{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1628",
    "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": 1628,
    "subject": "Digest urth.v026.n017",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "1999-05-13T17:17:33+00:00",
    "last": "1999-05-13T17:56:20+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0026-0107@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Patri10629",
        "address": "patri10629 at aol.com"
      },
      "date": "1999-05-13T17:17:33+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Re: Digest urth.v026.n017",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Buds\n\nAll this speculation about Wolfe \"speeding through,\" \"making it up as he goes \nalong,\" \"backfilling mistakes,\" \"multiple drafts,\" \"no idea where it's going\" \nare, in my opinion fruitless. How a writer gets to where he's going doesn't \nmatter. Nobody knows which corner Picasso started in, how many sketches he \nhad to do before the final \"draft\", which mistakes he covered over, which \nmistakes were happy accidents. It doesn't tell you anything about the book to \nknow which order the author wrote it in, what pencils he used, if he was \ndrunk or sober, or having a bad or good day, or had previously named a \ncharacter \"Benjie\" before he became \"Bob.\" And while we may be curious about \nWolfe's methods (as I am), I'm doubtful any insights we may learn will be \nuseful to me as a writer or a reader. Or will be relevant to the text. Who \ncares how he got there? Let's talk about the \"there.' That's slippery enough.\n\nDon't mean to sound cranky. I've just sensitive to discussions with implied \nvalue judgments based on moonshine theories of methodology. \"Planned and \nplotted\" or \"just babbling along,\" can never be the issue. It's magic, don't \nyou think? Who cares how the wizard does it?\n\nPatrick O'Leary"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0026-0108@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Tony Ellis",
        "address": "tony.ellis at futurenet.co.uk"
      },
      "date": "1999-05-13T17:56:20+00:00",
      "subject": "re: (urth) Re: Digest urth.v026.n017",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0026-0107@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Patri wrote:\nAll this speculation about Wolfe \"speeding through,\" \"making it up as he goes\nalong,\" \"backfilling mistakes,\" \"multiple drafts,\" \"no idea where it's going\"\nare, in my opinion fruitless."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "<snip>"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "...I'm doubtful any insights we may learn will be\nuseful to me as a writer or a reader."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "My mistake, Patri. I didn't realise this list was all about you."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}