Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 07:53:36 -0700
From: maa32 
Subject: (urth) uncritical acceptance

Mark,
As far as the distance, we want to believe it is pretty close because the 
einhumu have to travel between the two whorls.  It's odd - so many of the 
claims I've made have been argued against by a literal interpretation of the 
text - now the distances themselves are called into question.

What purpose does the distorted distance of Green serve the text?  I am 
claiming that the narrator's inability to recognize the signs that urth is 
blue (possibly) ties in with the theme of the book: after a long separation, 
both your home and you yourself have changed beyond recognition.  You don't 
belong to each other anymore.    That's why the narrator can decieve you about 
Urth and Blue: to him, they ARE two different places, and his perception makes 
it seem so.  For everyone else, he is Silk, even though he seems to be Horn.  
The final words of  his narrative are: "I should not have come home."  Home 
has changed beyond all recognition, and so has he; they don't belong together 
anymore.

The deceit in the narrators in this book should serve a discernable purpose 
which can be figured out and set aright.  We can know things that the narrator 
can't.  However, we can't know to question figures unless there is need to 
replace them with new ones. Should we really question everything that comes 
from the second hand account?  What about The Book of the Long Sun?  All of 
that could be totally bogus.  But we have to believe something.  I think 
reliability should only be questioned to match an overwhelming theme or 
message.

Honestly, I think I've accepted the least of what the text actually says of 
almost anyone. (How many times have I heard: "the text ACTUALLY says ..." to 
argue against me? I can't believe I've been called a textual literalist!  Me! 
Oh well.

Marc Aramini



--