(no subject)

James Wynn · 14 Jul 2003, 03:25 · 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: "James Wynn" <the.wynns at usa.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:25:28 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0307-3669 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0307/3669.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Andrew explained:
One of my problems with Roy's list representing deliberate "errors" is just
their triviality - I find it hard to think that most of them could mean
anything much.

Crush responds:
As a believer that the discrepancies are intentional, I see their triviality
as exemplary of Wolfe's subtlety in dealing with an unreliable narrator. If
the discrepancies had been of weight, then they would have looked to be most
likely intentional on Severian's part -- i.e. *lies". Since they are
trivial, they can only be errors in memory (assuming they aren't typos).

The challenge before advocates of the intentional discrepancies theory is to
show that they occur in at least most of the places where Severian asserts a
flawless memory.

Actually, an easier way to settle the issue is to get Wolfe to answer
whether the Drotte-Roche discrepancy is a typo. If he were to say flat out
that it is a typo, I would be willing to concede that they probably all are.
However, if he meant this one, then Sev's memory *is not* perfect, and the
other discrepancies are intentional as well -- and most certainly there are
more to be found.

If Wolfe were to quibble on the matter even a little, then I think it is
safe to presume they were intentional, since he surely would not obfuscate
about such a typo any more than he did for the Marble-Mint typos of "The
Long Sun".

Speaking of which, are these "errors" carried forward into "Shadow and
Claw"?

-- Crush

--=20

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