Like a good Neighbor

James Wynn · 21 Nov 2011, 18:42 · 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:42:21 -0600
Subject: (urth) Like a good Neighbor
In-Reply-To: <BCE9C57032C74579950B4573D86E0D80@Rover>
References: <1321817523.83932.YahooMailClassic at web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><4EC959AF.6080106 at irit.fr><4EC98EA2.6060903 at gmail.com><F6785705-6390-45F9-8187-BA28D41DA4A1 at gmail.com><4EC99908.2050002 at gmail.com><CBD3CB6B352E4006B1E1B032B57E2E61@Rover><4EC9B83F.20109 at gmail.com><293B7EC250334AE89DB1BAEDC686DCD5@Rover><988E7802-D8C3-4302-906B-F949EE1D4352 at gmail.com><2487114869464FA8B2F62C7BA480D270@Rover><4ECA8589.9090104 at gmail.com><64847661D06A447C9AFECC3D963D0087@Rover>
	<4ECA8FB9.3070104 at gmail.com>
	<BCE9C57032C74579950B4573D86E0D80@Rover>
Message-ID: <4ECA9B8D.8060001 at gmail.com>

On 11/21/2011 12:13 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Well, then it is up to you to present an explanation of the long-nosed 
> man, because as I said -- and you seem to be tacitly conceding -- a 
> 'late' appearance by him is not easily made compatible with the hypothesis

I made no such concession. I said I *prefer* an earlier appearance. I 
still do. I have no problem presenting a theory to tie the events 
together and allow people to shoot at it. Even for people who are better 
at shooting than presenting. I don't have *explain* him. He's a 
Neighbor. I believe him to be OUR Neighbor. Marc, thinks differently for 
his own reasons.

> [and I'm sorry, but it *IS* only a hypothesis, one I do not share] 
> that Horn died and was replaced by him. [The long nosed fellow is] a 
> big problem for the 'Horn died in the pit' theory.

Actually, the long-nosed fellow's appearance is only significant in a 
time-line, mechanism discussion.
If someone is using it to construct a theory that Horn didn't die, 
that's equivalent to constructing theories to show that Hy was never 
really a prostitute or that Blood was not Pike's son. You've gone off 
the rails in that case.

> And nothing will shake your belief in your theory, even being shown 
> how events clearly described in the narrative contradict it.

The problem with someone not being very good at reading Wolfe is that 
they are always declaring how "events clearly described in the 
narrative" prove this or that, when in fact they don't prove anything 
and don't describe what they think they do. They've misinterpreted 
everything. No doubt you will shout "tu quoque!" Fine. But with you I 
inevitably find myself feeling like Psyche trying to prove to Orual that 
Apollo's palace is all around her. In fact, I half-way suspect that if 
we were discussing the novel "Til We Have Faces" you would be asserting 
that Psyche was mad. Not only do I not value your approach to Wolfe, I 
don't even understand why anyone would enjoy reading him with that approach/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111121/c9b2bf57/attachment.htm>

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