The writer suggests we 'hold up', signalling the xenoliterary statement about to be delivered to us, and him suggesting us to in fact hold up in order to properly process what he is about to say.
It is obvious to anyone the
line is not meant to be complimentary, in fact, the statement is intended as an insult!
Now, of course, you
ask yourself, "well, who is Nathaniel B? if he's trying to insult him why not compare him to someone we know?".
This is the wrong way to approach the analysis.
Of course, don't feel bad, it takes a learned individual to understand concepts of this nature, especially a concept that flirts so sensitively with the metaphysical.
If the young man were to compare the other man to someone generally perceived as negative, if he'd compared him to an infamous
celebrity, or perhaps someone
local to the group of people who is known as being less than savoury - there would be no
magic.
The real
genius here is the fact that we, and seemingly
even the audience present, have no idea who this "Nathaniel B" is.
He is an enigma, a John
Doe, a D.B Cooper.
So how would it be an insult? Well here's where it becomes Shakespearian.
It is obvious from the man's delivery and intellect - of course, he must be at the
top level of literary scholars to think of a
line like this on the spot - that he knows who Nathaniel B is.
Effectively with one
line he is telling us he created this man, and he is the only one who can judge him, and assumedly his judgement is negative.
