(urth) The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned by Rudesind
António Pedro Marques
entonio at gmail.com
Tue Jul 6 20:12:25 PDT 2010
Lee Berman wrote:
> D.S.>Is there anything monkeylike about noses touching chins?
>
> I did previously post this pic of a proboscis monkey
Well, I bet for almost every family of mammals you have members with
proboscides.
> http://smackamack.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/proboscis-monkey-adult.jpg
> Might look a bit like Rudesind.
I honestly don't think Rudesind looks like that at all.
Rather like this: http://www.galleryoftheabsurd.com/2006/05/celebrity_optic.html
> Here is one of the S. American uakari which makes a notable appearance
> in BotNS
> http://www.konicaminolta.com/kids/animals/library/field/img/bald-uakari_img01-l.jpg
I don't see a nose touching a chin here.
> I could see Wolfe getting the inspiration for Father Inire's
> appearance from one of these critters. I note that both these
> monkeys have reddish hair. As did the Russian/American painter
> Nicolai Fechin. (self-portrait with paintbrush http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/fechin3.jpg)
>
> I think it truly could all be unintended coincidence. But since
> Wolfe took seven years to produce BotNS I can't rule out that he
> used some of that time to interlace the story with such nearly
> imperceptible connections all intersecting at Father Inire. I
> just consider it a very interesting possibility.
But what's interesting about it? That's what I've been asking all along.
And where's the coincidence?
- Rudesind's nose touches his chin.
- Are you claiming Fechin was a monkey? Last time I checked he was a russian
human being.
- FI is said to have monkey-like features and the one time we actually see
someone who is all but introduced as FI, he's... a creature that looks like
a monkey. Not some subtle red-headed person.
You only see coincidences because you want to. As Horn or someone said,
everything is connected to everything else. By lowering the bar for
connectedness as has been done here, one can find coincidences everywhere.
But the 'incidence' part of the coincidences is entirely of yallr own
making. You are connecting dots that you have put there yourselves. That
could be interesting if it lead to something, but to what does it lead? What
does it mean if Rudesind is FI instead of an agent of FI or someone who just
happens to be there? It actually impoverishes the story.
You're perfectly within your right to think the way you do, and
congrtulations if it makes the book mor enjoyable to you, but what I'd
honestly like to know is the value it brings to the reading. Don't tell me
it explains a lot of coincidences or it's a thematic thing - a story with
disjoint motivations is better than one in which everything derives from
some central intension. The story gains nothing from Rudesind being FI, it
loses. If I sound harsh, it's unintended: I really wish someone would say
what would be gained if such speculations were correct.
On a related note - what's the deal with saying, for instance, that 'Ultan
is Borges'? Does it mean Ultan's grandmother was english? That Ultan wrote
Evaristo Carriego or Facing Moon or the Book of Sand? It's one thing to say
Ultan is a homage to Borges or an echo of him, but let's not be carried away.
More information about the Urth
mailing list