Silk and Weer

Roy C. Lackey · 13 Apr 1999, 01:11 · from urth-v0025.mbox · original

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: "Roy C. Lackey" <rclackey at stic.net>
Subject: (urth) Silk and Weer
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:11:13
Message-ID: <urth-v0025-0062 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0025/0062.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:39:29 wombat wrote:

>>    >Now _that_ is predestination, pure and simple. FWIW

That's not predestination. That's a statement about the unchanging and
unending love which god has for its creations. The Outsider might not know
what Silk will do--though he probably does, given his role in the
story--but no matter what Silk does, it cannot damage god's love for him.<<

    I agree with you--and all the others--who said that Silk's thought is
tantamount to "unconditional love". Wolfe very likely intended it that way.
I should not have said "pure and simple"; it's a little more complicated
than that, but I didn't think this list was the forum for a religious
debate, so I didn't respond--at least not here. Poor Robert Borski--very
graciously--suffered my theological rant, which I will not repeat. <g> I
think Alex David Groce understood my reasoning (see his earlier post); I
just don't agree with St. Augustine.

On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:09:17 Alex David Groce wrote:

>>On Apr 12,  7:36pm, Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
> Considering the trail of dead bodies Weer leaves behind him, I'm not sure
> that I *want* to identify with Weer. Wolfe's protagonists are not
admirable
> or likable people, for the most part (the "Free" quartet being a very
> pleasant exception).
 Well, some of us aren't convinced that Weer is reponsible for anyone's
death other than (A) the boy on the stairs, and that's not exactly murder
and
(B) maybe (there is someting sinister about it at any rate) the
frozen-freezer
guy.  I think the "Weer as mass murder" hypothesis is most likely
nonsense.<<

    I agree with Alex on this one: In the case of (A), Weer was not of an
age to be morally culpable, even if it wasn't an accident, and (B) was an
instance of youthful stupidity--if Weer was guilty at all--not malice. He
definitely didn't kill Vi. I never understood where the "mass murderer"
theory came from.

Roy


*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

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