Wind god

James Wynn · 05 Nov 2010, 19:58 · from 2010-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:58:42 -0500
Subject: (urth) Wind god
In-Reply-To: <4CD4590B.5030104 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W1A8203753DA49C7A4C19FCF4C0 at phx.gbl>	<1c7a7817449d26dbf9f66f408d6dd2bd.squirrel at webmail.prismnet.com>	<4CD448C1.8030002 at gmail.com>	<4CD44DB5.20103 at gmail.com>
	<4CD4590B.5030104 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD461F2.5040004 at gmail.com>

> Ant?nio Pedro Marques-
> Apples, oranges. Theories don't enter the picture. We're talking about 
> facts. We're talking about a certain 'kind of selective reading'.

EVERYBODY selectively reads a Wolfe novel, if they've read him long. 
Anyone who says he has not is selectively recalling.  (I would not say 
such people are bending or misrepresenting the facts, since that 
statement implies it is done intentionally.) Furthermore, "people" 
regularly, and irritatingly, declare things "proved" or proved false 
that have not in fact been proven. Shall we denounce those as well for 
unscrupulous methods? Why should we? Who the Niflheim cares? Let them 
say it.

I don't find Lee's GUT compelling, but I don't think he's engaged in a 
Council on Foreign Relations plot to seduce me with it. It's generally 
very difficult to keep all of the Sun Cycle in your head at all times. 
And even if you could, no will ascribe the same importance to all its 
parts. And some bits are so useless literally that they *have* to be 
pointing at something else--IMO. And I, for one, do not believe all the 
answers are in the text. I think Wolfe has deliberately left out key 
answers because he thought them too obvious. I could name a couple of 
confirmed examples. You have to engage in cognitive leaps sometimes. And 
people have made false jumps only to land serendipitously on some 
unlooked for fact (such as the "red monkey" connections Lee brought up 
earlier --it was Lee right?).

So people who get irritated should remember that its only literature we 
are discussing here.

u+16b9

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net