Sightings at Twin Mounds

António Pedro Marques · 28 May 2014, 21:33 · from 2014-May.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?Q?Ant=C3=B3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 22:33:49 +0100
Subject: (urth) Sightings at Twin Mounds
In-Reply-To: <53859364.42e9440a.0216.ffffdd4bSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN at mx.google.com>
References: <538454cf.a3ad440a.29f6.3355SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN at mx.google.com>
	<CAF1072yci4MLNZg_+fpD4nYQLYtASa5oO-tEK8Xpfk-6midz9w at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF1072x19Gp8zQwAaC8tU7_pLMWNmnAYQz1T_h63rhUs1LsjpQ at mail.gmail.com>
	<53859364.42e9440a.0216.ffffdd4bSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN at mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <5D0AF0EA-FD0B-469B-8810-A52A667A0E42 at gmail.com>

I had just reread the story the day before Mo posted this. 
Someone once said that 'Wolfe doesn't lie in direct discourse'. I think what was meant is that all the 'unreliability' stuff is due to most of the stories being told by a flesh-and-bone narrator, not the 'omniscient' kind that we've strangely become accustomed to (and whose qualities even the flesh and bone narrators of other writers seem to have acquired!), but there are still times when the voice isn't some narrator's, but an objective description of events. That's the one exception I see to the general unreliability, and as such I don't think there ought to be some special conditions to be met so that the narrator is able to lie or omit stuff. In fact, it could be said that if the narrator killed Robakowski then he's doing a fine account of events leaving out those that may incriminate him (as a defendant may legally do in many legal systems).
Yes, it's strange that he'd be looking for random guys to eat. Though what I personally like the least is that the amount of story that needs to be introduced is so big. But at the end of the day, there's a crime to solve. 

No dia 28/05/2014, ?s 08:36, Mo Holkar <mo at holkar.net> escreveu:

> Mm, my feeling too. I was impressed by the internal consistency of the suggested reading, but at the moment I can't see sufficient to justify its requirement.
> 
> I don't know if the contributor who wrote it 'Pickwick', is on this list or not, but if so then it'd be interesting to hear more,
> 
> best wishes,
> 
> Mo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 00:04 28/05/2014, Marc wrote:
>> Okay I read it through twice ... The ambiguous subtext is " I had a day to kill", "murder would appear to have taken place" and "no doubt I should not have done what I did" talking about entering the house and finding the blood stains. ? The only mention of cannibalism is the origin story of the wendigo. ?
>> 
>> Someone collecting newspaper clippings on ufos? and deciding to eat a random guy still seems a little? bit of a? stretch. ?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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