Something has been nagging at the back of my mind about this article. Let me float this and see if general consensus is that I'm simply off my rocker. Maybe it has been pointed out elsewhere and I have just missed it, but here goes.
Mods, as always, feel free to move or delete as needed.
For those of us who have Cook's Pacific Consort, do you remember the article that gave examples of language to use regarding
intimate activities, in a manner suitable to be used before those of a more sensitive disposition?
And yet, in this article, flat out uses the terms
ballock and quim? Really? Quim? That's the C word of the times, back in the day, unless I'm mistaken.
Granted, according to The Curator, there is The Editor taking the reins for the time being, and that could account for the changes in mood, theme, and the general feel of this publication.
However, given the sheer amount of allusions to
Spring bringing an ill wind of unwelcome changes (emails from the Curator, the Message from the Curator in this C&C
and
The number of references to Alchemy - the historical Zosimus was an alchemist chasing a grand work of what we could consider biomedical resuscitation of the dead
and
the number of call backs to transformation (werewolves, Jeckyl & Hyde, Lottie McModdy) or at the very least some manner of polar opposite personalities in one person
...and some of the puzzles that have been answered, I am left to wonder if
This edition is an instance of an unreliable narrator writing "in the style" of previous issues to keep up the ruse that all is well; when in fact, The Curator has gone on the lam and is hiding (he mentioned revisiting ruins and the Nio, so, Louisiana? A Buddhist temple?), and C&C has been infiltrated by SZ.
And if the above spoiler is correct, should any info from "the powers that be" via Snapchat be taken at face value?
This has been your dose of meta-arc conspiracy theory, brought to you by a very tired me.
Thoughts? Ideas? Counter arguments?
