Poor Hammerstone

James Wynn · 04 Dec 2002, 15:21 · from urth-v0212.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: "James Wynn" <crushtv at HotPOP.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) Poor Hammerstone
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:21:55 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0212-2359 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0212/2359.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Roy wrote:
To go from Marble's notion of abandonment to the destruction of a child
requires a leap in logic that leaves me in the dust. I can only conclude
that . . . hell, I don't know what to think. You must not have read the SS
series, for one thing. Let me state flat out that no such thing happened to
the child. Fact.

Fine. Does this change that Hammerstone left her? Your point was that
Hammerstone didn't care who Marble was. Then why did she lie?

Roy wrote:
And if Moly had been at Sun Street from Day One, and nowhere else, then he
would have known **exactly** where to find her. He didn't know. That's why
he said: "Maybe I should've gone looking for Moly."

Crush responds:
There are at LEAST two other more likely interpretations of this statement.
(1) Hammerstone went to Sun St. and didn't find her. He was told (maybe by
Rose, maybe by Betel) "She's gone and we don't know where she went." Well,
heck, why didn't she leave notice where she was going? She must not want to
be found. So he didn't look **further**.

This is my preferred interpretation. It infers IMO the motives to
Hammerstone that I can most relate to

(2) Hammerstone woke up after 74 years and saw the changes wrought in Viron
and was too afraid to look for Moly for fear of what he'd find.

But if he NEVER went looking for Moly since he boarded the Whorl. Then I
can't grasp why he would **even consider** looking for her when he woke up.

The fact that he considered looking for her at that time implies he knew
where she was before. And if he knew where she was before, then he would
have known Marble was lying about being at Sun St. since the beginning. And
if Marble had to lie about it, she had to believe it mattered to him (and it
did). Also, Marble had to know all about Moly - at least to the extent that
she wasn't around anymore -- and she had to know who Hammerstone was the
moment she clasped eyes on him so she could immediately say "I'm Moly".

Am I being clear enough here?

--=20

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