Re: imaculate birth
Posted by:
dante (---.internal.omneuk.com)
Date: May 30, 2003 12:41AM
Hmm...theories that rely on the main characters being wrong about something (when we're not told they're wrong, ever) always seem kind of fanwanky to me. (for anyone not familiar with the term, to fanwank = to come up with variably likely explanations for an apparent plot hole, which have no support in the text)
Plus, was Jack Schitt not just imprisoned in one copy of the Raven, and he didn't go into the original? Did we get told if he turned up in all copies of it?
Seems like I'm just picking holes in your theories without coming up with my own, here. Sorry!
So to muck up a book, you can jump into *any* copy and do stuff, as long as the original still exists, and you then destroy the original when you come out? Actually, that does make sense, because otherwise it would be like a different universe for every copy of the book. Hmm. Actually, Aunt Polly met Wordsworth even going in through a copy, so it must all go into the same universe.
But then, wouldn't it be safer to destroy the original copies of every book, because then they couldn't be tampered with? (Actually this applies anyway, and is a general question. I guess because hardly anybody knew you could bookjump, but shouldn't the Litera-Tecs be doing something about it now?)
And does it mean when you're in a book and change something - for example, when Thursday got Rochester to say "sweet madness" - that line would have turned up in every copy of the book even if she hadn't been in the original?
Actually, I'm kind of convinced.
:--
Do something pretty while you can...