Dionysus, the Mausoleum

Gerry Quinn · 21 Dec 2010, 21:32 · 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 21:32:37 -0000
Subject: (urth) Dionysus, the Mausoleum
References: <SNT123-W371990525B1E583CDEF20ACF1A0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <50F74698A430487FA92DF157AA61B97B@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>

>>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".
>
>>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.

Exactly.  The blind men can indeed figure out what the creature is, even 
though they don't have it as easy as the sighted guy.

It may be an elephant, or it may be a stegosaurus, or it may be something 
else altogether.  They'll never find out, unless they challenge each others' 
partial interpretations, and come up with a reasonably consistent synthesis.

> 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"

I don't think that fairly characterises the sort of argument I've been 
making.

> 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 think we're just asking you to clearly make the case for it being a 
stegosaurus, and explain the trumpeting sound and what this thing is that we 
thought was a trunk.

> 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?

"Richer, more imaginative interpretations"... are you saying value 
judgements are acceptable after all?

- Gerry Quinn

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