whorl in orbit

Charles Reed · 19 Nov 2002, 15:37 · from urth-v0211.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: "Charles Reed" <cmreed at link.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) whorl in orbit
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:37:40 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0211-2179 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0211/2179.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Don Doggett wrote:

>Against the "Whorl has been in orbit for thirty years" possibly in the text
>and possibly said by Wolfe in an interview I lay down my "longfather,
>culture hero of Ushas who left for the stars" entry in Lexicon Urthus
>p.184 - 185. =20
>

In order for the inhumi to have come aboard before the Silk is=20
enlightened -- and I don't think you can question that Quetzal was on=20
board before Silk was enlightened -- then the Whorl has to have been in=20
orbit around the Short Sun at necessarily sub-light speeds.  I simply=20
don't think there's any way around that conclusion.

>And I would argue most vehemently that nothing is
>straightforward enough in these texts to draw any definitive conclusions.
>Heck, for all I know, this is some elaborate joke by Wolfe, and the real
>narrator of the whole 12 book series is L. Ron Hubbard.
>

Don, if this is true, then what's the point?  If you can dismiss any=20
piece of evidence that doesn't fit in with your theory by just saying,=20
"Well, obviously the narrator is wrong." then you can twist the=20
narrative into any shape you like.  I don't see the joy in that, because=20
then you're not working at interpreting the text, you're simply imposing=20
your will on it.   I certainly don't believe that the narrator is=20
infallible, but I do believe that you have to take what he  says at face=20
value until something forces you to do otherwise.  But that's just me.

Charles

--=20

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