URTH |
From: William Ansley <wansley@warwick.net> Subject: Re: (urth) Grounded in the text? Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:57:50 At 11:17 AM -0800 12/8/00, Adam Stephanides wrote: >An excellent post; I was going to defend my position, but you do it >better than I would have. There are just a couple of amendments I would >make. Thank you, but I'm sure you would have done just as well, if not better. > >William Ansley wrote: [...] > > You say that my interpretation (and Adam's) "involves a level of >> incoherency [on Weer's part] where he simply cannot distinguish >> between the porch and the party." Obviously, I disagree. In my view, >> Weer's mind has just returned from his 5th birthday party back to the >> "present" and he is addressing the people he has just (in effect) >> left, quite as he or I (or perhaps even you) might make a remark to >> someone who has just left the room, even if we are sure he or she >> cannot hear us any longer. > >I would analyze it a bit differently. I think that when Weer's mind is >in the "past" he remains aware of his "present" situation; this is how >he is able to move back and forth at will, here and on p. 12 of H & R >("I stand, holding on to the mantel..."). Conversely, in this >paragraph, although his attention has turned to the "present" situation, >his mind is still simultaneously at the birthday party (and at Van >Ness's office!). So the "ladies" of the birthday party he is addressing >are present, though >in another compartment of his mind, so to speak. It's a small point, >but I think it's important to figure out, as best we can, what exactly >is going on in the course of Weer's narration. Very neat. This hypothesis is much better my "Weer's mind as a single point travelling through time" idea, if only because it allows for a much neater explanation of all the sudden shifts in the text. > >In the further interests of exactitude, an even smaller point: > >> But, leaving all this aside, I think there is textual evidence that >> Weer is addressing the ladies at his fifth birthday party. On p. 5 we >> see this: "There is a white Pekinese as big as a spaniel at her feet, >> and it snarls when anyone comes too near. (Laugh, ladies, but >> Ming-Sno will bite.)" It is not clear who made this remark (perhaps >> Weer is recalling something his Aunt Olivia said) > >Could be, but I don't recall any other instances of Weer echoing another >person's remark without indicating he's doing so; and I don't see any >reason why it shouldn't be an aside by the present-day Weer, >rhetorically addressed to the "ladies." Of course, this doesn't affect >your argument. You know, I actually have always read this parenthetical remark as just that, "an aside by the present-day Weer, rhetorically addressed to the 'ladies.'" But, I confused myself by thinking about it too much and offered a weak alternative. But I did say "perhaps." -- William Ansley *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/