From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes"
Subject: RE: (urth) redux on objections Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:43:49 -0800 > Someone (Blattid, right?) posted a huge list of objections. I > mostly agree with Andy's defenses. Yes, that was me. And some of the defenses were good, but miss the point -- which, however, Andy himself _does_ get: that (in his own words) "there is no *compelling* reason to believe" the Blue=Urth theory. You have a very pretty theory, which however requires a great deal of defending -- that is, your hypothesis requires a significant number of related hypotheses to make it feasible. For such a jerryrigged theory to be acceptable, it requires some kind of "smoking gun" _textual_ evidence -- some place where the author is unambiguously (or, well, as unambiguous as anything ever gets in Wolfe) pointing us at it. And while the whole hybridization thing is clearly tremendously important, it isn't a smoking gun for this. Consider, though, that most of your theory works perfectly well _without_ adding the "Blue = Urth" hypothesis. I still am less than convinced that the Narrator is a tree that becomes a Neighbor, takes over Horn's life, and gets transmigrated into Silk's body, but by itself it's worthy of consideration; it's only piling "Blue = Urth" on top of it that it becomes top-heavy and collapses. > I NEVER posited a space warp that the whorl flew into My apologies. I thought someone did -- I was pretty sure this was your explanation of how the Old Sun could be visible as a star from the Grue system. > Polyploidy is instant speciation - that's the whole point. Only if it is transmissible. Highly questionable. And even more questionable that it would arise uniformly among humans, crocodilians, and elephants, in a way that completely pushes the "old" species out of existence. > I NEVER said that Blue was Urth of the past No, someone else (I don't recall who) suggested that. > hybridization is SOOO textually prevalent, as is man to flower imagery. Absolutely; this stuff is important. > I HAVE posited a prototype green man - who isn't green yet. He > can't feed in the winter, he doesn't eat, and he has normal limbs. > Who is he? Your humble narrator Silk. H'mmmm... I think that, like Blue=Urth, this is unnecessary for your more general hypothesis (and indeed, if Blue =/= Urth, the whole question of the "green man future" is irrelevant. No doubt, an eight-legged irrelevant.) > and he has wounds from branches - he runs into a tree as soon > as Hyacinth dies. Completely conjectural, of course, and unneeded ... > As I've said before, the moon (green) is in an oscillating, > self correcting orbit around blue What on _Earth_ (or in space) is a "self correcting orbit?" > Also, the inhumu do not gain excess limbs because they do not > instantly create a new species: they are simple sexual producers > who feast on blood, save it, and then incorporate that DNA into > their children. That is different than the trees instant > consumption and recombination. Just a fussy point. One male inhumu; one female inhuma; many inhumi, male or female or both. And weren't you saying earlier that the inhumi _were_ the trees? Or, no, that was the Neighbors. I'm so confused! > They are different species working on the same terraformed > principles. I guess the biggest question here would be "why in Hell would anyone 'terraform' (I assume you mean "genetically engineered principles") species to do this? "H'mmm. Alzabos, notules, salamanders ... naaah, there aren't enough monsters in the universe to really threaten our species' survival. Hey, I know! I'll create a bunch of monsters that incorporate the DNA of their victims and absorb memory! And the trees can go all polyploid to have extra limbs!" H'mmmm. No, I really have a lot of trouble imagining anyone's motives for this... > And Gene wolfe sets up the mystery of the vanished people as > something that can be solved: Silk/Horn claims that his son > already knows where the vanished people went and where they > came from, but that it would be better if "he figured it out > for himself", which implies that a reader of the text should > be able to figure it out, too. Quite likely. That doesn't mean that this is the answer. --Dan'l --