academic commentary

Lee Berman · 29 Nov 2010, 19:49 · 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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:49:12 -0500
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
Message-ID: <SNT123-W45C2D11A2C89CCF786EBBFCF240 at phx.gbl>


Agreed, great post Craig!
 
Regarding Wright's failure to fully realize the deceptions within deceptions:

>David Stockhoff: Why?
 
>Antonio P. Marques: Because it would conflict either with his own beliefs or the rationalisation 
>of his appreciation of the work.
 
Heh. I am reminded of my days in scientific academia and the debates between Evolutionary scientists
and Creation scientists. I remember the snickers from the Evolutionists at the argument that the 
human eye disproves Evolution because of its perfect, coordinated design and the worthlessness of each of 
its individual parts. [It is a perfectly bad argument given a major neural design flaw in the eye, causing 
our blind spot and the usefulness of eyespots, essentially a naked retina, found in many creatures.]
 
Perhaps here we have the reverse- an atheist struggling to find solid ground for an atheist argument
within a book with religious elements created by a religious author.

Below are some exerpts from a Peter Wright interview of Wolfe. Wright clearly respects and admires Wolfe
but is determined to make his own points. Wolfe can't seem to help but toy with him a bit:
 
..........................................................................................................
>PW: One other recurring theme that's interested me in your fiction is the manipulation of individuals by 
>godlike beings or powers.  Where does that notion derive from?
 
>GW: I suppose it comes from the idea that we are in fact manipulated- and we all are. Some of us are willing
>to acknowledge God as the godlike power in our lives. Even those who are not- and probably even more those 
>who are not willing to acknowledge that sort of thing- are manipulated not only by God but by a whole host of 
>subsidiary powers, political, economic and so on. We tend to think we have free will and so on. In the mass 
>we're very predictable. There's very little difference between traffic flowing on a highway and liquid 
>flowing through a pipe. They act in about the same way.
 
>PW: You see predictability as the basis for exploitation.
 
>GW: Certainly it is part of the basis, yes.
 
>PW: Where does that interest in manipulation come from?
 
>GW: Because I have to live in this world, as we all do.
................................................................................................................
 
 
>PW: The angels- if we want to call them that- in Urth of the New Sun, the Hierogrammates, are of
>that nature. They are not simply good angels, despite appearances.
 
>GW: They are certainly not simple, good angels. If you are not wholly and totally good and pure
>yourself, and you are not, an angel may be a very dangerous person for you to deal with, because he is.
................................................................................................................
 
 
>GW: I want to write "The Three Little Pigs" from the standpoint of the wolf. The original author sympathised 
>entirely with the pigs. The wolf sympathizes with the other wolves and their children and he says, "Somebody 
>is going to eath these pigs- might as well be me'
 
>PW: Again you've got an evil character justifying his actions
 
>GW: He's not an evil character. Is he?
 
>PW: No.
 
>GW: Or is he?
 
>PW: Well....
 
>GW: Yeah.
 
>PW: Well he's just following his instincts. But the thing about fairy tales is that many of the animals found in 
>them are anthropomorphized and they become classified as good and evil.
 
>GW: Exactly. And it's rather unfair to the ones we generally characterize as evil.
..................................................................................................................
 
Heh! An atheist, socialist and likely feminist maneuvered into acknowledging Wolf's Rights!

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