theories

Ryan Dunn · 23 Oct 2011, 16:59 · 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: ryan at liftingfaces.com (Ryan Dunn)
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:59:07 -0400
Subject: (urth) theories
In-Reply-To: <4EA44518.5020506 at irit.fr>
References: <4EA432EE.9060907 at irit.fr>
	<DE2C24CA-46ED-4FBE-B42D-E954D86F0BBB at liftingfaces.com>
	<4EA44518.5020506 at irit.fr>
Message-ID: <A730DD87-F844-4E8B-9BD3-EDBC09224901 at liftingfaces.com>

I just mean that a half baked theory or a start of a theory is just as valid to posit on this list than a fully thought through fact checked cross referenced five year theory is.

I notice a lot of naysaying rather than encouragement or informed disagreement lately, that's all.

I could be misinterpreting though.

And it appeared you were agreeing with Gerrys note which, in short, took a certain view of people who apparently were reading Wolfe the wrong way. That seems kind of close minded and elitist to the untrained eye.

...ryan

On Oct 23, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:

> Dear Ryan,
> 
> I only told that I mostly agree with Gerry (and quoted him). I think that more balance between
> generating theories and verifying them would be good. I don't think it is
> offensive. Also, I don't think that to ask how our cultural background may
> influence our ideas is offensive - and that it is bad to analyse ourselves a bit.
> The lists needs theories - and critical attitude as well.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Sergei
> 
> Ryan Dunn wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> There are especially many theories trying to declare that different personages are
>>> identical.
>>>    
>> 
>> Well if people weren't always appearing masked, in disguise, or spying on Severian, then I'd see where you are coming from.
>> 
>> Wolfe's works most definitely ARE puzzles to be solved. He hides things in plain sight and assumes his readers will try to solve the mysteries he lays out. BotNS couldn't be a better example of this type of story.
>> 
>> I'm more concerned by naysayers who dare to presume that either 1) they know the material so well that those who still theorize have nothing valuable to offer; or (worse) 2) they believe they have figured it all out and anyone who offers a new line of thought is somehow beneath their literary prowess.
>> 
>> Inire is the most talked about, least seen character in the series. He is elusive yet somehow omnipresent. He is also (for no apparent reason) called Father. Do you really believe if is our of line to explore his character at length?
>> 
>> Tsk tsk.
>> 
>> And finally, there is nothing more disrespectful in literature discussion than to tell someone how they should or should not read a book, ESPECIALLY a Wolfe book. Give me a break. None of us are so all-knowing as to pass that kind of judgment. If you don't like people using an Urth discussion list to discuss theories related to Urth, maybe you're subscribed to the wrong list. I can think of no more appropriate place to have such spirited discussions. 
>> ...ryan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

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