Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 23 May 2011, 16:50 · 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: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:50:26 -0700
Subject: (urth) Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W8D72F102ECF2D22691F6BCF720 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W8D72F102ECF2D22691F6BCF720 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=4drWVdA-sxO0O66Hoh4AtRf9iNQ at mail.gmail.com>

Lee Berman wrote:
> [I]t is nearly impossible to dispute that Wolfe's original
> 4-book BotNS had only the barest evidence for a Flood, while the added final book makes that
> conclusion incontrovertible.

Sorry, Lee, but I must disagree with this. It seemed obvious to me
that Dr. Talos' play was supposed to be taken as unknowingly prophetic
(in the same way that the High Priest in the Gospel is unknowingly
prophetic when he says that it is better that one man die for the
nation), and that the general outline, if not the details, were to be
taken seriously.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

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