> He was incredibly logical. Oh, sure. But his writings weren't. > But in order to ground that absurdity, the rest has to be normal. Maybe we haven't read th

> He was incredibly logical. Oh, sure. But his writings weren't. > But in order to ground that absurdity, the rest has to be normal. Maybe we haven't read the same books ? I would not say that conkers are the only absurd element in the book (or even in the paragraph).