The man with no Arms

[Cald]

Spoilers.




On page 44 the yellow and purple quotation marks first introduce The man with no Arms. This in its self is in no way extrodinary, but they introduce him as the Man with no Harms. I am curious to think that this is either one of the speech impediment like so many of the others throughout the book, or possibly the only true articulation of The man with no Harms. If this is the case, can it be assumed that the maker of the swords is perfect? However, on page 75 the man with no arms clenches one of the swords, Dagger?, between his teeth. This implies the inability to do it with his hands. But, this could also be an assumption made by one of the story tellers.



Also I have some questions concerning the quotation marks. Why, in some cases are there two different colored quotation marks begining a single phrase? Why are there quotation marks after a phrase? what is the signifigance of the giant quotation marks? Any thoughts?

Cald

[Ellimist]

The man really does not have any arms attached to his shoulders.

Also, he has no "harms" as in "weaponry" implying his swords/daggers are ineffectual.

[marsjams13]

. . . his swords/daggers are ineffectual.

i disagree.

[Cald]

The man really does not have any arms attached to his shoulders.

The story itself, and testimonies from the children show that the sword does have profound effects, especially to Belinda Kite.
So if this is the case, how do you explain the spelling on page 44?

[Ellimist]

Perhaps that man cannot do harm with them, but anyone who "purchases" one can. He didn't quite kill the Story Teller with that "cold slicing through the shoulder blades" or whatever, did he?

[sutrix]

I think the seller of ammunition is just as harmful as the user.

[Ellimist]

I think the seller of ammunition is just as harmful as the user.

Heh, I was going for a little more literal and direct than that, but yeah...

[libertinus]

Also I have some questions concerning the quotation marks. Why, in some cases are there two different colored quotation marks begining a single phrase? Why are there quotation marks after a phrase? what is the signifigance of the giant quotation marks? Any thoughts?

Cald

To me, it seems that there must exist a distinct and deliberate numerical: pattern, message, subtext, whatever, based upon the equations listed in the introduction. Whilst I have no supporting facts for this suspicion, nor have I finished reading the book, I do believe that this theory deems attention. Anybody with me?

[Cald]

There has to be some method to the order of colors, MZD is notorious for controlling every aspect of his book. But I don't think it's a pattern. one of these days I'm going to go through the book and count them. Can we agree that the five narators are the Orphans? or does someone else have anouther theory?

When people tell a story they tell it differently. some details are omitted where others can be fabricated or amplified. In the beginning of the book MZD says he collected the five stories and made one out of them. He also admits that it might not all be correct. I think the quotation marks are just that detail that the orphans remembered and contributed to the story. When two colors appear in a quote, two of the Orphans said the same thing.

[Taur Nu Fuin]

Assuming that none of the narrators can be entirely reliable, the fact that the Man With No Arms is first identified as the "Man with no Harms" may point to the fact that one of the speakers simply misheard the word "Arms". Or, perhaps, "Harms" is the correct word, and everyone else misheard or misremembered it.

I have yet to really pay any systematic attention to the different speakers, but it would be interesting to see which ones happen to identify the Man and the Storyteller as people who actually are dangerous. Perhaps we have at least one narrator utterly insensitive to the very real damage that the sword can do? Or as many as four narrators overestimated its capacity for destruction?

[Cald]

I keep thinking about this, only because the names are so precise. A valley of assault (valley of salt), A forest of Note (forest of falling note) and a mountain of any won paths (mountain of manyone paths); A man with no Harms (the man with no arms).

It is important to note that the names in the parenthasis (_____) were given those names by the story teller, while their opposing names were given by the homeless man the story teller originally heard the description of the places from.

Who is right?

[Ellimist]

[ThereIsNoDarkSky]

Taken from pg 33 of of Leaves:
"Aside from giving us "reason," arariskein also gives us an unlikely sibling, Latin arma meaning "weapons." It seems that "to fit" the world or to make sense of it requires either reason or arms."

He has no harms because he has no arms.

[Ellimist]

http://xkcd.com/1114/