{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4299", "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": 4299, "subject": "chesterton", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "2005-01-11T11:57:38+00:00", "last": "2005-01-11T15:45:21+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20050111195731.BECI1664.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>", "from": { "name": "aramini1 at cox.net", "address": "aramini1 at cox.net" }, "date": "2005-01-11T11:57:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) chesterton", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chesterton is worthy of discussion on the list primarily because his writing clearly influenced Wolfe. \n\nSome authors are trickier than others. I once wrote a sample argumentative paper for my students with sources and all in the hopes that they would realize my argument was full of holes and pick it apart. Instead, they all agreed with me. In the hands of a fervent athiest, having a most low god who claimed to be have the highest god on his back as festering sores would be seen as a reflection of the author's idea of the most high god (a god of sores and debasement)- in Wolfe, we read it in the opposite fashion. Odd how that works, isn't it?\n\nMarc" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Maru Dubshinki", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-11T14:02:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) chesterton", "in_reply_to": "<20050111195731.BECI1664.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Makes you wonder just how much of 'Wolfe' is actually there, and how\nmuch is random transformation of trivia or what readers read into\nit...\n\n~Maru, who can't stop thinking of 'Foucault's Pendulum', by Eco" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:57:33 -0500, aramini1 at cox.net wrote:\nChesterton is worthy of discussion on the list primarily because his writing clearly influenced Wolfe.\n\nSome authors are trickier than others. I once wrote a sample argumentative paper for my students with sources and all in the hopes that they would realize my argument was full of holes and pick it apart. Instead, they all agreed with me. In the hands of a fervent athiest, having a most low god who claimed to be have the highest god on his back as festering sores would be seen as a reflection of the author's idea of the most high god (a god of sores and debasement)- in Wolfe, we read it in the opposite fashion. Odd how that works, isn't it?\n\nMarc\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-11T15:45:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) chesterton", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Certainly there is a bit that goes on in this list that borders on \nconspiracy theory. On the other hand it is often quite obvious that his \ntexts are carefully crafted to produce a wealth of interpretations - some of \nwhich he definitely seems to have had in mind, and others he could not have \nforeseen.\n\nIf you like Eco's work then there is a very small book called \n\"Interpretation and Overinterpretation\" that really makes some good points \nthat apply to Wolfe, and this list. Sometime in aeons past I blathered on \nfor a paragraph or two about that book on the list, but I'm not sure it ever \ngot captured in the archives.\n\nIn any event the problem with accusing anyone on this list of \n\"overinterpretation\" is that Wolfe obviously intends the reader to look \ndeeper and even, on occasion, to reject straightforward statements from his \nnarrator, etc. Because we as interpreters are aware of this intention, and \nknow we can't \"understand\" the text without taking it into account, we are \nin effect deliberately encouraged to engage in a strategy of interpretation \nthat's likely to produce exactly this kind of \"overinterpretation\".\n\n-- Civet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Makes you wonder just how much of 'Wolfe' is actually there, and how\nmuch is random transformation of trivia or what readers read into\nit...\n\n~Maru, who can't stop thinking of 'Foucault's Pendulum', by Eco\n\n\nOn Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:57:33 -0500, aramini1 at cox.net \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Chesterton is worthy of discussion on the list primarily because his \nwriting clearly influenced Wolfe.\n\nSome authors are trickier than others. I once wrote a sample \nargumentative paper for my students with sources and all in the hopes that \nthey would realize my argument was full of holes and pick it apart. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Instead, they all agreed with me. In the hands of a fervent athiest, \nhaving a most low god who claimed to be have the highest god on his back as \nfestering sores would be seen as a reflection of the author's idea of the \nmost high god (a god of sores and debasement)- in Wolfe, we read it in the \nopposite fashion. Odd how that works, isn't it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Marc\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] } ] }