Horns abilities

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 26 Oct 2011, 17:05 · 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: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:05:58 -0700
Subject: (urth) Horns abilities
In-Reply-To: <CAGB0RZ5hN=C+5dkz1dFnvBHmvA7t6eqOHiNm6d6R8x6RjT6C8w at mail.gmail.com>
References: <1319642471.36040.YahooMailClassic at web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<4EA833D3.9040201 at gmail.com>
	<CAJ8=rtit=MqeZd3=Rf6GCWEM6botLe=h1zUrOier-t5L7ucD-w at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB0RZ6yWAYX++zaSBf+FYdeqW0M35Tth-Reb3RU6QwjNdex7w at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ8=rtgD_Hdqrr6GTKiYWc5i-=j0w30W0DEp5EX2UnSLxXjJDA at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB0RZ5hN=C+5dkz1dFnvBHmvA7t6eqOHiNm6d6R8x6RjT6C8w at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ8=rthKkQkD0c2-WfKv=85=pV=rm+bbWWUmPim1BBTX5xmOQg at mail.gmail.com>

Daniel Petersen wrote:
> The Catholic writers (and other
> non-reductionist writers) aren't committed to a view of reality that knows
> no difference between text and world.

Remember that for us (I too am an adult convert to Catholicism, among
other things) the wor(l)d was spoken -- is in itself a kind of text.
The Word of God was made flesh, and indeed has its point-of-origin in
some sense in the flesh; it is always already _incarnate_ (i.e., not
merely spoken but written). The spoken word of God is the Act of
Creation: Let there be <foo> and there was <foo> .

> It's just that we are best to bet
> there's usually an open door of possibility for even the wildest phenomena
> of the text to be extra-textual phenomena too.

What I am saying is that there _are_ no extra-textual phenomena: all
phenomena are in some sense textual. I think that to understand what
Wolfe is doing here we must understand not only the textuality of the
text but the _radical_ textuality of the "internal" reality of his
stories.

Also, Wolfe messes with unreliable narrators. Now, when a narrator
inside a story told by an unreliable narrator tells a story, is that
story (and that narrator) reliable? Why or why not? What _is_ there
for us to interpret, but the text and its intertextuality?

-- 
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