The Sorcerer's House Questions (Major Spoilers)

Thomas Bitterman · 31 Mar 2010, 02:36 · from 2010-March.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: tom at bitterman.net (Thomas Bitterman)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:36:21 -0400
Subject: (urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)
In-Reply-To: <z2v1bf4dd41003301701xbe0a027dn2e1c361a697af388 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <z2v1bf4dd41003301701xbe0a027dn2e1c361a697af388 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p2oe11bddb61003301936xa2f0970en2c959bd358e2a128 at mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Dave Tallman <davetallman at msn.com> wrote:

> Thomas Bitterman
>
>> This just begs the question.  The only record we have of them seeing any of
>>
>> this is from the letters that Bax has.  These are the very letters that are
>> being called into doubt, at least the supernatural parts.
>>
>>
> No, I am bringing in all the independent witnesses against your theory. To
> support it, you have to say that the challenge note from George, the letters
> from Madame Orizia, and the second letter from Doris are all forged or
> edited by Bax. And I say that oversteps the bounds of the suspension of
> disbelief. About the only letters admitted as factual at this point are
> those to and from Shell, and letters from Millie.
>

As mentioned in another post, the circumstances of George's note and its
contents make forgery probable, IMHO.  Madame Orizia is an accomplice (and
somewhat out of
the loop - how could she cover his home "quite thoroughly", given the
warping it's always doing?).  Doris was not emotionally stable when she
wrote the second latter and should not be considered a reliable witness.
FWIW, the Compiler (whom I maintain is Bax) is upfront about "extensive"
editing.

So:
- the note from George is a forgery
- Orizia's letters are genuine, but she is mixing truth and fantasy
- Doris's letters are genuine, but she is emotionally distraught and hence
unreliable

Windows into Faerie, werewolves, vampires, visions of the future, astral
>> projection, triannuluses (triannuli?), houses that grow and rearrange -
>>
>> these are all harder to swallow than lucking into money.  Not everything he
>> says is false, just the stuff about Faerie.
>>
>>
> All right then, what is your rational explanation for him "lucking into
> money"? Was a deed to a house just handed to him? If so, why? And then he
> just happens to inherit a valuable chunk of real estate?  Please show
> in-story clues to what really happened.
>

Fraud and forgery.  I mean, a felon fraudster, truly gifted in forgery,
"inherits"/forges wills for properties from a couple of people who died out
of town with no heirs?  Really?  This is less believable than windows into
Faerie, werewolves, vampires, etc.?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100330/8d9e8b6c/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net