{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5075",
    "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": 5075,
    "subject": "the play",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2008-06-30T05:41:27+00:00",
    "last": "2008-06-30T05:41:27+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<565224.35168.qm@web58207.mail.re3.yahoo.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Marc Aramini",
        "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com"
      },
      "date": "2008-06-30T05:41:27+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) the play",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "well, it all depends on how much effort Wolfe put into the play. I don&#39;t find the idea that it could tell us something particular about particular characters absurd at all, but I suppose I will grant that the aggregate of relevance is a valid point.  How minute does Wolfe want to make his extra-textual references? Some works require external context, such as a precursory understanding of the basic features of the saints or religious referents, and other works do not.  This is all tied up with authorial construction and intent.  If a tree falls in a Wolfe book and nobody notices, is the narrator really dead?\n\n\n      "
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}