On Thu, 20 May 2004, Caliann the Elf wrote: @> But why are we arguing of the *possible* lies, ficticious accounts or @> outright perjury of the testimony of either characters....or @> narrators...OF A NOVEL OF FICTION? But, surely the bullet was in Watson's thigh! @> Okay, okay, I know we all wax passionate...and Steve is VERY good at @> making us think. Can we think about the issues that he writes that @> MAKE us wax passionate, because of our own beliefs, rather than arguing @> over whether Paarfi, Paresh, Vlad, or all three of thee above, lied @> their ass off? Yes, we can. @> Because, and this is my inside information of Steve, NOT any sort of @> information he has chosen to give to me.....but after living with him @> for a couple of years, I'd be willing to bet that he put BOTH accounts @> in, maliciously and sadistically, just to screw with ALL of our minds. @> <smiles> I am entirely certain that this is the case. It would be rather disobliging of us not to therefore allow our minds to be screwed with, would it not? A small service we can render the author. @> Not only that, I'd be willing to bet that, sometime in the future, @> some TRUE version comes up that isn't even close to EITHER of them. And that version will also come from an unreliable narrator, and will simply provide a third vector for the argument. I think everyone involved has already acknowledged that the true events (for whichever value of true is appropriate) are not related in any available account. At this point, we're merely discussing which one is closer to the truth.