judge

Depends what "known" means....see here.
So maybe it is just known to Chris.

Febble

Rats. Oh well. Now my only hope is that the answer will be found upside down on page 53 in next week's edition.

Ecrasez L'infame

I've been trying to understand what the 1st excerpt actually means, what the speaker is saying, and however I look at it I get stuck about a third of the way through, have to invent a new interpretation, and then get stuck again near the end. So... could it be two separate texts mixed together? This is a very BC&H solution (TF anyone?)...

judge

Would one expect two independent texts mixed to form a chiasm?

Ecrasez L'infame

Well, no, but (a) I took the second from the centre of the first, so it shouldn't affect any symmetry (b) the two parts needn't be independent, just separate (c) does it matter anyway? finding a chiasm might be of use in analysing text we know to be an organic whole (even here I have my doubts) - using it to demonstrate or argue wholeness is really out on a limb.

Febble

Well, it's supposed to be a dialogue. Maybe you've spotted where the speaker changes. It would make more sense as two speakers.

ETA, for example:

Ecrasez L'infame

Yes, or even more so (bearing in mind that we've only had two parts out of four):

Interviewer: [You are the most successful in your field...]
Subject: [Not at all.] I'm a fraud. I'm a phony. I've put up a facade. I'm overly critical, even of myself, a perfectionist who'll never become perfect. That's the real me, the true me, the honest me.
Interviewer: I disagree with you. You are great!
Subject: Perhaps - just perhaps - I may be exactly what I wish to be, the best in my field, and having learned all that I'm content with knowing, though I learn more still. Perhaps. But I'm not great.
Interviewer: What does it mean to be great?
Subject: To be great is to be all that you can be, no better and no worse. For if you were either of the two, [either better or worse,] you would not be you.
Interviewer: A person changes over time.
Subject: True, but so does the meaning of great for that person. In being great you take what you know and run with it, learn from it, and make changes as need be.
Interviewer: [Doesn't will play a part in greatness?]
Subject: [If so, then I'm definitely not great.] For I've a weak will, but I'm stubborn to death. One day I'll stop being so stubborn, and let the world pass me by while I remain steadfast in peace.
Interviewer: [And hope?]
Subject: What hope do I have in this world? But I live yet. For what? In the end, it'll all be gone, but not before my children can see the light, assuming I have children at all. [(Laughs.) You see,] I'm overly optimistic, yet at the same time a pessimist to the core.

[Text missing.]

Interviewer: And what of faith?
Subject: Have I none, but what you may think to be god I may differ on. And while I may not believe what you believe what you believe, I believe still. And these tears I shed every night contain some glimmer of hope, that even though I know that to die is to gain, perhaps I can still live longer before I go.
Interviewer: And of love?
Subject: Love has pained me before; it's a trial, a terrible calamity, a curse. Do we agree?
Interviewer: It's a blessing as well, a boon to life, the reward if cultivated right. It heals. That's love.
Subject: So this is another thing we must disagree on.

But I've just noticed that Chris seems to have taken his ball away, so the game's over, I guess. Huff - didn't want to play anyhow.

Febble

Well, one of my early hunches was Beckett. Now we seem to be Waiting for Godot.

Ted Hoffman

I think this is great work.

Ecrasez L'infame

Kind of you, Ted. Of course the trouble with thinking of the original text as "pied" - an anagram of meaning - is that then there are an infinite number of solutions. In theory, that needn't be a problem, since we can use the reconstruction to make falsifable predictions about any new fragments that might be found. In this case, there aren't going to be any more fragments, so the method, even if it's right, is useless.

In any case, no one's ever suggested before that Biblical materials are pied; and Chris did post the problem in BC&H and claims it is relevant to it; so I'm minded to go back to the idea that the parts in the original excerpt that don't flow are C's simulation of an interpolation, perhaps modelled on the TF. That would certainly be relevant!