(urth) Inhumi eyes and names

[Daniel Petersen]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:
For the most part, I think there are still mechanistic or symbolic
explanations for stuff like this, and sometimes objective "proof"
...
Wolfe has reasons for weird details ... and his whole spiel on the
Pelerine's tent making a castle in the sky really drives that home: the
symbolic meaning was clear, but the mechanistic one was STILL there somehow.

Yeah, admitting that the 'genre' or 'mode' is some kind of 'fantasy' in no
way mitigates against any symbolism.  I'm wondering what I said that made
that worth pointing out?  All I'm saying is that the 'mechanism', in the
Solar Cycle, does *not* have to be in terms of 'scientific' naturalism.
 There are surely 'occult', or 'preternatural' forces at work in this
series, in addition to and in conjunction with mega-futuristic
super-science.

-DOJP


On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:

For the most part, I think there are still mechanistic or symbolic
explanations for stuff like this, and sometimes objective "proof"
...
Wolfe has reasons for weird details ... and his whole spiel on the
Pelerine's tent making a castle in the sky really drives that home: the
symbolic meaning was clear, but the mechanistic one was STILL there somehow.



>
> --- On *Fri, 9/28/12, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Inhumi eyes and names
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Date: Friday, September 28, 2012, 11:01 AM
>
> António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com<http://us.mc1607.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=entonio@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> Vision:
> - I think this is one case where Wolfe just chose to go with a cool idea,
> not worrying very much whether it can be scientifically explained or not.
>
> We do all realise this is a lot of what's going on Wolfe, right?  And if
> we need 'explanation' in the Solar Cycle, surely it's that the whole work
> is to some degree a form of 'magical realism' or the like, right?  It
> really is 'science fantasy' to one degree or another, in one sense or
> another.
>
>
>  For the most part, I think there are still mechanistic or symbolic
> explanations for stuff like this, and sometimes objective "proof"
>
>  (For example, such as the external objective proofs to aid
> interpretation in the short story the changeling involving the actor Peter
> Palmer who played the oaf lil' abner - born in 1931 as our narrator Peter
> Palmer should have been instead of the 1934 birthdate his account posited,
> making him too young to enter the war legally - and the fact that the
> origin of the word oaf lies in a bad exchange - such that he was swapped
> back in 1931 and his subsequent encounter with his changeling warped his
> memories).
>
> Wolfe has reasons for weird details ... and his whole spiel on the
> Pelerine's tent making a castle in the sky really drives that home: the
> symbolic meaning was clear, but the mechanistic one was STILL there somehow.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120928/e04e71c1/attachment-0003.htm>