PEACE: Death; lying (was Re: (urth) Grounded in the text?)

Adam Stephanides · 08 Dec 2000, 18:04 · from urth-v0030.mbox · original

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: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: PEACE: Death; lying (was Re: (urth) Grounded in the text?)
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 18:04:06
Message-ID: <urth-v0030-0180 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0030/0180.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michael Straight wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Adam Stephanides wrote:
>=20
> > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> > >
> > > So do I; but I think the evidence that Weer is dead is overwhelming,
> > > and will stand with that until and unless.
> >
> > I, too, am convinced that Weer is dead, but I wouldn't say the evidence
> > is overwhelming, especially if you don't regard Wolfe's interview
> > statements as probative.  If somebody were to insist that Weer was
> > alive, there is no one passage in the book (even the elm-tree passages)
> > I know of that I could point out to him/her and say "See?  This proves
> > you're wrong."  Rather, it's that Weer's being dead ties together a
> > number of details which, while not contradicting his being alive, remain
> > unexplained in that case.
>=20
> Oh, come on.  Is there anyone who doesn't get a shiver when they first
> connect the two elm tree passages?  That's too good to be an
> accident.  Maybe it's a Weer getting a Ghost of Christmas Future look at
> how his life might look after he's dead, but the ghost has got to be in
> there somewhere.  It's too good not to be right.

Strictly speaking, this "proves" only that somebody died, not that Weer
did.  Of course, I agree that it was Weer; but if somebody were to deny
it, I wouldn't be able to prove them wrong.

> (Of course I got also got a shiver when you suggested the tree may have
> fallen after all men are dead, but that's different.  I think.)

Not my suggestion.  It may have been Roy Lackey's, or mantis's, who have
both touched on the "end-of-the-world" hypothesis (another hint I wish
mantis would flesh out!).

--Adam

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

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