{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6784",
    "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": 6784,
    "subject": "Urth Digest, Vol 163, Issue 10",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2018-03-20T20:08:48+00:00",
    "last": "2018-03-20T20:08:48+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<CA+uiXAKOoh2gxN1qxZjC4LjbSwaoowOb0bN4HH16ViPsgvWnKA@mail.gmail.com>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Brian Doherty",
        "address": "brianmdoherty at gmail.com"
      },
      "date": "2018-03-20T20:08:48+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 163, Issue 10",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "And while I believe in the discoverability of intent and the immutability\nof plot elements implied or explicit (Hamlet dies, urth literally becomes\nGreen), sometimes it is necessary to let people read as they want to - for\nsome, Wolfe really is just a fun read.\n\nBetter to let people read as they want than risk the unenlightened fascism\n(as opposed to my enlightened, transcendent variety) of pushing definitive\nreadings that are deaf to subtext (and I’m not talking about your readings\nat all here, Robert)."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "While I cannot be absolutely sure of this anymore, I think that nearly\nEVERYTHING about what was \"really going on\" in BOTNS connected to time\ntravel escaped me nearly entirely on first and even second read, and\npossibly made me kind of not enjoy URTH very much when it was new, and\nto have never re-read it.\n\nAll sorts of actual facts about what was happening in the narrative\nthat I learned from fellow fans and secondary literature escaped me,\nand still BOTNS was from first read til now in my top 10 favorite\nreading experiences and one of VERY few books I felt compelled to\nre-read. THese days I think I'd say I valorize SHORT and LONG more,\nbut still. At any rate, I know you can have Wolfe move you deeply\nwithout getting a LOT of it.\n\nThat said, with the last decade of standalones, my lack of ability to\neasily perceive basic \"what is going on?\" points have indeed NOT been\noverwhelmed by other qualities, and while I still read them I don't\nexpect to love Wolfe's new works any longer. I lack the capacity now\nto lay out why that did not ruin BOTNS while it largely does ruin more\nrecent standalones, but it's true.\n\nBrian Doherty"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}