(urth) Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?

[James Wynn]

>> 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.
>   Dan'l Danehy-Oakes:
> 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.

Interesting. This is the same way I say "The Story of Frog" should be 
read and "The Story of the Student and His Son".
But because the "answer" hasn't been provided, people continue to treat 
them as literary larks.

J.