(urth) Like a good Neighbor

[James Wynn]

On 11/20/2011 1:49 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
> My opinion is that this "additional" resurrection does Wolfe's
> book harm, not good.

As I said before, ambiguity is a central element of Wolfe's fiction. The 
stories are filled with events that the reader *knows* occurs but have 
reasonable *altenate* explanations. Number Five does not find his 
fathers books on the W shelf in the library, so maybe he was wrong about 
the last name. But if Seawrack did not *truly* believe Horn was 
dead--because she had some genuine reason solid reason for believing he 
was dead--then I have never read a Wolfe story.

I honestly cannot imagine why there is any debate on this issue. This is 
about as emphatic a signal that Wolfe offers.

Arguing about what it means that Horn was resurrected...I get that. 
Arguing about whether Silk killed himself? I get that as well. Arguing 
about whether Horn died when he fell in to the pit? Come on. Seawrack is 
the witness. She doesn't even feel the need to justify her assessment 
even after Horn return alive. She's been a carrion eater. She knows dead 
things.