TBOTNS as political document and the wait for new sun
matthew.malthouse · 10 Jul 2003, 09:22
· from urth-v0307.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) TBOTNS as political document and the wait for new sun Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:07 +0100 Message-ID: <urth-v0307-3627 at digest.urth.net> X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0307/3627.txt.shtml MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 09/07/2003 20:40:27 Michael Andre-Driussi wrote: >Responding to Marc Aramini, Civet wrote: >>I'm completely willing to entertain the concept of BotNS as a piece of >>propaganda, but in practical terms I just can't see it as beneficial to >>Severian's position *politically*. > >I want to point out that John Clute first raised the interpretation of=20 The >Book as political. His essay is in STROKES, a collection of his essays=20 and >reviews. Severian states that he sent one copy of the manuscript to the library at=20 the citadel and will cast the second - the copy we are reading - into the=20 void. Wouldn't a conscious effort at propaganda require a rather more active=20 effort at publication and dissemination? Without that I can't see=20 Severain having contemporary politic motives as being credible. A concern=20 for history - one that rulers often have - looks more plausible. Matthew --=20
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net