Dionysus, the Mausoleum

Lee Berman · 21 Dec 2010, 18:22 · 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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:22:30 -0500
Subject: (urth) Dionysus, the Mausoleum
Message-ID: <SNT123-W371990525B1E583CDEF20ACF1A0 at phx.gbl>

>Son o' Witz- Lee, Gerry's point is valid. There IS a better description of the elephant.
>He does NOT put himself in the shoes of this "Sighted Man".

>I see it more like:
>Lee: (holding the tail) "This tail is far out, I think this must be a Hermaphrodon, 
>the beast with both genders!" And, Gerry, who has made an exhaustive search up that leg says, 
>"no, no no, I've got a firm GRASP on this beast's sex. It is NOT a Hermaphrodon."
>None of us has the whole map, but if we share and dispute, we might come to an accurate 
>description of the Elephant in the Book.

I'd have no problem if the discussion were along those lines. My objection is illustrated
by Antonio's post who, when confronted with a contributor who observes "the tail seems spiky"
would respond, "no it isn't"

Gerry, based on recent history, would be more likely to respond, "since we are dealing with an
elephant, I find it highly improbable that the tail is spiky"

Neither of these guys seems capable of making the intuitive leap to, "perhaps we are not dealing
with an elephant. Perhaps this is a stegosaurus. Let's look into this." Rejection and denial is
like an automatic reflex. They have the right to express this reflex but I have the right to object
to its expression.

I'm suggesting that if you think you have Gene Wolfe's work pretty much figured out as
an elephant, then that's all you'll ever get. And that's fine if that's all you want. But why
try to discourage others from exploring richer, more imaginative interpretations? 

As I previously suggested, I think genius is a very delicate thing. I don't like seeing it stepped 
upon for no good reason. I may not be capable of great intuitive leaps myself but I don't like 
being denied the opportunity to review the thoughts of others who are more gifted. And I've seen
more than one person leave this List in sadness and disgust at the way their ideas are treated.

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