{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3726",
    "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": 3726,
    "subject": "Orthodoxy",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2002-12-29T21:05:17+00:00",
    "last": "2002-12-29T21:51:50+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0212-2553@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Malcolm McGugan",
        "address": "nastler at yahoo.dk"
      },
      "date": "2002-12-29T21:05:17+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Orthodoxy",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": " \nI think most people would agree that Wolfe can make his tales deceptively ambiguous, I always feel that most of his stories can easily support many alternative (and often contradictory) meanings simul\nOne of the few things that depress me slightly when reading the lists, is when orthodoxy is proposed and stoutly defended. You know the kind of thing? Someone posts a long and enthusiastic message (of\nThe result is a response that reads like; “So-and-So says such-and-such on page whatever of New Sun/last months Interzone/the Koran. And therefore your five-page thesis linking the constellations of U\nOf course this works the other way too. Someone posts their own interpretation and then goes on to demand that all accept this view as to what the author really intended, any other interps being by imnastler\nHar du problemer med din hjemmecomputer? Få hjælp med  Yahoo!s PC-support"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0212-2559@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Malco",
        "address": "nastler at yahoo.dk"
      },
      "date": "2002-12-29T21:51:50+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) Orthodoxy",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0212-2553@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I think most people would agree that Wolfe can make\nhis tales deceptively ambiguous, I always feel that\nmost of his stories can easily support many\nalternative (and often contradictory) meanings\nsimultaneously. And I like to be aware of as many of\nthem as possible whilst I read so that I can see where\na certain point of view is supported in the text and\nwhere it is weakened.\nOne of the few things that depress me slightly when\nreading the lists, is when orthodoxy is proposed and\nstoutly defended. You know the kind of thing? Someone\nposts a long and enthusiastic message (often these\nread like labours of love) detailing an imaginative\nset of connections that is in some way\ncounterintuitive or is just flatly rejected by several\nauthoritative quotes within the book, sources or\nliterary criticism.\nThe result is a response that reads like; “So-and-So\nsays such-and-such on page whatever of New Sun/last\nmonths Interzone/the Koran. And therefore your\nfive-page thesis linking the constellations of Urth to\nthe characters in Happy Days is invalid and unintended\nby the author (a fatuous example, please accept my\napology). \nOf course this works the other way too. Someone posts\ntheir own interpretation and then goes on to demand\nthat all accept this view as to what the author really\nintended, any other interps being by implication,\nbunkum.\nnastler\n\n\nHar du problemer med din hjemmecomputer? Få hjælp med Yahoo!s PC-support på http://dk.shopping.yahoo.com/pcsupport/index.html"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}