5HC

Richard Simon · 06 Sep 2014, 07:18 · from 2014-September.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: gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk (Richard Simon)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:18:34 +0100
Subject: (urth) 5HC
In-Reply-To: <BLU175-W29295535ED297439D99A05CFC20 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU175-W29295535ED297439D99A05CFC20 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1409987914.27556.YahooMailNeo at web171303.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

I explained how I interpret the text of The Fifth Head of Cerberus.

Mr Quinn prefers a different interpretation, one I regard as untenable because if that interpretation is accepted as correct the entire subtext of the story vanishes into thin air.

I shall argue no farther, but neither Mr Quinn nor anyone else should assume that means I cannot, should I wish to do so, carry the argument further. I visit urth.net to pick up clues, hints and suggestions to eke out my own understanding of Gene Wolfe's works, not to promote an interpretation of my own. I offered my reading of 5HoC to see whether there were any reasonable objections to it. There are none, so I shall keep it.

On Saturday, 6 September 2014, 3:38, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

>Gerry Quinn: Few would claim to have the final word on issues of

>logic or truth. Forthunately, the identification of logical 

>inconsistencies requires no such power.

I am not understanding. If a person reads a work of fiction and comes

to what they feel is a "logical" interpretation and someone else feels

that interpretation contains "logical inconsistencies", I think there

are only two ways to proceed. Either there is agreement to disagree with

an acknowledgement of equality or one person (or both) claims the 

superiority of their logical prowess over the other.

>And the placement of scare quotes about the concept of logic is never a 
>happy sight,

I'm uncertain as to the nature of what "scare quotes" might be. In this

case I use quotes to indicate the wording someone else had previously used

as well as to indicate that I question the validity of "logic" and "truth"

in understanding artwork.

What logical equation can explain why watches have a liquid quality in a

Dali painting? What truth can be found in the appearance of a blue haired

woman in the balcony of a David Lynch film?

Surely there are human ways of perceiving the world and understanding art 

other than logic? Surely the word "intuition" is not completely bereft of

all meaning?                           
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20140906/b69d426e/attachment.htm>

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