(urth) Monkey business

James Wynn crushtv at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 14:09:32 PDT 2010


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/9/2010 12:12 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote:
>>>>>>> Could the elderly person in Casdoe's house be an aquastor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 18:35):
>>>>>> Sure. But anyone...probably any living thing...could be an
>>>>>> aquastor. Why
>>>>>> would being an aquastor help things along?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/9/2010 12:59 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>>>> Hey!
>>>>
>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 19:26):
>>>> Bait the hook, then reel them in. You still haven't delineated the
>>>> relevant differences between "Inire is Rudesind" and "Dorcas is
>>>> Severian's grandmother".
>>>
>>> On 7/9/2010 2:27 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>> It's not my fault if you can't read.
>>
>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 20:35):
>> Read what? Still no citation? Tsk tsk.
>> Five dodges now.
>
> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> Citation of what, James? I've said which two things are wrong with 
> your question and given a further explanation. Since your attention 
> span seems not be be having the best of days, I'll repeat them, which 
> is something I abhor.
>
> 1. Why your first question made no sense at all:
> On 7/7/2010 4:18 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote: I'm not talking about
> narrative advantage. I'm talking about speculative advantage. And as a
> side note I'm against the idea of narrative advantage. I don't see that
> real life employs it, why should fiction?

No. This does not explain why the first question made no sense or was 
beside the point. It only shows that you preferred another term. You 
could have opted to answer the question in those terms instead. You 
chose not to. Which is why I followed up your response by rephrasing the 
same question.
Only a fool would think what you wrote here explains how the following 
is true:

-----"Is Dorcas Severian's grandmother" = useful question
------(i.e. advantageous speculation)

-----"Is Rudesind Inire in disguise?" = pointless question
------(i.e. unadvantageous speculation)

If you are saying "Well, one is true and we don't know if the other is 
true" then your logic is entirely circular. The purpose of speculation 
in this instance to attempt to ascertain whether something is true. I 
hate to use the word "obvious" but....

> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> 2. Once you had corrected it, the information you ask for is in the 
> archives and I have better things to do than reenact the whole 
> discussion:
> On 7/7/2010 6:05 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote: That has been
> discussed to death.

Note that less than 1.5 hours had passed between your last post and this 
one. Do you really think that merely declaring your preference for 
'speculative advantage' over 'narrative advantage' has Drained the Well 
on this question? Really? Really???? I laughed when you posted this, but 
my sense of humor is wearing thin.

Secondly, all  I've done here is rephrase the question in terms you say 
you prefer. In this instance, I gave you another chance at showing how 
the question of Sev's lineage is superior to questions of the identity 
of other characters. But you didn't take it. For some reason, you though 
you had *proven* something at this point. I don't understand why.

> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> 3. If you're really interested to know what's different instead of 
> simply trying to sound clever, you can start with this:
> On 7/9/2010 5:56 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote: One key difference 
> is that Dorcas being Severian's grandmother tells us
> something about a character we knew nothing about (Dorcas as Severian's
> grandmother) and Severian's family tree, i.e. the level of data 
> increases.
> Whereas Rudesind being Inire actually decreases the amount of data by
> dropping one character.

So today, you attempt to prove you case. Sort of.

First of all, you say "one key difference" which implies you have more 
to say. If true that would have justified the weakness of your argument 
here. That is, I *would* have called it "weak" initially. Since this is 
the extent of the "speculative advantage" that you see, it is absolutely 
laughable. The understanding (if determined to be true) that a 
maintenance man that Severian repeatedly encounters is actually an 
important character in the history of Urth whose actions take place 
mostly off-stage...you say all that does is "decreases the amount of 
data by dropping one character". Am I supposed to take this seriously??

> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> And again, the identity of Dorcas is all but spelled out. When 
> discussing whether or not she was Severian's grandmother, it's more of 
> a debate between 'she obviously is' and 'it's so obvious maybe it's 
> wrong'.

Oh! So your logic IS circular. Here's another way of saying "All but 
spelled out": "NOT spelled out".
It's not as though you only need to read the end of Citadel to 
understand Severian's paternal lineage. It's more subtle than that. The 
simian references are at least as spelled out, but their weight 
inexplicably passes right over your head.

> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> It would be quite nice if you'd keep track of what people say and 
> didn't mangle the quotation system. It's not hard, you know. On the 
> top of every quotation, there is a line saying who said what when. 
> Then the text is indented by a greater-then sign. This can be nested. 
> If people don't mess with it, as you do by trimming, then it's easy to 
> follow the conversation. Plus, if you actually take the time to read 
> what the other person says, you won't have to keep asking when did 
> they say what.

If you have an instance in which I have misrepresented what you have 
said, say so. Otherwise, kiss off.

> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> You want me to replay the discussions from the archives? How stupid 
> would I have to be to do your bidding? You don't get any rhetorical 
> edge by making preposterous challenges.
>
>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 19:26):
>>>> So this gives me a chance to show the value of
>>>> wild speculation.
>>>> There's no reason to get Talmudic on the difference between your
>>>> proposed standard and my question. I am only asking "How does viewing
>>>> the old man as an aquastor resolve the apparent connection between him
>>>> and Rudesind?" Also, "How does the old man being an aquastor 
>>>> resolve the
>>>> issue posed by Mr Berman that the old man might be female?"
>>>> What I am not asking is "What difference would it make if the old man
>>>> and Rudesind were connected?" or "If the old man is an aquastor, then
>>>> what?" Because in these instances the question is the answer: "The old
>>>> man and Rudesind might be connected" and "The old man might be an
>>>> aquastor".
>>> On 7/9/2010 2:27 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>> If X then X?
>>
>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 20:35):
>> Irrelevant question in this case. No speculated advantage. See what I
>> did above? I used specific instances and showed how they were different.
>> Try that.
>
> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> You showed no such thing.

Now I understand. You're an idiot.

u+16b9




More information about the Urth mailing list