Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!jagardner
From: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Ellison on Dhalgren
Message-ID: <16360@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 10:51:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.16360
Posted: Mon Sep  9 10:51:59 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 03:45:50 EDT
References: <3524@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <396@rti-sel.UUCP>
Reply-To: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 29

[...]

In defense of the wrap-around beginning and ending of Dhalgren (or
at least in expansion of same):

The book begins with:
	to wound the autumnal city.

The book ends with:
	I have come to

We therefore have a (possibly interesting) interpretational
question.  Is the complete sentence

	I have come to wound the autumnal city.
		     or
	I have "come to" to wound the autumnal city.

If you merge the two to's, you have a straight declaration of
destructive intent.  If you do not merge them, the narrator has
"come to", woken out of unconsciousness, and the meaning can be
entirely different.

People who dislike Dhalgren probably don't care, and I can appreciate
their position.  For myself, it's just one more point to show that
Delany is not quite a simplistic as appears at first glance.

				Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo