<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 11/21/2011 12:13 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:BCE9C57032C74579950B4573D86E0D80@Rover"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: 'Calibri'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY:
'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT:
normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </div>
<div>
<div style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline;
FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small;
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Well, then it
is up to you to present an explanation of the long-nosed
man, because as I said – and you seem to be tacitly
conceding – a ‘late’ appearance by him is not easily made
compatible with the hypothesis</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I made no such concession. I said I *prefer* an earlier appearance.
I still do. I have no problem presenting a theory to tie the events
together and allow people to shoot at it. Even for people who are
better at shooting than presenting. I don't have *explain* him. He's
a Neighbor. I believe him to be OUR Neighbor. Marc, thinks
differently for his own reasons.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:BCE9C57032C74579950B4573D86E0D80@Rover"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: 'Calibri'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 12pt;">
<div>
<div style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline;
FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small;
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </div>
</div>
<div> [and I’m sorry, but it *IS* only a hypothesis, one I do
not share] that Horn died and was replaced by him. [The long
nosed fellow is] a big problem for the ‘Horn died in the
pit’ theory.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, the long-nosed fellow's appearance is only significant in
a time-line, mechanism discussion. <br>
If someone is using it to construct a theory that Horn didn't die,
that's equivalent to constructing theories to show that Hy was never
really a prostitute or that Blood was not Pike's son. You've gone
off the rails in that case.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:BCE9C57032C74579950B4573D86E0D80@Rover"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: 'Calibri'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 12pt;">
<div>
<div>And nothing will shake your belief in your theory, even
being shown how events clearly described in the narrative
contradict it. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The problem with someone not being very good at reading Wolfe is
that they are always declaring how "events clearly described in the
narrative" prove this or that, when in fact they don't prove
anything and don't describe what they think they do. They've
misinterpreted everything. No doubt you will shout "tu quoque!"
Fine. But with you I inevitably find myself feeling like Psyche
trying to prove to Orual that Apollo's palace is all around her. In
fact, I half-way suspect that if we were discussing the novel "Til
We Have Faces" you would be asserting that Psyche was mad. Not only
do I not value your approach to Wolfe, I don't even understand why
anyone would enjoy reading him with that approach/<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>