Silk's origin

Gerry Quinn · 21 Oct 2011, 21:16 · from 2011-October.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: gerry at bindweed.com (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:16:07 +0100
Subject: (urth) Silk's origin
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W65904FFC3708648F1812E1CFE80 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W65904FFC3708648F1812E1CFE80 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <EBDEE04DE0B1426A93C2B27066D6953E@Rover>

From: Lee Berman 

>Gerry Quinn: 
> >  How do you determine the right way to read Wolfe? 
> >I would tend to go by results, i.e. consistent interpretations that 
> >make sense in terms of ALL the text, and not just mysterious snippets 
> >interpreted in exotic ways.

> I think this is a good post Gerry, which reveals a lot. The funny thing
> is that I would say it is your analysis of Wolfe seems to consist of snippets
> interpreted in an exotic way. That exotic way being that you are almost
> totally devoted to writing posts which lecture us on what the story is NOT, with
> only passing lip service to what the story actually IS. And a collection of NOTS
> doesn't seem like a way to construct a consistent interpretation to me.

I don?t see where you get that from.  In the last few posts, for example, I?ve posted on what I think the reference to Dionysus means, what I think is the significance of Severian?s spectrum of lovers; I?ve posted my interpretation of the nature of Baldanders, and my interpretation of the short story Suzanne Delage.  Those are positive interpretations.  You may not find them sufficiently bizarre or hermetic for your tastes, but I believe they are consistent with what Wolfe wrote.  And I believe they do not require fantastic suppositions for which there is little evidence, or flat-out contradictions of the text.  Not requiring such things is, to my mind, an essential part of a good theory.

> I see others, as well as myself, attempting to find a cohesive interpretive
> structure to understand Wolfe.

What do you mean by the word ?cohesive??  Does it include the quality of being compatible with the text?  

> Doing this via building a model composed of "not this" and "not that"
> ideas is pretty exotic and strange to me and explains some of the 
> difficulties in communication. 

It would be strange, if that were what I were doing.  But it?s not.  I propose theories in the ordinary way.  And I challenge theories ? my own and others ? in the ordinary way too, by looking for elements in the text that contradict them or are explained better by other theories.  

> It adds weight to the already weighty
> suggestion by Marc Aramini that agreeing to disagree may be the best
> solution. As I've suggested before, if you tried a more postive approach which 
> eschews mentioning the "nots" and emphasizes what you think the story "is" might 
> allow for a more fulfilling discussion of your ideas.      

Are you suggesting that I should refrain from pointing out problems I observe in theories that are proposed here?

- Gerry Quinn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111021/09902e4b/attachment-0001.htm>

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