PB
asked
Scott Hawkins:
It's a trivial detail but... I'm going to ask it anyway to satisfy my curiosity. If Carolyn's catalog is to know every other language there is, including the language of animals, why does she still have a difficult time communicating with Michael? Sticking only to her own catalog, can Carolyn learn the language of animals up to a certain depth? Or did I just misunderstand that part of the novel?
Scott Hawkins
This answer contains spoilers…
(view spoiler)[Hey Peachy,
Goodreads is being weird with this question. I'm not sure what's going on, but I've already answered it at least 2x, and for some reason it keeps disappearing. If you see this, please believe I'm not ignoring you.
It's a fair question. I did wrestle with this one a lot. There's a quote by Wittgenstein along the lines of "If a lion could talk, we would not understand him," that is sort of the gist of my answer.
I'm not completely sure that anyone, including Wittgenstein himself, knew what he meant by that quote, but I think the gist of it is that a lion's thought processes would be so different from ours (or any other herd animal's) that meaningful communication couldn't happen.
Michael was envisioned as the bridge to that gap. By immersing himself with the lives of animals, he gathered the life experiences necessary for their concepts to make sense. In practice, I envisioned it as a sort of dream state. You know how when you're on the verge of sleep and you get jolted awake--you can still sort of remember what you were thinking, but it slips away quickly and it doesn't really make any sense. That's the state of mind Michael lives in.
Carolyn gets the basics, but she's not a specialist. (hide spoiler)]
Goodreads is being weird with this question. I'm not sure what's going on, but I've already answered it at least 2x, and for some reason it keeps disappearing. If you see this, please believe I'm not ignoring you.
It's a fair question. I did wrestle with this one a lot. There's a quote by Wittgenstein along the lines of "If a lion could talk, we would not understand him," that is sort of the gist of my answer.
I'm not completely sure that anyone, including Wittgenstein himself, knew what he meant by that quote, but I think the gist of it is that a lion's thought processes would be so different from ours (or any other herd animal's) that meaningful communication couldn't happen.
Michael was envisioned as the bridge to that gap. By immersing himself with the lives of animals, he gathered the life experiences necessary for their concepts to make sense. In practice, I envisioned it as a sort of dream state. You know how when you're on the verge of sleep and you get jolted awake--you can still sort of remember what you were thinking, but it slips away quickly and it doesn't really make any sense. That's the state of mind Michael lives in.
Carolyn gets the basics, but she's not a specialist. (hide spoiler)]
More Answered Questions
Jennifer Niskanen
asked
Scott Hawkins:
Like everyone else, I popped over to see if there were more books. I don't really have a question, other than how do you stand the greedy demands for a sequel? Good for you! I love Mount Char, but too many stretch what starts out as a great story, until it just fades to nothing. Trying to force a story on, when the inspiration is already complete, just sounds like a recipe for creative constipation to me.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more





Nov 16, 2015 02:17PM · flag