(urth) Sigh.

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

Lee Berman wrote:

> So, is that it? Is that all there is to it? An academic proof of incorrectness? For me
> there is a human aspect. Will it really be a joyous day for the List when Marc Aramini is
> forced to retract all hopes for Urth=Green and admit eternal, irrevocable wrongness?
> Party hats and noisemakers on that day?

No; and I specifically did not suggest that this eliminates Urth ==
Green _except_ on the (rather mundane) hermeneutic level of "plot."
With Wolfe, other levels are almost always more interesting (which is
why I find Wolfe an interesting writer).

Returning to the Moby Dick analogy, one is reasonable in suggesting
that "Moby Dick is God" provided one does not mean "Moby Dick, the
whale in the story, created the world in which the story takes place."
The ways in which Moby Dick can be God are much more interesting than
that. Likewise, the ways in which Urth can be Green are much more
interesting than the merely physical way in which it clearly can't.


> Pithy platitude of the day: It's the journey not the destination. It's the chase
> not the catch.

That depends on whether you're a fox-hunter, in it for the sport, or a
predator in it for your dinner. (Or, of course, the prey, in it for
your life.)


> Whether you see people's lupine theories as journey companions or as a
> nasty little fox to corner and kill, these principles apply.

I see them as neither. I see them as ideas to be considered on their own merits.


> Speaking strictly for myself,
> I found my thought processes stimulated more by trying to think of ways to support
> Marc's theory than by trying to delete it.

Very well; and I am looking to support it on the level where it is
best supportable.


>>There's all sorts of good thematic/symbolic stuff going on, of course,....
>
> How about ecological and spiritual, hey? ;- )

Certainly spiritual. Ecological? I can't say. Not if it means one
planet's ecology is a descendant of another's in a simple plot-level
manner.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes