(urth) Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy

entonio at gmail.com entonio at gmail.com
Thu Nov 17 16:11:27 PST 2011


No dia 2011/11/17, às 17:01, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> James Wynn wrote (17-11-2011 15:58):
>>> I've presented a theory based on the existence of a "second" Oreb  
>>> at Silk's
>>> residence that night and the evidence that Rajan can Time-travel.
>>
>> António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> 'Rajan can Time-travel' is what you are proposing here, not  
>> evidence for it. This is the one occasion where time travel is the  
>> most straightforward explanation. Visiting the Red Sun needn't  
>> involve TT at all and appearing in the grandmother's tale can be  
>> manipulation.
>
> How does the manipulation work? Is there any other evidence that the  
> Rajan can do that?

He does it to Fava's story, at least - she points that out to him.

> The evidence has already been presented and  is understood. The  
> Rajan's presence in the grandmother's tale and the screwy time-line  
> in SS are the evidence of Time-travel (examine when Hoof and Hide  
> say they each left Lizard Island as opposed to when they  
> return...also, not the ages of Sinew's sons. You *might* be able to  
> just worm those in but it is a verrry tight squeeze).
>
> Understanding that the Rajan is time-traveling and appears in Pike's  
> room is not a matter of taking each piece of evidence in turn and   
> proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that is TT. That's not the way a  
> Wolfe novel works. For each event there are always alternate  
> explanations. For example, maybe Number Five's last name does NOT  
> start with a "W". After all, he didn't find any of his father's  
> books on the W shelf.
>
> Instead, it is a matter of taking ALL the evidence (including the  
> second Oreb) and saying "Oh. Time-travel".

What I'm saying is that the second Oreb is the strongest piece of  
evidence, and the one that really just has no other possible  
explanation (once we assume it's Oreb). As such, all the rest cannot  
be evidence *for* it, only *alongside* it (even if it hardly needs  
anything else, unless some other explanation no one thought of  
appears). 


More information about the Urth mailing list