(urth) Hero as Werwolf

[Jonathan Goodwin]

If someone has the original printing, or could check the other
reprints, and they all match, well, it's not final evidence that it's
not a misprint; but I would imagine that someone would have queried
him about it along the way. I think it makes sense as is, personally,
and is a characteristically Wolfean touch.

Also, the OED entry on "werewolf" notes: "The first element has
usually been identified with OE. wer man WERE n.1, but the form were-
in place of wer- (cf. however were- and wer{asg}ild WERGELD), and the
variants in war-, var-, makes this somewhat doubtful.
  Evidence for the real currency of the word (chiefly in the {beta}
and {gamma} forms) is rare, and confined to Sc., after the 17th cent.
In modern use it has been revived through folk-lore studies, and until
recently the most usual form has been werewolf, and occas. wehrwolf
from German.] "

The first entry from 1000 has "werewolf" as the spelling.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mo Holkar / UKG <lists at ukg.co.uk> wrote:
> At 16:44 25/09/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> "I am sorry to detain you, but there is reason to think that you have
>> undergone a recent deviation from the _optional_ development pattern.
>> In a few minutes, it may be useful for us to review what is meant by
>> '_optimal_ development.' Look at the projection." (emphases mine)
>>
>> It is such in both the Island collection and the Best of. I didn't
>> check the original. I asked the class whether they thought it was a
>> misprint, and, if not, why the two words were used. Most seemed to
>> agree that it was not a misprint but were unsure of the implications.
>> The possibility was raised that the masters intended to use homo
>> sapiens (the "optional" development) to colonize the moon or similar
>> (this being their "optimal" use) for resource extraction perhaps:
>
>
> Hmm, I tend to believe that it is a misprint, and that it should be
> "optimal" both times. The literal reading would be uncharacteristically
> clumsy: the second sentence wouldn't flow on logically from the first. I
> don't think "optional development" is sufficiently meaningful to be genuine.
>
> I guess we'll never know, though!
>
> Mo
>
>
> # ~ # ~ #
>
> WolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe
> http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>