(urth) vanished people=Hieros

[Marc Aramini]

--- On Mon, 11/7/11, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:

> From: Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com>
>   It means what readers who have properly
> read it think it means.
> 
> 

I agree with you on this, Gerry. 

 The problem is metonymic associations are impossible to prove except through repetition ad nauseum, and can still can be denied.  Thus the similarities between Nessus and the city of the inhumi, the presence of a mechanism for transit to Green in the narrator's thoughts, and Gene's card lead me to believe I have properly read a text, while your equally valid (to you) reading may stress the narrator's claim to see the red sun in the sky and that they are necessarily two distinct places since the solar systems are obviously not similar in any way shape or form.

Is it not possible that one author may intend dream sequences to be taken literally and another not?  Yes, it is exceedingly possible, and thus our disagreement on Kypris/Mother/Hy/Chenille/ and your insistence that the actual identity of the two sets of parents was inconsquential in the long run, when I think they can be mapped onto the story through the dreams and other comments quite clearly.  If the author intended for those dreams to only be psychologically realistic, I AM misreading the text.  If he intended them to be literally true SOMEHOW, then you are by ignoring statements like those that are simple linking verb predicate nominative constructs with no room for interpretation except are they intended to be true or not.  That's all there is to it.

This is why multiple readings are understandable, though not all can be equally correct.  We are each going to have our interpretation, some will be closer to the authorial intent than others.  Hamlet's father may have been a ghost, but he wasn't an alien.  The same assertions can't be made with Wolfe.