(urth) Confusing passage

Sergei SOLOVIEV soloviev at irit.fr
Tue Sep 18 03:33:22 PDT 2012

To my mind, [sic] corresponds to both names in both cases, and attracts 
the attention
to the fact that the narrator knows the names Hoof and Hide, but may 
substitute Horn
for each almost indifferently - so the identity that is questioned is 
rather the
identity of the narrator. My impression was that it is stylistically 
nicely done.

Sergei Soloviev

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> *From:* Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
> > From On Blue's Waters, Ch. 5 section 6:
> >    Even Hoof and Horn [sic], who must just be entering young manhood now
> >    will someday be as old as Marrow and Patera Remora.....in fifty 
> years,
> >    Horn and Hide [sic] may well be dead....These words, which I pen with
> >    so little thought- or hope- or expectation- may possibly endure long
> >    beyond that, endure for two centuries or even three...
> >
> I am confused by this. I could guess the first [sic] is a way of
> >
> forshadowing that Horn's self-identity will come into question later.
> >
> But what about the second [sic]? Is Hide's identity also to come into
> >
> question? Or does the second [sic] also refer to Horn in the clause?
> I say typo.  It makes no sense as written, and the names are easily 
> confusable.  Reading the passage, I didn’t notice it, so it’s not 
> implausible that author and proof-readers didn’t either.
> - Gerry Quinn
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

More information about the Urth mailing list