theories

António Pedro Marques · 23 Oct 2011, 21:17 · 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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:17:45 +0100
Subject: (urth) theories
In-Reply-To: <1319396182.73464.YahooMailClassic at web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1319396182.73464.YahooMailClassic at web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4EA48479.5080408 at gmail.com>

Marc Aramini wrote (23-10-2011 19:56):

> Dismissing text based evidence as dreamlike, only metaphor, or flat is
> simply not conducive to any explication at all.  If Wolfe tells us
> everything, we don't need this discussion list.  Not that everyone is
> right, but I do think there is interpretive work to be done in almost
> every Wolfe story when details start to accumulate.

These are very good points. (The point where I depart from Gerry is that I
do think there's noatloads of mysteries to solve, and hints not to dismiss, 
even if he's right that sometimes people see hints and mysteries where there 
are none.)

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