similar\n(this being their \"optimal\" use) for resource extraction perhaps:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Hmm, I tend to believe that it is a misprint, and that it should be \n\"optimal\" both times. The literal reading would be \nuncharacteristically clumsy: the second sentence wouldn't flow on \nlogically from the first. I don't think \"optional development\" is \nsufficiently meaningful to be genuine.\n\nI guess we'll never know, though!\n\nMo\n\n\n# ~ # ~ #\n\nWolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe\nhttp://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/ "
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<37bfbeb60909251047i3f2a4ef4k64bc9df82641ce7@mail.gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Jonathan Goodwin",
        "address": "joncgoodwin at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2009-09-25T17:47:54+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Hero as Werwolf",
      "in_reply_to": "<20090925160441.F2D644800E@diego.dreamhost.com>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "If someone has the original printing, or could check the other\nreprints, and they all match, well, it's not final evidence that it's\nnot a misprint; but I would imagine that someone would have queried\nhim about it along the way. I think it makes sense as is, personally,\nand is a characteristically Wolfean touch.\n\nAlso, the OED entry on \"werewolf\" notes: \"The first element has\nusually been identified with OE. wer man WERE n.1, but the form were-\nin place of wer- (cf. however were- and wer{asg}ild WERGELD), and the\nvariants in war-, var-, makes this somewhat doubtful.\n  Evidence for the real currency of the word (chiefly in the {beta}\nand {gamma} forms) is rare, and confined to Sc., after the 17th cent.\nIn modern use it has been revived through folk-lore studies, and until\nrecently the most usual form has been werewolf, and occas. wehrwolf\nfrom German.] \"\n\nThe first entry from 1000 has \"werewolf\" as the spelling."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mo Holkar / UKG <lists at ukg.co.uk> wrote:\nAt 16:44 25/09/2009, you wrote:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "\"I am sorry to detain you, but there is reason to think that you have\nundergone a recent deviation from the _optional_ development pattern.\nIn a few minutes, it may be useful for us to review what is meant by\n'_optimal_ development.' Look at the projection.\" (emphases mine)\n\nIt is such in both the Island collection and the Best of. I didn't\ncheck the original. I asked the class whether they thought it was a\nmisprint, and, if not, why the two words were used. Most seemed to\nagree that it was not a misprint but were unsure of the implications.\nThe possibility was raised that the masters intended to use homo\nsapiens (the \"optional\" development) to colonize the moon or similar\n(this being their \"optimal\" use) for resource extraction perhaps:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Hmm, I tend to believe that it is a misprint, and that it should be\n\"optimal\" both times. The literal reading would be uncharacteristically\nclumsy: the second sentence wouldn't flow on logically from the first. I\ndon't think \"optional development\" is sufficiently meaningful to be genuine.\n\nI guess we'll never know, though!\n\nMo\n\n\n# ~ # ~ #\n\nWolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe\nhttp://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/\n_______________________________________________"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<0CB78811FFBC49B482943E7C20CA54A7@eMachinePC>",
      "from": {
        "name": "James Wynn",
        "address": "crushtv at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2009-09-25T18:39:51+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Hero as Werwolf",
      "in_reply_to": "<37bfbeb60909251047i3f2a4ef4k64bc9df82641ce7@mail.gmail.com>",
      "reply_link": "header",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Also, the OED entry on \"werewolf\" notes: \"The first element has\nusually been identified with OE. wer man WERE n.1, but the form were-\nin place of wer- (cf. however were- and wer{asg}ild WERGELD), and the\nvariants in war-, var-, makes this somewhat doubtful.\n Evidence for the real currency of the word (chiefly in the {beta}\nand {gamma} forms) is rare, and confined to Sc., after the 17th cent.\nIn modern use it has been revived through folk-lore studies, and until\nrecently the most usual form has been werewolf, and occas. wehrwolf\nfrom German.] \"\nThe first entry from 1000 has \"werewolf\" as the spelling."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I'm going to hypothesize that the reason \"werewolf\" has the extra \"e\" is \nbecause the pronunciation requirements for an Old English speaker to say the \n\"ehr\"  sound in front of a \"w\". I'm not offering any proof of this. It is \njust that the translation \"man-wolf\" is just too compelling in absence of an \nalternative.\n\nJ. "
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}