Sightings at Twin Mounds

Marc Aramini · 29 May 2014, 03:46 · 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: marcaramini at gmail.com (Marc Aramini)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 20:46:31 -0700
Subject: (urth) Sightings at Twin Mounds
In-Reply-To: <5D0AF0EA-FD0B-469B-8810-A52A667A0E42 at gmail.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>
	<5D0AF0EA-FD0B-469B-8810-A52A667A0E42 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF1072x5j9=oaoDwkQNhv2dWB_-KLANtSsw=w2an2kpi8bprHw at mail.gmail.com>

Well, there isn't a crime if the Indian Tribe is "following him" after the
contact ... the part that we have to trust the narrator on is that the
Indian girl and Robakowski, when they flee the murderous tribe, somehow
wind up back at his apartment embracing, as he sees through the windows.
The journal from the psychiatric doctor indicates Robakowski/Roland (or
whatever name he uses) returned from the past half in and half out of
it ... so his apartment is connected to the mound primarily through the
testimony of our narrator.  Robakowski did experience being with the girl
at one point, and our narrators observations show that this extended to
his apartment.

So there is no crime if the Indians killed him because he was half in and
half out of time (ie he never got away), and somehow the mound and its
displacement is connected to his apartment.

For this to be a cannibal story, I would at least like a name from a text
referencing cannibalism or some sign that our narrator tries to enact
everything that he reads.

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20140528/79feda96/attachment.htm>

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