(urth) Marble on Urth

António Pedro Marques entonio at gmail.com
Fri Jun 3 03:38:24 PDT 2011


David Stockhoff wrote (03-06-2011 01:58):
>
>
> On 6/2/2011 8:07 AM, James Wynn wrote:
>> I really think you ar e both misreading this. It's "enormous darkness
>> OVERHEAD blotting the sundrenched fields". If the darkness is overhead,
>> then it can't blot the sun-drenched fields which --on Urth-- are below. I
>> think you guys are thinking of "blot out" which is a different picture. If
>> it is the shadow of a transport "blotting the fields" then it can't be
>> overhead. What we are to envision is the blackness of the Nightside
>> against the "sun-drenched fields" of the Dayside.
>
> Your reading is not illogical,

With all respect to JW, I find it contorted to the point of hurting.

> in fact it's brilliant, but I think it's
> counterintuitive. And I read "blot" differently:
>
> 1. Mark or stain (something)
> * - the writing was messy and /blotted/
>
> 2. Obscure a view
> * - a dust shield /blotting/ out the sun
>
> I think your sense is #2, the obvious one, but I see it as #1. The darkness
> above, since it creates a shadow, "stains" the sun-drenched field below it.

Precisely.

> It does not blot it out.



More information about the Urth mailing list