· Posted: 21 Sep 2005 17:41
choosing 'rebus-like' and 'cross-matchable' items is precisely noways random
It is completely random, as you can demonstrate no process by which you select those items which are rebuses and those that aren’t. If there is no system to it, there is no system…
the ignored items are noways rebus-like and are noways cross-matchable
If you can’t demonstrate why Snowy (debateably) having five paws is more significant than Tintin having no arm, then they are of equal significance, and your entire thesis is null… For example, it might mean that Tintin is armless or “(h)armless” - again as “good” a pun, but of no significance… But as long as you can decide what is and isn’t a rebus, there is no rigour, and no plausible code. It is also significant, I think, that you choose to ignore the counter-argument of seeing systems in the random which I exemplify above.
Equally, my toucan pun is wholly nonsensical, and shoe-horning it into your message doesn’t help your case.
the archipelagos' various languages
Again, reason suggests that until you can show demonstrably that Hergé was in any way versed in the study, practice or even had looked into “the archipelagos' various languages” prior to starting Tintin in 1929, in addition to having worked out how to use it in some over-arching code, then your suppositions are without foundation. This is a man who never undertook any tertiary education, and who, even when he later studied art under T’chang, never grasped Japanese, Chinese or any oriental language. How did he work it all out in advance - he didn’t know there was going to be one book, let alone 24? How did he get it past the Abbé? How did he accommodate it into the books which were re-drawn, re-written, given false-starts, and even abandoned? In other words, how did this rather ordinary, unworldly fellow from the Brussells’ suburbs gain such ability?
Surely that is a key element of your case, and the evidence should go a long way to making your argument stand up?
Let’s face it, there just isn’t any concrete evidence - not a shred - of Hergé encoding anything in his books; no notes, no rough working, nothing in the pages of original work to show that Hergé was deliberating, no marginal notes, no annotations (and I’ve seen quite a few of the original pages, including all of the B&W Lotus, and the entire Crystal Balls/Prisoners and Tibet, as well as the odd pages for Tintin at Sea) - in fact a total absence of anything pointing to encoding. It is random…
no empathy with Herge announced message
Again, until you can come out with an unequivocal statement from Hergé to that effect, there isn’t anything to be empathic with.