{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3298",
    "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": 3298,
    "subject": "Wolfe's presence",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2002-06-07T23:26:57+00:00",
    "last": "2002-06-07T23:26:57+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0206-1175@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "maa32",
        "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu"
      },
      "date": "2002-06-07T23:26:57+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Wolfe's presence",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting.  I asked Mr. Wolfe how he \nfelt about guys proposing absurd readings of his texts (I might have myself in \nmind more than most people on the list, I suppose) and the discussion group in \ngeneral, and he came back with this equitable reply:\n\n\"I rarely check the discussion group.  My feeling is that it's unfair for the \nauthor to step in and say nope, I didn't mean that, I meant this.  Besides, \nthe more the author does that, the less interest there will be in the \nquestions.  In other words, yes there is an authoritative interpretation, but \nit should be trotted out only in extraordinary cases.\"\n\nPretty cool.  The thing that I find the funniest about this discussion group \n(which I enjoy immensely and think has some of the finest minds online- have \nno doubts there) in particular is how attached we grow to our own \ninterpretations (and how often offhand comments and hasty statements actually \nprovoke unintended animosity).  Of course I think I am guilty of this, too.  \nIt's funny that Mr. Wolfe doesn't seem too concerned with forcing the \"right\" \ninterpretation of his work, when he has invested  a lot more in it than us (or \nme - I'll stick to criticizing my own interpretive/iron-fisted stubborn \nposting).\n\nHave a nice one!\nMarc Aramini"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}