interview questions

Gerry Quinn · 04 Jan 2011, 02:11 · from 2011-January.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: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 02:11:41 -0000
Subject: (urth) interview questions
References: <SNT123-W1940DC07E64A7547BC8DDBCF080 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <958FA91488ED4F7B98258C1B21416244@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
> >Tony Ellis: With all due apologies to Robert Borski, I think even no 
> >explanation is better
> >than ?it?s a circumciser?. Here?s what the device lookslike: ?I imagine 
> >it in the open belly
> >of a great dray horse, pushingaway the liver, thrusting down the small 
> >intestine, and cramping
> >the spleen to the spine while it gnaws at a diseased pancreas.?A great. 
> >Dray. Horse. Any one of
> >those organs is going to be as big, or far bigger, than any human penis 
> >this side of mythology,
> >and yet this device is big enough to grapple all four of them *at once*. 
> >It?s not a circumciser.
>
> Actually, a pancreas is a surprisingly small organ, sort of a membranous 
> strip on the small
> intestine. But, I quibble. Tony, this objection would seem to be 
> unassailable. Except....
>
.> ..just before the description of the device, we have an inexplicable 
statement of "Dollo's Law"
> which relates to...what else? Animals and the size of their organs. Its 
> like Wolfe anticipated
> Tony's objection some 40 years previous and obtusely, perversely, cast 
> aspersion on Tony's
> aspersion of Borski.

It's not at all inexplicable.  He thinks of Dollo's Law in the context of 
his handwriting, specifically his thumb, which he cannot use; he must hold 
the pen between his fingers with his thumb unused.  He is in the same 
situation a human would be if humans evolved to no longer need thumbs, and 
the thumb, or the neural networks controlling it, withered away.  Then if 
they once again found a need for the functions served by thumbs, the 
vestigial thumb or nerves would not regrow, but some new adaptation would 
arise instead to serve those purposes.  Just so must VRT find a way to write 
without his thumb.  The abos' copy of the human opposable thumb is imperfect 
in function, even if the form is correct.

> I myself will not argue that this IS a circumcizer but I can't rule it 
> out. There is a lot of
> confusion in the text when it comes to animals and their size. I think 
> this is based on the "fact"
> that Ste. Anne natives are more extreme in their shape shifting than we 
> will admit. They are larger
> than adults, smaller than children, look like haystacks or trees etc. 
> Might be cats or worms etc.
> Nothing is certain here, not the purpose (or lack of purpose) of a strange 
> device, anyway.

Marsch's careful observations of VRT's penis, whether motivated by 
anthropology or some less pure interest, did not mention any enormous size 
such that an instrument of this nature would be required for circumcision.

> This whole discussion reminds me of an earlier section of VRT. Marsch 
> shoots a "huge brute- not
> described in the Field Guide--similar to the carabao [a dray bovine] of 
> Asian Earth".
>
> Why does this creature have double pupils, like a dolphin or other fish?

Probably like Marsch suggests, it's semi-aquatic.

> Why does Marsh say the carcass of this huge beast must be around 15 
> pounds?

Because Wolfe's editor was sleeping on the job.  He also says that the mules 
couldn't be expected to carry the carcass.  Fifteen hundred pounds seems a 
bit much, but perhaps something like that was intended.

> Why was VRT almost in tears over the death of this animal?

He wasn't.  He was in tears about the meat.  He didn't want the carcass 
taken along and wasted.  He wanted the excess meat left hung in the trees 
for other abos.

> I think my own interpretation of the hooked device was something like an 
> expression of hatred and
> wish of torture for Dr. Marsh and his killing of the abo/carabao cousin of 
> VRT or whatever. But if
> the size of animal organs is called into question I don't think we can 
> rule out a circumcizer.
>
> Obviously my main point is that if an intelligent person who is familiar 
> with WOlfe has an idea, we
> should never be so quick to entirely rule it out. We end up missing a lot. 
> That is if we are disposed to
> grasp the full range of ambiguity Wolfe throws at us. For those who 
> despise ambiguity...hey.

Why not rule it out quickly, if it's just plain wrong?  If ridiculous ideas 
are left unchallenged they will more than likely spawn a stream of ever more 
ridiculous ideas.  It's not like there's a shortage.  If  ideas are actually 
good, they will survive challenges.

- Gerry Quinn

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