(urth) Are the Neighbors REALLY the Neighbors?

[David Stockhoff]

On 2/15/2011 9:37 AM, James Wynn wrote:
>
>>> And yet, there is a subtle clue in that the possibly only
>>> >fully corporeal 'neighbor' we meet is the barnacle encrusted 
>>> monstrosity
>>> >that tries to climb aboard the boat with Horn early in Blue (?? is 
>>> that when
>>> >it happens?)
>>
>> Lee Berman-
>> Well, middle of the book (pg. 163 in my copy). And that certainly 
>> seems to be the
>> best conclusion based on Horn's theory of that thing which he tries 
>> to dismiss but,
>> c'mon, is Wolfe really going to waste 3 paragraphs on a false theory? 
>> Why would he?
>
> Actually, it is not at all uncommon for Wolfe to spend paragraphs of a 
> hand-wringing over theories that are wrong but alert the reader to a 
> puzzle to be solved. An obvious example (to me) is when Silk spends 2 
> or 3 pages speculating on why he called Blood "son" on their first 
> meeting. A good rule of thumb for reading Wolfe is that when a theory 
> is offered, it is probably wrong in some key way (although in some 
> ways correct as well).
>
> u+16b9
> _______________________________________________
>
Right, and if Wolfe is being parsimonious, the right and wrong parts 
tell us more about the character doing the theorizing than about the 
problem itself.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110214-1, 02/14/2011
Tested on: 2/15/2011 9:40:39 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com