5 ms·

It also might be worth noting that both pull quotes are things that Ah-Sen said in the questions, instead of things that Powell said in response. Some intervie

• Jtsummers 2y ago
  > It also might be worth noting that both pull quotes are things that Ah-Sen said in the questions, instead of things that Powell said in response. One is from Powell, the other from Ah-Sen. >> The attractive characteristic of a young narrator is the absurdity of it and the license of it. - Powell >> The destiny of all books is to become unmoored from the time which birthed them. - Ah-Sen
  • pictureofabear 2y ago
    Also, shouldn't it be "berthed" not birthed?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • Ar-Curunir 2y ago
      Er why would that be the case. To be unmoored is to be detached from something. So the quote is saying that the destiny of every book is to be detached and read outside the context in which it was written (birthed).
      • basil-rash 2y ago
        To be berthed is to be attached to your home, as a boat. It makes way more sense to keep the nautical analogy going than to switch it over to biology. This was likely a transcription error and/or pun.
        • Amezarak 2y ago
          It's just a mixed metaphor. They are very common in bad writing, which isn't to say they themselves are always bad. The surrounding words make it clear it's not a typo. "which _____ them" does not make sense and would be very rare usage for "berthed". We are born into a time and moored to it. Books are not. Books are distinct from people in this way. That's the point. Since part of the interview is making fun of the way the questions are worded, it also fits in that respect.
          • basil-rash 2y ago
            "which berthed them" makes perfect sense, and fits just as well as any other past participle would in that context. Just because a usage of a word is rare does not mean an experienced author cannot choose to invoke it. In fact, the opposite. Again though, I think the author knew damn well what they were doing and intended for it to be a pun (which would still be arguably berthed-forward).
            • Amezarak 2y ago
              To be clear, the usage you're describing is so rare as to be practically nonexistent. You would never use it this way if you were familiar with the word and its usage, only if you knew the word from dictionaries. Look at the rarity even for saying something like "the crew berthed the ship." You just don't say it like that. Yes, someone "could" do it and we'd understand what they meant. But there's no reason to believe that's what happened here. Maybe "moored" did trigger an association with "birth"/"berth", but "birth" is not a mistake. "Berthing" is also not a singular, one-time event, any ship has a multitude of berthings over time, in this context it makes no sense for there to be a "time that berthed it" as if it was some singular meaningful event, and it changes "time" into something that "berths" books...what would that mean in this metaphor that a time "berths" a book? Wouldn't other times also berth books in their ports? A time does not "berth" a book, it births a book.
              • basil-rash 2y ago
                I really don't care to discuss this further, but all your points are addressed somewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40150716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40150716 Good day.
    • mrkstu 2y ago
      Unless you’re going for some meta-joke, no.
      • basil-rash 2y ago
        Why not? If we’re starting with this nautical analogy (unmoored), immediately flipping to a biological one is odd. I strongly suspect this was a transcription error and/or intentional pun - the two are pronounced identically.
        • tyingq 2y ago
          It almost works, but "berthed" doesn't imply "created", since it means something more like "parked". So that doesn't read right with: "The destiny of all books is to become unmoored from the time which birthed them. - Ah-Sen" It could have used both maybe? "...and then berthed in the present"
          • basil-rash 2y ago
            You’re reading “created” into it to justify that interpretation. If you assume he meant created then sure go with birthed, but that doesn’t prove anything beyond your initial assumption. A “berthed”-friendly interpretation would be “all books start off tied to a particular point in time, it is their destiny to become free of their temporal bounds, to drift through eternity”
            • tyingq 2y ago
              You're assigning some notion that berthed means berthed in a home port. Ships are berthed in many different places and times. So the "time which berthed them" just doesn't work.
              • basil-rash 2y ago
                It does. They were tied to a point in time. They are destined not to be. It’s really very simple. I’m sorry you can’t understand it. Mixing metaphors and claiming a now-unmoored vessel is more likely to be contrasted with one in a state of being “born” than “berthed” is what “doesn’t work”. Especially considering “unmoored” is a nearly exact antonym of “berthed”, whereas a ship is never described as being “born”. Christened, perhaps. But certainly not born.
    • collingreen 2y ago
      Slow clap
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • kd5bjo 2y ago
    Mea culpa; I should know better than to comment when half asleep. Thanks for the correction.
• OJFord 2y ago
  In the TV series Julia there's a character who's an academic in literature and hosts a public access TV show interviewing authors; I thought it was a bit of a caricature, but it may as well be accurately modelled on Ah-Sen, underplaying it even.