Are the Neighbors REALLY the Neighbors?

James Wynn · 15 Feb 2011, 14:37 · from 2011-February.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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:37:08 -0600
Subject: (urth) Are the Neighbors REALLY the Neighbors?
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W161FCB5FEA198FDE9219B2CFD30 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W161FCB5FEA198FDE9219B2CFD30 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4D5A8F94.9070209 at gmail.com>

>> And yet, there is a subtle clue in that the possibly only
>> >fully corporeal 'neighbor' we meet is the barnacle encrusted monstrosity
>> >that tries to climb aboard the boat with Horn early in Blue (?? is that when
>> >it happens?)
>
> Lee Berman-
> Well, middle of the book (pg. 163 in my copy). And that certainly seems to be the
> best conclusion based on Horn's theory of that thing which he tries to dismiss but,
> c'mon, is Wolfe really going to waste 3 paragraphs on a false theory? Why would he?

Actually, it is not at all uncommon for Wolfe to spend paragraphs of a 
hand-wringing over theories that are wrong but alert the reader to a 
puzzle to be solved. An obvious example (to me) is when Silk spends 2 or 
3 pages speculating on why he called Blood "son" on their first meeting. 
A good rule of thumb for reading Wolfe is that when a theory is offered, 
it is probably wrong in some key way (although in some ways correct as 
well).

u+16b9

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