URTH |
From: "Tony Ellis" <tony.ellis@futurenet.co.uk> Subject: (urth) re: No lie? Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:58:11 +0000 Roy C. Lackey wrote: > Of the instances that I cited, more than one of them are cases where the > statements which are elsewhere contradicted are--literally--parenthetical > comments, which need not have been made at all. The fact that they occur at > all, as well as the way in which they are made, lead me to believe that > Wolfe went out of his way to make them, that they are not mistakes on his > part. > Well, that can be argued either way. You can just as easily say (and I do) that the parenthetical nature of the contradictions shows that GW wasn't thinking too hard when he wrote them. He's on the umpteenth rewrite, he adds a few little insights, rewords a couple of weak-looking paragraphs, and because he's Severian's creator, not Severian, he makes a few mistakes. It's all too easy, as anyone will know who's ever had cause to regret inserting what seemed at the time a brilliant last-minute argument into an essay five minutes before deadline. Nobody, not even GW, is perfect. Once you start milling down any work of literature as finely as we do, you're going to find ugly, illusion-shattering errors. Lady Macbeth: did she have children or didn't she? Robinson Crusoe: swims naked to the wreck, fills his pockets with useful stuff. Dr John Watson or Dr James Watson? I would be more convinced by the Severian forgets\lies to us theory if the contradictions were -less- parenthetical. *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/