Confusing passage The Urth list — 7 messages, 5 voices, 18 Sep 2012 https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6290 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. ============================================================================== Lee Berman — 18 Sep 2012, 03:06 > From On Blue's Waters, Ch. 5 section 6: > Even Hoof and Horn [sic], who must just be entering young manhood now > will someday be as old as Marrow and Patera Remora.....in fifty years, > Horn and Hide [sic] may well be dead....These words, which I pen with > so little thought- or hope- or expectation- may possibly endure long > beyond that, endure for two centuries or even three... I am confused by this. I could guess the first [sic] is a way of forshadowing that Horn's self-identity will come into question later. But what about the second [sic]? Is Hide's identity also to come into question? Or does the second [sic] also refer to Horn in the clause? FWIW, I found the final sentence interesting in comparison with Gene Wolfe's answer in the Lawrence Person interview which was done shortly after Short Sun was written: > LP: Final question! Homer, of course, is one of those writers whose > work is remembered, at least in his case, thousands of years after his > death. How well do you think your own work will be remembered? > GW: Oh Lord! (long pause) Goodness sake. (pause) This is really, really a > mean question that you're asking.....Uh, I don't know. Two or three hundred > years, possibly. It's very hard to answer that without being either falsely > modest or braggadocios. I would guess, a couple, three hundred years. That's > only a guess. http://home.roadrunner.com/~lperson1/wolfe.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gerry Quinn — 18 Sep 2012, 10:27 in reply to Lee Berman From: Lee Berman > From On Blue's Waters, Ch. 5 section 6: > Even Hoof and Horn [sic], who must just be entering young manhood now > will someday be as old as Marrow and Patera Remora.....in fifty years, > Horn and Hide [sic] may well be dead....These words, which I pen with > so little thought- or hope- or expectation- may possibly endure long > beyond that, endure for two centuries or even three... > I am confused by this. I could guess the first [sic] is a way of > forshadowing that Horn's self-identity will come into question later. > But what about the second [sic]? Is Hide's identity also to come into > question? Or does the second [sic] also refer to Horn in the clause? I say typo. It makes no sense as written, and the names are easily confusable. Reading the passage, I didn’t notice it, so it’s not implausible that author and proof-readers didn’t either. - Gerry Quinn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sergei SOLOVIEV — 18 Sep 2012, 10:33 in reply to Gerry Quinn To my mind, [sic] corresponds to both names in both cases, and attracts the attention to the fact that the narrator knows the names Hoof and Hide, but may substitute Horn for each almost indifferently - so the identity that is questioned is rather the identity of the narrator. My impression was that it is stylistically nicely done. Sergei Soloviev > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > *From:* Lee Berman > > > > From On Blue's Waters, Ch. 5 section 6: > > Even Hoof and Horn [sic], who must just be entering young manhood now > > will someday be as old as Marrow and Patera Remora.....in fifty > > years, > > Horn and Hide [sic] may well be dead....These words, which I pen with > > so little thought- or hope- or expectation- may possibly endure long > > beyond that, endure for two centuries or even three... > I am confused by this. I could guess the first [sic] is a way of > forshadowing that Horn's self-identity will come into question later. > But what about the second [sic]? Is Hide's identity also to come into > question? Or does the second [sic] also refer to Horn in the clause? > > I say typo. It makes no sense as written, and the names are easily > confusable. Reading the passage, I didn’t notice it, so it’s not > implausible that author and proof-readers didn’t either. > > - Gerry Quinn > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Stockhoff — 18 Sep 2012, 12:31 in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV Right---the two [sic]s are in the text. Lee didn't put them there. Horn's editors (Nettle?) did, because they were confused too. > On 9/18/2012 6:33 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote: > To my mind, [sic] corresponds to both names in both cases, and > attracts the attention > to the fact that the narrator knows the names Hoof and Hide, but may > substitute Horn > for each almost indifferently - so the identity that is questioned is > rather the > identity of the narrator. My impression was that it is stylistically > nicely done. > > Sergei Soloviev > > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > *From:* Lee Berman > > > From On Blue's Waters, Ch. 5 section 6: > > > Even Hoof and Horn [sic], who must just be entering young > > > manhood now > > > will someday be as old as Marrow and Patera Remora.....in fifty > > > years, > > > Horn and Hide [sic] may well be dead....These words, which I pen > > > with > > > so little thought- or hope- or expectation- may possibly endure > > > long > > > beyond that, endure for two centuries or even three... > > I am confused by this. I could guess the first [sic] is a way of > > forshadowing that Horn's self-identity will come into question later. > > But what about the second [sic]? Is Hide's identity also to come into > > question? Or does the second [sic] also refer to Horn in the clause? > > > > I say typo. It makes no sense as written, and the names are easily > > confusable. Reading the passage, I didn’t notice it, so it’s not > > implausible that author and proof-readers didn’t either. > > > > - Gerry Quinn > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Aramini — 18 Sep 2012, 15:02 in reply to Gerry Quinn No, Silk's personality is coming through here in Horn, confusing Hoof for his feelings for "Horn". The [sic] is the narrators, daisy et al, putting that that is how Horn wrote it. --- On Tue, 9/18/12, Gerry Quinn wrote: From: Gerry Quinn Subject: Re: (urth) Confusing passage To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 3:27 AM From: Lee Berman > From On Blue's Waters, Ch. 5 section 6: > ??? Even Hoof and Horn [sic], who must just be entering young manhood now > ??? will someday be as old as Marrow and Patera Remora.....in fifty years, > ??? Horn and Hide [sic] may well be dead....These words, which I pen with > ??? so little thought- or hope- or expectation- may possibly endure long > ??? beyond that, endure for two centuries or even three... I am confused by this. I could guess the first [sic] is a way of forshadowing that Horn's self-identity will come into question later. But what about the second [sic]? Is Hide's identity also to come into question? Or does the second [sic] also refer to Horn in the clause? I say typo. It makes no sense as written, and the names are easily confusable. Reading the passage, I didn’t notice it, so it’s not implausible that author and proof-readers didn’t either. - Gerry Quinn -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gerry Quinn — 18 Sep 2012, 16:29 in reply to Marc Aramini From: Marc Aramini > No, Silk's personality is coming through here in Horn, confusing Hoof > for his feelings for "Horn". The [sic] is the narrators, daisy et al, > putting > that that is how Horn wrote it. Yes, that explanation makes sense. I hadn't realised the 'sic' was in the text. - Gerry Quinn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Berman — 18 Sep 2012, 17:03 follows, by subject match Gerry Quinn > Marc Aramini: No, Silk's personality is coming through here in Horn, confusing Hoof for his feelings > for "Horn". Thanks Gerry, Sergei and David for helpful comments on this passage. I agree with Gerry that Marc really hits the nail on the head with the post above. Silk has paternal feelings for Horn. Horn has paternal feelings for Hoof and Hide. The feelings/names get confused in SilkHorn. This can nicely explain both [sic]s. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------