Posted by Ed Kiser on December 08, 2007 at 03:29:41 from 205.188.116.198 user Kisered.
In Reply to: Re: posted by Owen Roberts on December 07, 2007 at 21:03:51:
Owen - You are quite correct.
Mea Culpa.
I was reading into the idea more significance than was really there.
The usage of numerical chapter numbers was indeed in one particular edition, namely, the one I had typed in myself. So, to correct this situation, I have gone back through my TXT files and have changed the number of the chapter to a Roman Numeral form. This seems to be more in line with the published versions.
I had not realized my typed in versions had that little deviation from the original text in the books, so I am glad you got me straightened out on that detail.
So much for my little "theory" as to what is "made up."
Amazing how many times I go through those TXT files I typed in, and still from time to time discover a tiny typo that of course I immediately correct. You'd think after a while I would have it all done properly. But, I'll settle for getting it just simply closer to the original publication. In time, maybe, I'll have it all correct, but till then, just approaching perfection.
Now, as for GN being a "made up" story - that is not necessarily so. I look at it, being the last one COMPLETED by AR, as a kind of "curtain call" where he brings all the principal characters back on stage for one final bow, on neutral ground (neither "the lake" nor "the broads") as a kind of fairwell, ending with them all together, sailing off into the distant horizon, never to be seen again. It was almost like having a class reunion some years after they had previously parted company. Nice to see them back together again for this one time, but somehow, it was just not generating the same enthusiasm.
Ed Kiser, Kentucky