{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/whorl/1115",
    "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": "whorl",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1115,
    "subject": "[big spoiler] Narrative technique in _Return_,",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2001-02-08T18:13:59+00:00",
    "last": "2001-02-10T14:21:13+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<whorl-v0012-0153@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Spectacled Bear",
        "address": "spectacled.bear at pobox.com"
      },
      "date": "2001-02-08T18:13:59+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (whorl) [big spoiler] Narrative technique in _Return_,",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "At 10:23 2001-02-08 +0000, Adamwrote:\n..."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "why do the\neditors keep up the ambiguity over the protagonist's identity until almost\nthe end?  One possibility is that they don't want to admit that Horn is\ndead, but there are a couple of problems with this: apparently Hide and Hoof\nnever did believe that the protagonist was Horn (see the start of Hoof's\nnarration on p. 337); and when the editors finally do name the protagonist,\nthey unambiguously call him Silk."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Well, they *are* writing a book, and you must admit it reads better\nthis way. It's a dramatised account, not a dry history, so I think\nthey did it for the same reason as Wolfe did. Considering the probably\ninfluence of the Book of the Long Sun on their literary style, I'm\ngrateful that the Book of the Short Sun is as clear and explicit as\nit is!"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Another case where the editors create a\nmystery and I don't see why: it's clear that \"Horn\" gives an eye to Pig, but\nas far as I can recall this is never stated."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "You said it yourself: \"it's clear\". We can allow them a little\nliterary licence, as long as it doesn't cause actual confusion.\n\nSpectacled Bear."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<whorl-v0012-0172@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Adam Stephanides",
        "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net"
      },
      "date": "2001-02-10T14:21:13+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (whorl) [big spoiler] Narrative technique in _Return_,",
      "in_reply_to": "<whorl-v0012-0153@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "on 2/8/01 6:13 PM, Spectacled Bear at spectacled.bear at pobox.com wrote:\nAt 10:23 2001-02-08 +0000, Adamwrote:\n..."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "why do the\neditors keep up the ambiguity over the protagonist's identity until almost\nthe end?  One possibility is that they don't want to admit that Horn is\ndead, but there are a couple of problems with this: apparently Hide and Hoof\nnever did believe that the protagonist was Horn (see the start of Hoof's\nnarration on p. 337); and when the editors finally do name the protagonist,\nthey unambiguously call him Silk."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Well, they *are* writing a book, and you must admit it reads better\nthis way. It's a dramatised account, not a dry history, so I think\nthey did it for the same reason as Wolfe did."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "In the first place, three of the editors are from an impoverished colony,\nand at least two are from a family that's not well off; the fourth is a\nservant.  Under these conditions it's unlikely that any of them would have\nacquired much literary sophistication.  And I don't recall any indication\nthat any of them had a literary bent either.  So it seems unlikely to me\nthat they would have been interested in the sort of games with narration\nthat Wolfe plays. In the second place, they're not writing a novel, they're\ncompiling a non-fictional account of their father (or father-in-law) and of\nthe man he admired more than anybody else.  Even if they had an interest in\nnarrative mystification, I doubt they would indulge it here."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Another case where the editors create a\nmystery and I don't see why: it's clear that \"Horn\" gives an eye to Pig, but\nas far as I can recall this is never stated.\n\nYou said it yourself: \"it's clear\". We can allow them a little\nliterary licence, as long as it doesn't cause actual confusion."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I'm willing to \"allow them\" all the license they want.  I just want to know\nwhy they did it.\n\n(Incidentally, I had posted a second reply to Dan Schmidt on the authorship\nof the third-person segments a couple days ago, but without my realizing it\nmy computer had reset the date to 1956, so it may have gotten lost on some\nsystems.)\n\n--Adam\n\n\n*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}