ext_50192 ([identity profile] wytchcroft.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] wytchcroft 2009-03-16 11:37 pm (UTC)

:))
thanks for reading:)))

i believe you are 100% correct!! - and i should have emphasised the 'impossibility theorem' more, talking about it is what inspired me to do the article in the first place! It is, i think, why the child's wish is actually a curse, and also explains what happens to him at the close of the novel. AND it is the backbone or under-current perhaps, to the Ballard book i mention.

somewhere in the comments i talk about this with Alek.

it is clearly the biggest difference between the Brothers and Tarkovsky, who i do not believe shares their opinion.

Why did i not mention it more? Because I suddenly realised that i would have to make a bloody huge SPOILER ha ha! I would have to explain what Arthur's wish at the climax of the novel actually is. This would ruin it for anyone who has not read it! But maybe i should have more 'backbone' myself ho ho!:))

thank you once again - for reading and commenting, i didn't know that such a thought process existed for the Brothers outside of this one book, so it's very interesting - and i have just started too read 'The City' novel by them... so i shall look for this.:))

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting