(urth) The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned byRudesind

[brunians at brunians.org]

There needs be no such principal and we have no need to so call any such
nonexistent principal.

Here, you see?

You are mistaken in your beliefs.

.


> There needs to be a principle of, I don't know, conservation of
> explanation or something. And we need to call each other on it.
>
> For example, if a mysterious figure gains powers (expert acting,
> sharpshooting, shapeshifting, timetripping) to explain specific textual
> features, that in other contexts begin to overlap and become redundant
> (i.e., a feature can be explained by any of these powers), then we have
> a condition of overexplanation. There are more explanations than there
> are problems and they contradict one another. Why would the burglar use
> his powers of disguise if he could simply go back in time to when the
> apartment was empty? And so on. Wolfe's characters often address this
> issue directly.
>
> Overexplanation is a violation of form. Sometimes the most mundane
> explanations are best, because they require the least effort and never
> lead to redundancy. One asks questions not to challenge but to test.
>
> I'm afraid I'm not expressing myself well, but does this make sense?
>
> Roy C. Lackey wrote:
>> John Watkins wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure that anyone has said that there's nothing to be found in
>>> all
>>> the various clues about Inire.  The question is whether it makes any
>>> sense
>>> to assume that every candidate for being Inire-in-disguise is in fact
>>> Inire-in-disguise, and the dialogue has gone much like this:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> At some point in that conversation, the burden of proof was shifted to
>>> the
>>> skeptic and the argument that X is Inire became non-falsifiable.  If
>>> Inire
>>> is an immortal shapeshifting, time-travelling bilocating liar, it's
>>> impossible to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction that any given
>>>
>> character
>>
>>> is not Inire.
>>>
>>
>> Excellent! That is exactly the way the argument has gone, both now and
>> in
>> the past.
>>
>> António wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> To show a pattern is viable in a Wolfe book is like showing
>>> there are stars in the sky. "It couldn't work because..." is all but
>>> impossible - especially when all contrary evidence can be just ignored,
>>> as
>>> in this Rudesind/Inire case - and "Here's something else that fits that
>>> pattern...." is essentially gratis. [snip]
>>>
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> Things that get ignored tend to be anything in the text that that
>> doesn't
>> fit or contradicts the pattern. It's okay to go on about monkey features
>> and
>> noses, but when, say, the old man at Casdoe's says of Fechin "His face
>> wasn't a monkey's face at all. Fechin was handsome--the handsomest
>> around.",
>> that gets waved away. The old man also said that Fechin was "A tall,
>> wild
>> boy with red hair on his hands, on his arms. Like a monkey's arms, . .
>> ."
>> (SWORD, chap. XV) But the old Boatman said of Inire, "Just a little man
>> he
>> is, with a wry neck and bow legs." (SHADOW, chap. XXII) "Tall" doesn't
>> fit
>> with "little" and "bow legs", but I guess that's where the lying comes
>> in.
>> Or the shapeshifting.
>>
>> Fechin seems to connect the old man at Casdoe's with Rudesind; that much
>> is
>> in the text, but that doesn't make any or all of the three men Inire.
>>
>> -Roy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 100707-1, 07/07/2010
>> Tested on: 7/7/2010 10:12:43 PM
>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 ALWIL Software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>