FIND in
<--prev V212 next-->
From: "Don Doggett" 
Subject: Re: (urth) I recant. but I wasn't REALLY wrong
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:31:32 -0800

 Marc wrote (in a confusing, intriguing, borderline infuriating way)

> Mr. Wolfe has weighed in.  I don't know if I can even post about short sun
> anymore.
> I know the truth now :(

Does this mean that Gene Wolfe actually told you the answer?  Or did you
read it somewhere?  What what what are you saying?

 > Gene Wolfe is far trickier than any of us could ever possibly imagine.
> No one was right - all your reasons for Urth not being Blue AREN'T valid
>  There IS one valid reason it probably isn't Blue.  I don't know what to

I think I know the answer to this but I don't know how to justify it or
explain the mechanics.  What I would guess and what I've toyed with in my
head in the past is that Blue is Lune and Green is Urth.  That's the only
way I can see that you could be wrong but not really and only have one
reason why Urth isn't Blue.  Why Wolfe would do this and what it means to
the text I can't begin to fathom.  Of course I could just be out in lala

> In regards to Urth in the old New Sun book, there ARE sentient trees on
> :)  Maybe even cannibal trees. That's all I'm going to say.  Good fishing.
> Holy crap.  How could one man be so damned brilliant?!!! Merry Christmas,
> Aramini.  Be careful what you ask for - you might get it. :(
> Just remember that I wasn't really, really wrong.  Just kind of.  But not
> really.  I don't know what to tell you.  If anyone else comes up with the
> "solution" of the text independently, I will start posting again about
> Sun.
> Marc Aramini

Breathe.  Just breathe.

Don "the hound of the Baskervilles" Doggett


<--prev V212 next-->