(urth) 5HC

[Lee]

>Gerry Quinn: my interpretation, which comes from the timeline clearly

> given during Marsch's interrogation.


Since I consider Number Five to be a much more reliable narrator than 

VRT, I tend to base my understanding of what happens more on the first

section of the novel than the final section. But I will check out VRT's

timeline for signs I am mistaken about Marsch's arrival.


>Text that is plainly written by the boy (we arre practically told so in 
>so many words when Wolfe tells us of the officer looking at the text, 
>comparing it with Victor's school composition book, and nodding), who 
>had a clear reason to write it.


Your interpretation of the "nodding" is just that- your interpretation.

Marsch himself ostensibly explains the change in his handwriting as being

due to a cat bite. He explicitly explains that the handwriting change 

lasts long after the bite has healed, and appears to be permanent.


Your assessment that the "cat bite" explanation is a lie and the "Marsch is

really an Abo" explanation is true is purely speculation and conjecture on

your part. Speculation, it has been noted, which others readers in the past

did not find convincing.


Perhaps, as you note in your previous post, skepticism can be taken too far

in interpreting Wolfe's work. But perhaps imaginative speculation can be taken

too far in the other direction also.


Where does one draw the line on what is plausible? My point is and has always

been that the placement of that line is arbitrary and individualized. Each 

person draws that line where it feels most comfortable to them.


Some think (or thought) Dr. Marsch was not replaced. Some think everyone was 

replaced. Some think only Dr. Marsch was replaced. Others think everyone except 

Number Five and his family were replaced. The book is written to allow for such 

latitude in interpretation. Draw the line where you feel comfortable.


Given that a Wolfe interview changed some people's minds about Dr. Marsch not

being replaced, there may be the suggestion that too much skepticism is the 

graver error in reading Wolfe. This seem appropriate for a religious author 

who finds himself writing for an ocean of atheistic readers. But that's just

my own view.