(urth) Sev's common lineage

[b sharp]

Roy, in saying to me:

>I find it ironic that you accept many of Dave's undemonstrated (and textually undemonstrable)
>conclusions derived from projecting onto Severian's mother particular"facts" about the play's 
>Countess, while at the same time disagreeing with him about those "facts", such as her exultant
>status and birth some thirty years after Sev became autarch. You can't have it both ways; either he's
>right or he's not.
 
and to Dave:
>I hope you don't get carried away with trying too hard. FWIW.

I think you are missing the point of the discussion. OF COURSE he can be both right and not right. He
can be simultaneously dead on correct, merely "on to something" as I described it, and way off track. 
The judgement is in the domain of each individual reader here.  And as I see it, the purpose of this sort 
of brainstorming activity is to bring up new fresh ideas and sift them, wheat from chaff.  You have your 
role as guardian of the text but perhaps others have different roles which are important...unless you are
resigned to the the sad reality that all the mysteries of this story are either solved or remain ambiguous
by design.  After 12 years that might be the case but I can't shake a nagging feeling that there are still 
a few solvable puzzles here.  And I think open thinking and discussion is the only way to get to them.

-bsharp


_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_feb