{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1605",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1605,
    "subject": "Thoughts;Realism;Devine",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1999-04-30T03:40:29+00:00",
    "last": "1999-04-30T03:40:29+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0026-0072@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Roy C. Lackey",
        "address": "rclackey at stic.net"
      },
      "date": "1999-04-30T03:40:29+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Thoughts;Realism;Devine",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Re: Jonathan Laidlow's \"thoughts on Nigel price's response\" post:\n\n    I resent being pigeonholed or painted with a broad brush, even\nindirectly. I wasn't in school in the '70's and never heard of \"classic\nrealism\". Fortunately, I wasn't there in the '90's either, and shudder to\nthink that my children were. For any of those who might have wondered why\nWolfe, from time to time, raises his slingshot against the ivied halls of\nAcademe, I recommend the above post."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "David Duffy wrote:\nPart of the rules of the game is that both the allegory and the surface\nstory must be completely self-consistent, especially if one is creating\npuzzles.  Wolfe does bother to make up plausible reasons for what happens."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "So we are allowed to argue about androids -- I think Jonas is made of\nhighly advanced light materials, but is not hollow.  The Ship of UotNS is\nnot the only vehicle that has ever undertaken star travel (we have the\nWhorl as one counterexample), and Jonas's knowledge seems to date him to a\nmuch earlier period (perhaps conventional relativistic processes have\nbrought him so far forward in time).  If he is the Tin Man, who's the\nCowardly Lion? (And has anyone mentioned _Of Mice and Men_ re Baldanders\nand the Dr?)<<"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "And Potto wrote:\nOur discussion of the religious or non-religious nature of Wolfe's\nwork has certainly become complexly and compulsively interesting."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Noting Jonathan Laidlow's comments on TBOTNS as a text not to be taken\ntoo concretely or literally: I don't quite agree. To reiterate\nsomething I've said before: although Wolfe's subject matter is\nprimarily religious and so symbolic or non-literal, he does play a\nvast, subtle game of clues. Wolfe's God is in the subtle, precise,\ninsinuated details of his work; deciphering those details is crucial\nto a proper, complex understanding of that work. When Robert Borski\nengages in close, literal literary detective work, or when people\ndebate the precise nature of Jonas' and Sidero's physical character,\nthey are doing precisely what Wolfe intends: drawing out the myriad\ndetails out of which the shape of God can be discerned.<<\n\n    To both of you: As an unbeliever, all I can say is--thank God!\n\n    I am to be allowed to continue to unravel the Wolfean knots, despite the\nwould-be Alexanders.\n\n    Oh, and Ori, I sympathize with you. My reading of the _New Sun_ seems to\nbe pretty much in accord with yours, but the religious aspects of Wolfe's\nworks are too numerous to be ignored. But I learned many years ago that\nreligious arguments are fruitless. Believers believe because what they\nbelieve cannot be proven, else it would not be a matter of faith.\n\nRoy"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}