(urth) Like a good Neighbor

[Sergei SOLOVIEV]

I think the problem with your approach is that you seek the "absolute" - not
similarity (in certain - important - respects), but identity; death must be
death (not in a metaphorical sense); neighbours cannot just be connected to
the trees (e.g. trees be their "totem"), but must be related to them in 
a very strong sense (e.g. be
their genetical "children") etc. To me the power of Wolfe's SF is that 
at the same
time it is very subtle psychological literature - and very precise and
deep and realistic description of humanity (not only humanity).

Have not many of us (I mean this list!) have such strong ties with
somebody (a friend, a lover, a parent, a dog... ) that one could say that
he left a part of himself in this person (or has an "imprint" of
this person in himself forever)? Why discussing Babbie we need
to assume that all that was left of Horn went into him?

Had not some of us had situations when it was possible to say
(seriously!) that a better part of us (our soul) died?

But do we need after that say something like "poor NN,
after his divorce all that was left of his former soul
went into his dog"? We may - but why we want
to understand such things literally reading Wolfe?

Sergei Soloviev

Marc Aramini wrote:
> Uhh ... the chapter is titled "the end" and it says "the best part of 
> my life was oveer.  The pit was its grave".  In addition, doesn't she 
> say he was dead?  come on man there are at least some disturbing 
> deathly images.
>
> --- On *Sun, 11/20/11, Gerry Quinn /<gerry at bindweed.com>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com>
>     Subject: Re: (urth) Like a good Neighbor
>     To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
>     Date: Sunday, November 20, 2011, 11:18 AM
>
>      
>      
>     *From:* James Wynn
>     <http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=crushtv@gmail.com>
>     > Gerry's mistake (one of them) is thinking that all the Neighbors
>     must be acting
>     >
>     in concert, always with larger ultimate plan in mind. If we were
>     talking about
>     >
>     a human character, he wouldn't make that mistake.
>      
>     I don’t think that about Neighbours and I don;t know where you
>     think I have suggested it.  Like humans, they clearly do often act
>     in concert.
>
>
>      
>     >
>     Just because a young faerie has acted to resurrect Horn out of
>     personal guilt
>     >
>     does not mean he stopped to plan beyond that decision.
>     I can’t understand how you entertain this hypothesis.  Are you
>     saying Horn was dead or alive when he noticed a Neighbour bending
>     over him?  If the Neighbour waited for him to die, or actively
>     killed him, he’d have had time to notice that Horn was stuck in a
>     pit.  Maybe he thought humans could fly.
>      
>     Also, if “Glittering eyes and sharp faces came and went” refers to
>     Neighbours, there must have been more than one of them.  Surely
>     they would have dissuaded their comrade, or helped him if they
>     could not dissuade him.  Or just reminded him of what he was.
>      
>     Horn didn’t die in the pit.  There’s nothing that strongly
>     indicates that he did and a million things that make it obvious
>     that he didn’t. 
>      
>     - Gerry Quinn
>      
>      
>      
>
>     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Urth Mailing List
>     To post, write urth at urth.net
>     <http://us.mc1618.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=urth@urth.net>
>     Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net <http://www.urth.net/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net