To write a long book attempting to prove a point seems pretty elaborate to me. It's like reading about the "9/11 conspiracy" or the "JFK conspiracy."
Originally Posted by Jennifer
Conspiracy theories always seem to have an Si (or even Ni) bias to them. Not that Si is necessarily a bad thing, especially when it is tempered by good old logic (Te). I'm not saying that Ms. Cornhole has presented a conspiracy theory, only that her book bears the peculiar "certainty" that accompanies an idea that someone "just knows."
"I hate this book, Esther. I don't know how the hell...All I did was look at his paintings and his life, and one thing led to another. ..."
She didn't say a word.
It has always been easier for me to get angry than to show fear or loss, and I was losing my life to Walter Richard Sickert. He was taking it away from me. "I want to write my novels," I said. "I don't want to write about him. There's no joy in this. None."
"Well, you know," she said very calmly as she resumed her pace, "you don't have to do it. I can get you out of it."
She could have gotten me out of it, but I could never have gotten myself out of it. I knew the identity of a murderer and I couldn't possibly avert my gaze. "I am suddenly in a position of judgment," I told Esther.