Like a good Neighbor

David Stockhoff · 22 Nov 2011, 14:43 · 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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:43:39 -0500
Subject: (urth) Like a good Neighbor
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W1037BEF250B8F46F9EFD23CFC80 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W1037BEF250B8F46F9EFD23CFC80 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4ECBB51B.3060804 at verizon.net>

On 11/22/2011 8:19 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
>> Marc Aramini: Don't you remember the literary technique Severian talked about?
>> A torturer paid by one side to make it quick, the other to make it painful, and
>> by positioning them just right, he succeeds - thus does Wolfe speak of narrative
>
> I agree fully, Marc. I have used the old/young woman optical illusion and the
> House Absolute/Secret House as analogies for the same principle. It is to no avail
> for some people. They are exclusionary readers and for them there is one and only
> one best answer and once determined, it excludes the possibility of multiple meaning.
>
> "GREEN is Urth!!!" (I think that is the proper quote, caps to designate BLUE is not Urth).
> Marc I think you recognize there is metaphorical meaning in that. But you also find
> literal meaning. Why can't it be both, depending on which perspective you are taking in
> regard to space, time and dreams.
>
> Likewise this pointless debate on whether Horn died in the pit. If there is a tranferrable
> soul being considered, the definition of death is no longer as cut and tried as we, in
> our world, define it. Why can't Horn be dead in one way of looking at things and not really
> dead from another perspective. Moreover, why can't it be recognized that Wolfe writes in
> a way in which both can be true?
>
>> Sergei Soloviev: As I explain, it is one of many ends. And I think the reading is richer
>> if you do not see maximal "yes" or maximal "no" on any occasion.
>
> Sergei, I think you are on the right track. But you are trying to compromise and thus losing
> something on both ends. If we are trying to understand our own human existence, the concept
> of yes or no is needed. Either yes, someone is alive or no, they are not. But if we are
> trying to understand God, that is too limiting. Jesus is both dead AND alive. God is both
> maximal yes AND maximal no.
>
> This is what makes Gene Wolfe a special author. He is simultaneously trying to explore
> human existence and an understanding of the divine. We shouldn't ignore either one of these. 		 	   		

Osiris was both living AND dead, and that's why he became king of the 
underworld.

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