Dionysus, the Mausoleum

Gerry Quinn · 21 Dec 2010, 16:15 · 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: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:15:17 -0000
Subject: (urth) Dionysus, the Mausoleum
References: <SNT123-W80C80BB09B5696946E02DCF1A0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1B4C815114704F94B4C2F09B4EA57A63@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
>>Gwern Branwen: So what am I supposed to do with this large comprehensive
>>not-obviously-wrong theory? It's almost certainly wrong since only a
>>few can be right and we have proposed hundreds of interpretations of
>>parts. Basically, the answer is ignore it......So, silence it is.

If it's not obviously wrong, why not look at it more closely?  Maybe it will 
convince you, or maybe you will find something wrong with it.

> Gwern, I both agree and disagree. In the history of this List there have
> been hundreds of theories proposed. I don't agree that only a few can be
> right.
>
> What I think we have is like the parable of the elephant and the six
> blind men describing it by parts (it's like a "hose", "spear", "fan", 
> "wall"
> "tree trunk","rope"). Nobody has been able to singularly comprehend Gene 
> Wolfe, so the
> only comprehensive answer must come from an assemblage of different 
> theories which
> seem incompatible on the surface.

If we are to take the parable seriously, there *is* a good description "an 
elephant" which reconciles these varying partial explanations.

Of course a literary work, unlike a physical object, need not necessarily 
have such an explanation; it might be purposely or accidentally 
contradictory.  But if such a contradictory work is interesting enough to 
repay study, it should still be possible to delineate which interpretations 
are more or less valid.  (As it is with the optical illusions to which you 
frequently refer.)

- Gerry Quinn

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