academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 01 Dec 2010, 20:33 · 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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:33:13 +0000
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <403443.3252.qm at web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <SNT123-W90C362128623D2A57C5AACF240 at phx.gbl>	<964735.56099.qm at web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4CF3D13D.1020405 at verizon.net>
	<4CF3D50C.20400 at gmail.com>	<4CF3ED73.2020900 at verizon.net>	<AANLkTikbgXyJTts_02R7sw7sa3f1jd07tMqW-KwdEa+8 at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF4297A.9090302 at verizon.net>
	<4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTikt_fnrdZS8CUPjeT3P9HRXwPfC-2BHXpjNbRvp at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF4F047.7090504 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTimq1Fp_PviFQjq6y=GgB7jzVW_K0-1UxQP_NCyZ at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF54F7D.7050205 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=KbyHRi7K-oB_E11SMEsNQXyuTgn50JXWMd1yf at mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikCZFSfWf-18ZdZFVai-+w-BgWZgvYRpS32cE-M at mail.gmail.com>	<516772.59521.qm at web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4CF6AB3D.6060501 at gmail.com>
	<403443.3252.qm at web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4CF6B109.4070706 at gmail.com>

Craig Brewer wrote (01-12-2010 20:23):
>>> (To make this relate to Wright, I think he's has every right to read New
>>> Sun *against* the religious meaning many of us might assume Wolfe
>>> intended.
>>
>> I strongly disagree. If we susbtitute reader intent for author intent we're
>> no better off than where we started.
>
> True, but that makes both seem paltry. Ultimately, intention is secondary to
> whatever is in the books. I take it that we have 4+1 books called _The Book of
> the New Sun_. Interviews, conversations, and whatever else is not within those
> covers is interesting but ancillary.
>
> If those the primary texts support his reading, then his reading is valid.
> Reader and author intention have to ultimately be judged against the text. If
> Wolfe meant one thing but achieved another, that other is what we have. His
> intention is then nice or interesting, but unimportant. Otherwise, when I was a
> teenager, I wrote some masterpieces in intention but not execution... :)

Again, I don't think such a complex text can ever support a unique reading. 
What I think counts is the thoroughness of the analyses rather than the results.

I don't know, at least I am able to appreciate differing and even 
contradictory analyses simultaneously, if they are supple enough. I 
seriously doubt I'm a rare case.

And when it comes to some things, there is just no truth value determinable. 
Say Wolfe got the name for Pas from three completely different sources of 
inspiration. One can't say which was *the* source.

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