Sev's not-so-perfect memory

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 10 Jul 2003, 16:04 · 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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <katbarx at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Sev's not-so-perfect memory
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:04:28 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0307-3641 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0307/3641.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Roy,

Two points: one general, one nit.

The general point: In most of the (apparent?) contradictions you list, you=20
make an
interesting assumption ... you cite Sev talking about an incident, then say=20
that what
he says is wrong, because it contradicts what he said in his direct=20
narration of the
incident. The point here is, what is your basis for thus privileging the=20
direct narration,
when both are from the same source (i.e., Sev)? If I were to privilege one=20
over the
other, I would be more likely to go the other way -- he's more likely to=20
"edit" the
incident when he's attending directly to it, rather than when he's attendin=
g=20
to some
other incident in which the incident in question is mentioned in passing.=20
This would
be especially true, I think, when the passing mention is in reported=20
dialogue; it might
not occur to him to edit the reported dialogue to match the edited incident.

The second point has to do with the Feast of Holy Katherine.

The contrast between his own feast, with "gray shirt and ragged trousers,"
and the "relatively new and clean clothes [the apprentices]  had been given
for the ceremony" strikes me as just that -- a contrast. It isn't a=20
contradiction;
it's a fact of the ceremony. The apprentice to be raised is not among the=20
general
run of apprentices that day; he is participating in a ceremony in which he=20
is
changed, from prentice to journeyman. Part of the symbolism of the ceremony
-- pardon me if I am belaboring the obvious -- is the taking off of the gar=
b=20
of
the prentice and the donning of the fuligin cloak of the journeyman. (In=20
particular,
recall that the journeyman never wears a shirt under his cloak.) Thus it=20
would be
appropriate, even necessary, for those being elevated, and _only_ them, to=20
wear
ragged clothes.

--Blattid

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* =20
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail

--=20

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