john.watkins04 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 08:19:44 PDT 2009
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:12 AM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Could be...I'm still not sure Pas went into Silk at the end of Long
> >If he didn't, that's just Silk in Silk's body until the Horn-patterned
> Neighbor shows up.
> Well, the individual explanations I offer have a way of cascading toward my
> conclusion. It's something that has to be taken as a whole. I recognize
> If one acknowledges that the Raja is a Neighbor who has reanimated Horn and
> is in some way Horn himself, then it becomes difficult not to say,
> "Hmm...resurrected Horn is a beast with TWO horns. Where does the other horn
> come from? Silk? How is Silk a "horn" or Horn? It would be tidy to say that
> Horn is one of those special embryos, and a clone of the *same* person of
> whom Silk was, but that's impossible because they don't look alike.
> Horn could once do a good impression of Silk, but his sons don't think he
> looks like him.
I see your point...the third "horn" is Typhon if Horn is a clone of Typhon.
Or Horn's soul--the actual soul of the honest-to-goodness Horn goes into
Babbie, who has two horns already, making three. I think both are plausible
and I'll pay mind to both in my reread.
I also tend to think, though, that Silk is a powered-up clone of Typhon
rather than Typhon's biological son with "Kypris" or a clone of that son.
> There are other ways to put the pieces together, in isolation, rather
> than say that Silk had Pas in him. But **choosing** the particular
> answer from among the others and accepting Horn as a clone of Typhon (which
> resolves other things) is only way I know of to get Horn into Silk (without
> feral speculation).
> Resolving Wolfean puzzles often requires picking from multiple, viable
> solutions. To do that, I prefer to look at all the open problems as
> a whole and see which arrangement of solutions ties up the most
> open puzzles I have without refuting a bunch of other solutions.
> >I also want to note that this whole thing is a rationalization of the
> Incarnation, not the Trinity.
> >The three Persons of the Trinity all share a single essence (in orthodox
> Christianity, that is),
> >whereas Jesus Christ possessed two essences in a single Person.
> Technically, I suppose you're right. But I think a Father, Son, and Holy
> Spirit, three-in-one analogy was what Wolfe was going for.
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Urth