Introduction and Breath
António Pedro Marques · 14 Apr 2011, 13:00
· from 2011-April.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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:00:06 +0100 Subject: (urth) Introduction and Breath In-Reply-To: <6C450A90F88D4BA997DF9DCF98FAAF33@jill> References: <BANLkTik_4w2RyPg-_cSBwYYPO68HEkA55w at mail.gmail.com> <2287.2.6.15.19.1302728897.squirrel at websecu.irit.fr> <6C450A90F88D4BA997DF9DCF98FAAF33@jill> Message-ID: <4DA6EFD6.5010307 at gmail.com> Gerry Quinn wrote (14-04-2011 00:48): > One thing I've noticed on various boards is people confidently asserting > that Severian is a liar, then clamming up when asked for examples. I think that's chiefly because the inconsistencies in the narrative are so obvious that asking for them is kind of a breach of social contract. But the problem imo is that, like 'fantastic', 'unreliable narrator' is yet another label people attach to a thing, when in fact the author's purpose was just to write it the way he sees it. Just as Gene Wolfe points out that characterising parts of literature as 'fantastic' is but an artifact of being used to view 'naturalistic' literature, a comparatively recent fad, as the default or only kind of literature, so the 'unreliable narrator' concept is an artifact of being used to an omniscient, unerring, objective, transparent narrator, which in itself is a very questionable idea.
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net