***Major Spoiler*** The ending scene of Through Fiery Trials

dwileye13 wrote:Bless him, RFC uses naming, either; personal names, missions or grand plans with meaning sometimes deep. This is a know habit.

Androcles is such a clear fable with a distinct moral - "gratitude is the sign of a noble soul"

How does that translate into a phony appearance of Schueler with a fake Testimony

Who is pulling a thorn out of the Lion's Paw>>

Androcles is Schueler's first name.

Bruno Behrends wrote:

Isilith wrote:
Umm, what are you smoking? Pointing out that there is ZERO direct textev on the visitation being produced by the IC is damnably relevant. I am pointing out a fact, not what I want to happen. Yours is the pure speculation point.

I have pulled the textev supporting the IC's involvement together upthread (pages 9-12 of this thread).

I would appreciate it if you could cut the personal attacks. I am neither smoking anything nor writing something out of wishful thinking. Why are you accusing me of such when you don't even know me?

In fact my first impression when reading the book was that the Schueler visitation was real. And I would kinda like that too if it were the case. Only on careful re-reading and looking at the key scenes did I realize that the opposite was likely true.

You think my comment was an attack? LOL That's rich, especially considering how your whole reply to me was snarky and dismissive.

Bruno Behrends wrote:Read pages 13 and 14 of this thread. Your opinion has already been discussed. We are not forgetting anything.

Is what I mean by snarky and dismissive.

Then we get...

Bruno Behrends wrote:He could be or he couldn't be. So your idea is no argument either way.

Which is saying my points/arguments have no merit. That is what drew the "what are you smoking comment". Which really wasn't an attack on you, but more like how in heck can you say my argument has no merit. Seeing as how all I did was point out that RFC routinely hides things in plain site, making is believe we see what isn't there.

Maybe you didn't mean it how it came off to me, and I know I wasn't trying to attack you. If I was trying to do that, I would have been much more direct. That said, I AM sorry that it seems to have offended you.

Isilith wrote:
You think my comment was an attack? LOL That's rich, especially considering how your whole reply to me was snarky and dismissive.

Bruno Behrends wrote:Read pages 13 and 14 of this thread. Your opinion has already been discussed. We are not forgetting anything.

Is what I mean by snarky and dismissive.

Look - you brought that onto yourself by introducing yourself into this thread by accusing the other side of 'keeping forgetting' things:

Isilith wrote:
What all of the fans who keep saying "the IC did it!!!" keep forgetting is that a favorite tactic of our celery chaser is to let us assume that we read things that aren't really in the book.

Why do you accuse us of forgetting things? When you don't know us? And we aren't. I haven't forgotten Out Of The Dark.

I defended myself by pointing out to you that we were not forgetting that DW is capable of pulling surprises - and showed you this was true by citing the pages on this thread that we had already discussed that. I have a right to correct an accusation that's not true. I might have been a little less direct and more circumspect had you not introduced the snarkiness yourself with your 'keep forgetting' claim. But since that's the way you talked I saw no reason to spare you.

Then we get...

Bruno Behrends wrote:He could be or he couldn't be. So your idea is no argument either way.

Which is saying my points/arguments have no merit.

'No merit' is your choice of words not mine. What I said was that DW could surprise us or couldn't. So that's not an argument either way. Which is true. Why do you take exception?

Edited for quoting syntax.

... you really are going to keep at it, aren't you?

My comment was fine, the "forgetting things" you keep quoting was in the nature of a rhetorical question, in that it was merely to make the point that we forget how sneaky RFC is at our own peril. To back up that I meant nothing by that, I even apologized for your taking it that way. But you continue to try and push an issue that doesn't exist. Not sure why you want a conflict, but you aren't getting one from me. I am here to talk with ( and read their insights ) fellow fans who love DW's work, not be sucked into bickering. So have a nice day.

So... I just finished reading the book and had my own crazy conspiracy theory, which I thought might be worth tossing out here in the small possibility I turn out to be right.

We know the key contained a very large file, and I saw it suggested it might be an AI or personality imprint. Maybe it was, and it was able to take over Owl? In which case all of the things the eternally scheming Nahrmann did (naming it operation Androcles, making Owl's nose grow, saying it would make the real Schueler spin in his grave) might have been him trying to get messages out that the Archangel was coming from inside the house, as it were.

It's not a great theory, but I agree that something seems fishy here - it doesn't seem to fit with what we've seen of the IC's principles, nor is it clear why they would want to do it; they think the return won't be for eighty years, so they've basically won already, and this throws a wrench in the gears.

It would also undercut some of Charis' staggering superiority; at first it was the underdog surviving due to the advantages of SNARCs, comms, a tech library, etc. but now Charis is the power powerful nation on the planet and still has those advantages. It might be interesting if they have to learn to make due without the high tech and just by the world spanning empire.

Bruno Behrends wrote:

dwileye13 wrote:Bless him, RFC uses naming, either; personal names, missions or grand plans with meaning sometimes deep. This is a know habit.

Androcles is such a clear fable with a distinct moral - "gratitude is the sign of a noble soul"

How does that translate into a phony appearance of Schueler with a fake Testimony

Who is pulling a thorn out of the Lion's Paw>>

Androcles is Schueler's first name.

I was rereading TFT and saw that I must reconsider and regroup

Isilith wrote:... you really are going to keep at it, aren't you?

My comment was fine, the "forgetting things" you keep quoting was in the nature of a rhetorical question, in that it was merely to make the point that we forget how sneaky RFC is at our own peril. To back up that I meant nothing by that, I even apologized for your taking it that way. But you continue to try and push an issue that doesn't exist. Not sure why you want a conflict, but you aren't getting one from me. I am here to talk with ( and read their insights ) fellow fans who love DW's work, not be sucked into bickering. So have a nice day.

Hatchet buried.

Edited for spelling

Bruno Behrends wrote:

dwileye13 wrote:Bless him, RFC uses naming, either; personal names, missions or grand plans with meaning sometimes deep. This is a know habit.

Androcles is such a clear fable with a distinct moral - "gratitude is the sign of a noble soul"

How does that translate into a phony appearance of Schueler with a fake Testimony

Who is pulling a thorn out of the Lion's Paw>>

Androcles is Schueler's first name.

Yes, the all-foreseeing author planted that shotgun a long time ago.

phillies wrote:

Bruno Behrends wrote:
Androcles is Schueler's first name.

Yes, the all-foreseeing author planted that shotgun a long time ago.

OTOH, it was Friedrich earlier in the series....

phillies wrote:

Bruno Behrends wrote:
Androcles is Schueler's first name.

PlaysWithBees wrote:
Yes, the all-foreseeing author planted that shotgun a long time ago.

OTOH, it was Friedrich earlier in the series....

Was this difference ever resolved by RFC?

e.g. first name/middle name [F A Schueler] or place holder in early book slipping thru or...?