The Commotion at the Piteous Gate is a Mystery?!

Mitchell A. Bailey01 Jun 1999, 13:53original as archived

Being a literal-minded, rather than a literary-minded sort, I never considered the Piteous Gate business, as partially explained in the opening chap of "Sword", as any great mystery. I always figured that, as Palaemon had warned, the uhlans took their duty literally and fanatically. The road begins right there, at the gate of the Wall, and it's CLOSED, see? If you know what's good for you, you'll turn off it just as you leave the Gate, which is what everybody appeared to be doing. The burning coach in Sev's dream/memory had apparently not done so. "Hey buddy, what part of CLOSED don't you understand?! WHOOMP!" Let me add my gratitude and kudos to Ranjit for the new archives and site! It loads so much faster, too! Now maybe I can finish reading all the archives before my eyes gutter in their sockets and avoid gaffes like rehashing something Tony had already argued before I ever found the archives.

Michael Andre-Driussi01 Jun 1999, 09:24original as archived

↳ follows Mitchell A. Bailey · by subject

Mitchell A. Bailey wrote,

3 quoted lines

Being a literal-minded, rather than a literary-minded sort, I never considered the Piteous Gate business, as partially explained in the opening chap of "Sword", as any great mystery. I always figured that, as Palaemon had warned, the uhlans took their duty literally and fanatically. The road begins right there, at the gate of the Wall, and it's CLOSED, see? If you know what's good for you, you'll turn off it just as you leave the Gate, which is what everybody appeared to be doing. The burning coach in Sev's dream/memory had apparently not done so.

I was using the incident at the gate as a categorical example (a situation with few clues, in contrast to a locked room murder mystery with a dozen red herrings masquerading as many clues) rather than an attempt to revive the mystery or the controversy. But yes, the personal reading you've described was covered in the discussion--I think at one point I referred to it as the "Sanguinary Turnstile" theory. (Although "Daily Shooting of Fish in a Barrel" might be closer to the mark. <g>) =mantis=

Tony Ellis02 Jun 1999, 08:13original as archived

↳ follows Michael Andre-Driussi · by subject

2 quoted lines

Mantis wrote: I was using the incident at the gate as a categorical example (a situation with few clues, in contrast to a locked room murder mystery with a dozen red herrings masquerading as many clues) rather than an attempt to revive the mystery or the controversy. But yes, the personal reading you've described was covered in the discussion--I think at one point I referred to it as the "Sanguinary Turnstile" theory. (Although "Daily Shooting of Fish in a Barrel" might be closer to the mark. <g>)

And I think at a point just after that I explained why Mantis was wrong. <g> Urth Vol. 10, a short post entitled "Meanwhile, back at the gate", for anyone who still thinks what happened at the Piteous Gate is a mystery. (Or like shooting fish in a barrel, come to that.)