(urth) Inhumi eyes and names
David Stockhoff
dstockhoff at verizon.net
Fri Sep 28 12:30:44 PDT 2012
That is a helpful clarification, thanks. We all thought you had gone
wobbly on us.
Strike the scaffold, boys!
On 9/28/2012 3:21 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com
> <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Inhumi eyes and names
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:urth at urth.net>
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
More information about the Urth
mailing list