<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 7/7/2010 5:02 PM, John Watkins wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Same with Inire. His physical absence in
conjunction with his omnipresence means "LOOK FOR SIGNS" to me, because
that is in keeping with the literary style of Grandma Dorcas. In fact,
it's PRECISELY the type of thing Wolfe is asking of us.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm not sure that anyone has said that there's nothing to be
found in all the various clues about Inire. The question is whether it
makes any sense to assume that every candidate for being
Inire-in-disguise is in fact Inire-in-disguise, and the dialogue has
gone much like this:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is not really the course of the argument as I saw it. I can come
up with an equally tendentious synopsis of the course of this argument
from the other side. To a large extent (not in every case) the course
of the argument has been people showing how smart they are by coming up
with counter-evidence that is totally beside the point.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>"X might be Inire. They both look like monkeys!"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Well, X doesn't act much like Inire."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, that's not really surprising for someone in disguise.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>"Why the monkey thing, then?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Well, X's backstory is inconsistent with X being Inire."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"The backstory's a lie."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not sure this was the general response. I think it was that Inire
is a Time-traveller, like Severian. You might as well say that
Severian's "backstory" was inconsistent with him being the
Concilliator. This was true until Urth of the New Sun was published.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>"Well, X's physical description is incompatible with Inire's."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Inire is a shapeshifter and master of disguise."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, the only implied disguise that a merely human Inire could not
pull off was the monkey. And I think Ryan was only half-serious (at
best) about that.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>"Well, that would require Inire to be in two places at once."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Okay. I guess we're talking about Rudesind is Fechin? Here's where
things get techy. It might be right. But it is cumbersome. Too many
balls in the air at once. Which would make me despair of ever coming
conclusively to a definitive answer. But there are a couple puzzles
I've thought that at first and then *click*. <br>
<br>
But there are still those monkey arms. Just because one part of a
theory goes awry, doesn't mean the whole thing collapses or it is not
based on a firm foundation. Saying that it does mean that is just
opportunism on the "con" side of the debate.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>"Tzadkiel can do that, why not Inire?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Well, what does it add to the story to assume X is Inire?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Irrelevant."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The problem is not that the assertion is irrelevant. It's the at the
con-side has decided to stop arguing evidence and begun to argue
metaphysics.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>At some point in that conversation, the burden of proof was
shifted to the skeptic and the argument that X is Inire became
non-falsifiable. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is very little that is falsifiable tBotNS. When I listen to a
theory, I think: "Is this evidence real evidence? Or are the bits of
text being offered supposed to mean something else?" Almost always
when someone is following a false lead (I've been there), it is because
he thinks the subtext means something but Wolfe has intended something
else entirely. But determining that requires looking at the text fresh.
And that is something people who have read the books 3 or 4 times are
usually not inclined to do.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTilycxXW-LhpDPTxDpHDWeoeJ2KcSN_epXSqmVsj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>If Inire is an immortal shapeshifting, time-travelling
bilocating liar, it's impossible to demonstrate to anyone's
satisfaction that any given character is not Inire.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think the theory limits it to people with hairy red arms and monkey
fingers.<br>
<br>
u+16b9<br>
</body>
</html>