{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2444",
    "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": 2444,
    "subject": "Wolfe as Authority (Is that a minotaur I hear?)",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2000-11-06T13:45:18+00:00",
    "last": "2000-11-06T13:45:18+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0030-0091@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Robert Borski",
        "address": "rborski at charter.net"
      },
      "date": "2000-11-06T13:45:18+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Wolfe as Authority (Is that a minotaur I hear?)",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "mantis having written:\n\n<Oh good: now we can see that interviews, while providing some data points,\nare not necessarily the be-all and end-all.  I mean, not to complain or\nanything, but I was starting to feel that people around here were beginning\nto give great weight (perhaps even supreme weight) to data points from one\ninterview or another.  Which is fine, I mean, whatever: the answer that\nfits a given reader is where ever he/she finds it (I really don't mean to\nknock that); toss out all the lit crit and find all answers in interviews;\nbut the impish side of me always wants to point out, \"Just read _another_\ninterview.\">\n\nAlex David Groce then having written:\n\n<The other difficulty with using Wolfe's interviews is that, while they\nare useful in a general way, Wolfe is, I think, intentionally gnomic\nand tricky.  Recall the answers to the question list for LONG SUN, and\nthe fact that THE CASTLE OF THE OTTER did suprisingly little to clear\nup some things about NEW SUN (it gave two different explanations of\nwhere the idea came from, for Pete's sake).>\n\nI happen to think both of these statements are right on the money. I also\nsuspect that Wolfe is this way when people come up to him at conventions and\nask him questions, and know from personal correspondence that he can be both\noutright straightforward and maddeningly elusive at the same time. Kinda\nmakes hash of Peter Wright's contention that Wolfe _wants_ us to understand\nhim, doesn't it? (Although I do think the co-opting of Severian into RETURN\nTO THE WHORL will turn out to be yet another attempt by the author at\nclarifying some of the central plotpoints in the New Sun mythos.)\n\nThen again, if Wolfe was anyway else, he'd be somebody other than the\nDaedalean writer we all love and respect, and the pilpulist nature of this\ngroup would be so much the poorer.\n\nNow if you'll excuse me, the labyrinth beckons again.\n\nRobert Borski (who, despite Wolfe's somewhat snide answer about Hyacinth's\nmother in the LS question list, still believes it's Lime)"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}