interview questions

Jerry Friedman · 04 Jan 2011, 06:30 · from 2011-January.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: jerry_friedman at yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 22:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: (urth) interview questions
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W14A8D36D9610B47972FA1BCF070 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W14A8D36D9610B47972FA1BCF070 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <993178.60740.qm at web114704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>


>>Jerry Friedman: And yet, as I said, he wrote "Under Hill", where the gun 
>>specifically isn't 
>>
>>fired.  I wonder whether he was thinking about the Chekhov quotation.
>
>You'll have to help me out with these. I am unfamiliar.

You're familiar with the Chekhov quotation, just not with its authorship.

"From this period comes an observation of Chekhov's which has become known as 
"Chekhov's gun",  noted by Ilia Gurliand from a conversation: 'If in Act I you 
have a  pistol hanging on the wall, then it must fire in the last act.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov

Did you mean you weren't familiar with "Under Hill" either?  It's in Innocents 
Aboard, and it's not my favorite.  If you haven't read it and want to, it's at

http://books.google.com/books?id=5Qkl_NxvC4gC&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Stockhoff is right to point out that the weapon doesn't appear till late 
in the story, so it's not like "Act I".
...

>>There's no accounting for taste.   A conclusion that SOME people had been 
>>replaced would satisfy me 
>>
>>just fine.

>This I agree with. That conclusion doesn't suit me and I manipulate my 
>interpretation of the story
>accordingly. My only plea would be that more people admit their own prejudices 
>in interpretation
>of the stories and avoid wrapping one's self in a cloak of certitude based on 
>"evidence", each piece of
>which is subject to individual interpretation.

I don't think we have to have prejudices on every point.  Any resolution of 
Veil's Hypothesis would suit me equally well, so I can base my interpretation on 
my understanding of the evidence.  (On the other hand, if anyone here reads 
Language Log, they know I don't always work that way.)

Jerry Friedman



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110103/ed3053a6/attachment.htm>

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