{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2019", "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": 2019, "subject": "Digest urth.v028.n109", "messages": 1, "voices": 1, "first": "1999-12-09T22:15:09+00:00", "last": "1999-12-09T22:15:09+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice Turner", "address": "akt at attglobal.net" }, "date": "1999-12-09T22:15:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Digest urth.v028.n109", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ron H-E wrote:\nI still want answers in the FAQ. I fail to see how an InvisiClues/UHS,\nrot13, or HTML approach, as discussed here earlier, would not preserve the\npuzzles for those who don't want to see the posited answers, thereby\nsatisfying both parties. In fact, if you are choosing to don the fuligin\nmantle of \"official\" Urth FAQ keeper, Alice, and the other Urthers agrees\nthat you should, then I will publish an \"unofficial\" FAQ with answers to\nthe same questions. (Call me Vodalus.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do NOT want to be the FAQ keeper. I am happy to be a lieutenant, as I have\nbeen with mantis on a number of projects, but I do not want to be the\ngeneral!!!! But I do think that there might be some serious voting on my\nside here on the list, my side being that flat-out answers (Cliff's notes)\nare not what most people want or what Wolfe would be happy with. Could we\nplease have some input? This is a list thing, after all, our own thing, not\na big web addition.\n\n-alga" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But I would far rather we have *one* FAQ, with the suggested answers\n(multiple suggested answers, if there be disagreement) concealed by some\nfiendish technological ruse such as rot13 or UHS. Technology such as UHS\nor\n\"layered\" HTML pages also makes possible the progressive unveiling of more\nand more explicit hints, which can't but be an advantage.\n\nRon\n\n--\nRon Hale-Evans: rwhe at apocalypse.org ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Center for Ludic Synergy: \nKennexions GBG artgame: \nHexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Positive Revolution FAQ: \n\n\n--------------- MESSAGE urth.v028.n109.5 ---------------\n\nFrom: \"Jeremy W. Crampton\" \nSubject: Readerly and writerly texts\nDate: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 16:29:28 -0500\nMIME-Version: 1.0\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"us-ascii\"\nIn-Reply-To: <199911301310.FAA11355 at lists1.best.com>\n\nHi,\n\nI've had some disturbing thoughts lately...\n\nA distinction sometimes made in poststructuralist lit-crit is between the\nreaderly and writerly text. I wonder how/if this could apply to Wolfe's\nwork.\n\nWriterly text: is ourselves writing (eg., surfing the Web, the narrative\nthat is created). Self-consciously aware of its own artifice and its\n(failed) attempts at realism.\n\nReaderly text: meaning is stable, transmitted to the reader, dominating\n\nFor you lit-crit types, you know that these terms come to us from Barthes:\n\nhttp://web.uvic.ca/~ckeep/hfl0250.html\n\nIf we approach a text as a writerly text it is not possible or desirable\nto\nstart identifying fixed meanings or metanarratives (\"Wolfe just does track\nthe gospels\"). In a writerly text, the reader is in control.\n\n--Is it possible to achieve the writerly text or is it dependent on the\nprevailing social relations? Barthes is supposed to have identified the\nreaderly text as the dominant mode under capital.\n--Is this list itself a writerly text?\n\nAccording to Foucault (\"The death of the author,\" 1969):\n\n..implies that the notion of the author is a historical construct (prior,\nwe looked at heroes, presumably actors in Greek myth and tragedy)\n\n..efforts to contain a text are problematic..what is a work? is a work\nthat\nauthored? and when is an author accepted as such? a text is not unitary\nbut\ncan escape into notes, appendices, and commentaries (cf\nSev. explaining this, or even our disagreement over Vol 5 as being part of\nBoTNS or not).\n\n..historically, authors emerged as a category when they became subject to\npunishment for their work. Texts were owned (this varied over time and\nbetween different fields, eg between literary and scientific works. at\nfirst, sci works had to have a marker to be accepted as true, even if that\nmarker was an ancient authority). then in17th/18th C. sci works began to\nbe\nreceived for themselves not by reference to their author, and it was\nliterary works that now needed an author.\n..relevant to today's efforts at erasing the author (double blind peer\nreview) which is actually just an acknowledgement of the power of the\nauthor (and the author always sneaks back in anyway).\n\nFor Foucault, neither texts (discourses) nor authors are\n\"unitary\"--neither\nthe subject nor discourse is stable.\n\nDoes any of this apply to Wolfe/us?\n--\nJeremy W. Crampton http://geog.gmu.edu\nGeography and Earth Science [MS1E2]\nGeorge Mason University\nFairfax Va. 22030-4444\n(703) 993-1210\n\n\n--------------- END urth.v028.n109 ---------------" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "works" } ] } ] }