(urth) [BGSpam]Re: Silk's origin

[Gerry Quinn]

From: James Wynn 
> Lee is right that we read Wolfe the same way (the right way). And I 
> absolutely agree that the Neighbors are some of the trees on Blue 
> (probably the ancestors of all of them), and the inhumi are the vines. I 
> don't know how Wolfe (being the writer he is) was likely to be more 
> overt about that. I'm just really unsatisfied with how you got there.
How do you determine the right way to read Wolfe?  I would tend to go by results, i.e. consistent interpretations that make sense in terms of ALL the text, and not just mysterious snippets interpreted in exotic ways.  
If Wolfe wanted to write about a world where animals and plants are close cousins and can rapidly evolve into one another, perhaps by epigenetic means, it would have been very easy for him to do so.  He’s writing science fiction, after all.  He could very easily have indicated how the process happens with simple plants and animals, perhaps by having a farmer on Blue talk about it, or a farmer or hunter on Green (I take it we are supposed to believe that evolution took this course on both planets?)

Wolfe didn’t do anything like this.  I think the lianas are just metaphors, like Sandwalker’s ‘tree’ in Fifth Head.  They work fine as metaphors. 

I think if Wolfe wanted to indicate that this sort of process took place, he would not have failed to give such an indication.  


> On the other hand, yours is the ONLY theory that ANYONE has put to 
> together to explain it--including me. When I posted your theory, I had 
> hoped I would eventually have three or four theories of similar 
> comprehensiveness to post. Never happened.

What exactly are the things we need to explain?

- Gerry Quinn


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111021/4cf8ab20/attachment-0004.htm>