Who's Right?

Gerry Quinn · 01 Dec 2010, 15:43 · from 2010-December.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: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:43:17 -0000
Subject: (urth) Who's Right?
References: <SNT123-W16EE9DFBF9B72CDA45AA3DCF260 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <5ABBFB74DDEA414DA7FD0A206D405F3B@jill>

-From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
> In recent posts as diverse as Gerry Quinn's, Mark Millman's and Thomas 
> Bitterman's, as well as
> many times in the past, I've noticed the implication that this message 
> board might not serve simply
> as a place for sharing ideas.
>
> I am wondering how many here at least partially consider their role here 
> to be serving as a jury member,
> with a duty to render judgement or cast a vote on whether a presented idea 
> is too outlandish or
> over-interpreted or perhaps actually worthy of entry in the Accepted 
> Lupine Gospel (or whatever it was
> that Roy C. Lackey called it).

I wasn't implying anything of that kind.  I *do* think that criticising 
ideas is as important as sharing them.  Ideas per se are almost worthless; 
anybody can come up with a million of them.  We need ideas that have 
explanatory power, and some degree of consistency with the text as a whole. 
(This was what I was hinting at when I suggested Vine might come from 
Viron - that's a deliberate example of a *bad* idea, and if I had gone on to 
talk about how it could have been arranged by time travelling hierodules for 
some obscure purpose, it would just have made it worse.)

> Except for a few slips in certain interviews, we know Gene Wolfe ain't 
> talking. So is it a legitimate
> function of this board to serve as a review panel? Perhaps even with some 
> measure of authority? Just
> curious what people think about this.

I certainly am not angling for any such idea.  Certainly a formal voting 
procedure would not only be divisive but would lead to problems of sock 
puppetry or worse.  I don't even believe in the concept of a definitive 
Lupine Gospel - there are lots of things on which there is plenty of room to 
disagree.

But I certainly don't believe in giving ideas I consider excessively 
fanciful a free pass.  Ideas need quality control!  I am probably one of the 
more conservative posters here in terms of evaluating new ideas, and no 
doubt those who are more inclined to 'let a thousand flowers bloom' 
sometimes find my objections irritating.  All I can suggest is that they 
take them in the spirit of Nietzche's maxim: "What does not kill me makes me 
stronger".  Ideas that can stand up to objections are the sort of ideas that 
can progress rather than derail understanding.

- Gerry Quinn

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