memory of Seawrack

matthew.malthouse · 20 Mar 2002, 11:45 · from urth-v0203.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: matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk
Subject: Re: (urth) memory of Seawrack
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:45:15 +0000
Message-ID: <urth-v0203-387 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0203/387.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 19/03/2002 17:30:23 maa32 wrote:

>Roy gave this passage:
>
>"Every time I remembered something that happened there, I would
>think of something that's happened since I've been with you, some little
>thing or something you said, and put it there instead."
>
>This is the passage I was referring to: she is able to place memories in
other
>places and times.  What is the "there"?  It is the past, underwater life
she
>lived ... she is saying she can place events that happen with Horn in her
>past, and he can do it,too.  In any case, that is an ambiguous there that
>seems to mean a time as well as a place (and I don't think it refers only
to
>her memory.)

Too much.  She's altering *her* memory.

The experiences she treasures replacing the past that distresses her.

The use of language reall isn't that ambiguous: there is only one possible
refferand for the last "there", the place in her mind where an older
memory existed.

>William Ansley said something about that being a scrubbing brush?! Why
would
>it climb up a tree?  If it's a soft brown underbrush,it will be right
next to
>a tree right?  Why would a hair brush run up a tree? How is there no
basis for

Because the point of the passage is the flambeaux giving life to that
which is dead.

To "give life" to something already living would negate the wonder of the
thought, it'd be superfluous and make the passage pointless.

>further discussion?  I don't understand what you are saying.  Besides,
the
>leaf sprouting stuff is a foreshadowing of the vile intelligence of the
avern,
>obviously a sentient plant that knows Severian is there and wants to kill
him.

I recall - and memory is faulty - the mechanism of the avern being
explained.  Is there something that would substantiate acording it
inteligence?

> I don't think my recollection was that faulty ... are you saying that it
was
>a hairbrush?!

"...rough brown brush..."

Think an old fashioned scrubbing brush, wooden back darkened by repeated
immersions, bristles simmilarly aged - I have one on my kitchen window
sill if you'd like a picture.

One point though is that both the objects are given life when dead; but
both *were once living*.

If you wnat forshadowing think Claw and resurection.

Matthew

--=20

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