(urth) Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

Lee Berman wrote:
> [I]t is nearly impossible to dispute that Wolfe's original
> 4-book BotNS had only the barest evidence for a Flood, while the added final book makes that
> conclusion incontrovertible.

Sorry, Lee, but I must disagree with this. It seemed obvious to me
that Dr. Talos' play was supposed to be taken as unknowingly prophetic
(in the same way that the High Priest in the Gospel is unknowingly
prophetic when he says that it is better that one man die for the
nation), and that the general outline, if not the details, were to be
taken seriously.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes