Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 17 Nov 2011, 19:28 · from 2011-November.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: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:28:42 -0800
Subject: (urth) Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy
In-Reply-To: <1321557165.31105.YahooMailClassic at web161806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <4EC55A7C.2060701 at gmail.com>
	<1321557165.31105.YahooMailClassic at web161806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ8=rtiE2=RUnSpXBurNCJf+4spX_CQ+=EBZdTtZ2yoDOne3=A at mail.gmail.com>

Marc Aramini wrote:

> Some allusion is of course spot on, but Pazuzu and Enkidu and
> all the norse gods can't be used at the same time - it has to
> mapped to a named/referenced mythology or the analysis
> is bogged down in too many variables.

I don't see this. Wolfe is perfectly free to reference mythologies in
a syncretic way. In fact, given some of his statements on gods and
fairies and such, I suspect he is _obliged_ to.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

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