Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy

James Wynn · 16 Nov 2011, 18:21 · from 2011-November.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: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:21:12 -0600
Subject: (urth) Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy
In-Reply-To: <4EC3DBF4.1040908 at gmail.com>
References: <1321457371.61317.YahooMailClassic at web161805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<4EC3DBF4.1040908 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EC3FF18.2060304 at gmail.com>

On 11/16/2011 9:51 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
> ('Objective' doesn't mean uber-cool. It means anyone can apply the 
> same method and get the same result.)
> ('Textual' doesn't mean superior. It means we'll be taken wherever 
> applying the method to the text takes us, not the other way round.) 

"Objectively" apply your ideas of "textual" criticism to Wolfe's story 
"Seven American Nights". Use it to show how you can start without a 
"theory" to fill in the blanks left by the text and  to reject false 
cues in the text.

The problem with "objectivity" is that everyone with an opinion thinks 
they have it. But In order to be truly objective, you have to have no 
opinion yourself.

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