Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?

António Pedro Marques · 23 May 2011, 14:28 · from 2011-May.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: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:28:32 +0100
Subject: (urth) Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?
In-Reply-To: <4DDA4E15.8060102 at verizon.net>
References: <B542EE90-126D-4106-9484-A3287823FC32 at gmail.com>	<594643.67958.qm at web161819.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<BANLkTinRLkaUs099APsHvDrTHUx9Vw7GnQ at mail.gmail.com>
	<4DDA4E15.8060102 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4DDA6F10.4070103 at gmail.com>

David Stockhoff wrote (23-05-2011 13:07):
> I think you're right: Wolfe's puzzles are fairly in the open. Hidden puzzles
> that are purported to exist, IMHO, just don't.
>
> As an example, I think the current discussion attempting to relate various
> 17s, while perfectly understandable, logical, and even laudable, is a dead
> end. The theory of the "Identity of 17s" assumes way too much interest on
> Wolfe's part, as well as counting on his own assumption that his reader is
> all that interested in this kind of mystery. It's all future secret history,
> not a plot point, so there is no need for a puzzle to be there at all.

I think the same about this as do about all else: it it makes for a richer 
reading somewhere, go for it - but richer should usually mean something more 
than just 'normal plus it'.

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