FIND in
<--prev V30 next-->

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: PEACE: Death; lying (was Re: (urth) Grounded in the text?)
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 18:04:06 

Michael Straight wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Adam Stephanides wrote:
> > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> > >
> > > So do I; but I think the evidence that Weer is dead is overwhelming,
> > > and will stand with that until and unless.
> >
> > I, too, am convinced that Weer is dead, but I wouldn't say the evidence
> > is overwhelming, especially if you don't regard Wolfe's interview
> > statements as probative.  If somebody were to insist that Weer was
> > alive, there is no one passage in the book (even the elm-tree passages)
> > I know of that I could point out to him/her and say "See?  This proves
> > you're wrong."  Rather, it's that Weer's being dead ties together a
> > number of details which, while not contradicting his being alive, remain
> > unexplained in that case.
> Oh, come on.  Is there anyone who doesn't get a shiver when they first
> connect the two elm tree passages?  That's too good to be an
> accident.  Maybe it's a Weer getting a Ghost of Christmas Future look at
> how his life might look after he's dead, but the ghost has got to be in
> there somewhere.  It's too good not to be right.

Strictly speaking, this "proves" only that somebody died, not that Weer
did.  Of course, I agree that it was Weer; but if somebody were to deny
it, I wouldn't be able to prove them wrong.

> (Of course I got also got a shiver when you suggested the tree may have
> fallen after all men are dead, but that's different.  I think.)

Not my suggestion.  It may have been Roy Lackey's, or mantis's, who have
both touched on the "end-of-the-world" hypothesis (another hint I wish
mantis would flesh out!).


*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

<--prev V30 next-->