leftovers

aramini1 at cox.net · 09 Jan 2005, 16:17 · from 2005-January.txt.gz

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: aramini1 at cox.net (aramini1 at cox.net)
Date: Sun Jan  9 16:17:17 2005
Subject: (urth) leftovers
Message-ID: <20050110001714.LYZL28808.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net at smtp.west.cox.net>

I never implied that Silk or Pig would be downloading anything from eye to eye.  In Book of the Long Sun, Silk speaks with Chenille about possession, and how it always leaves something behind that changes the one possessed and the fragment of the possessor that leaves, so that they become inexplicably conjoined and change each other.  I was merely taking several facts:

1.  Silversilk is in Pig
2.  Silversilk is trapped until the eye of Pig can be repaired.
2b.  It seems implied that Silversilk plans to leave Pig to rejoin mainframe, as a fragment of Pas once planned to return to mainframe.
3.  The book is about the search for Silk.
3b.  Silk's original spirit has been damaged so much that it is no longer whole, and requires outside support.
4.  It makes sense that the book would end when silk is found, one way or another.
5.  SOMETHING makes Silk whole again.

Therefore, it seems logical that both narrative strands would culminate in a retreival of Silk.

Certainly the admonishments to return to the text are unwarranted - I see the interpretive task as one of opening up a multitude of options.  Without the presentation of options (whether valid ones or not), the discussion of the work becomes pretty much moot.  We would then have to tow the party line, and the discussion becomes stiffled and dead.  Whether you believe these options or not is irrelevant - the point is that I work both with facts from the texts and themes which I believe are extent in the text but are not always overtly stated.

You don't have to agree with me - but you shouldn't say that I am wrong to present these options to a "discussion" list.  You are all capable of making your own decisions about believing the options I present or rejecting them. 

Marc

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