barrington interview

António Marques · 06 Oct 2014, 11:30 · from 2014-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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ant=C3=B3nio_Marques?=)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:30:21 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <BLU175-W248DB1B5A985932992FD9CFA50 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU175-W248DB1B5A985932992FD9CFA50 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CACJ=J7kJETxnhYFxO46sAmkGJ=zxP80OiddiVpgaozhMDFSBZw at mail.gmail.com>

At the end of the day there must be more to a Correct Reading than that the
author saying that's how he thought it out, which is an external factoid.

On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Jeffrey Wilson:  This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.
>
> >There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same
> difficulty or the
> >answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may
> >have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on
> >them.
>
>
> For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:
>
>
> Who is right?
>
>
> In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists
> of his
>
> work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his
> work.
>
>
> There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought
>
> trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct
> understanding?
>
> Who are the ones who are way off base?
>
>
> Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and
> wrong, we are
>
> each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does
> get Wolfe
>
> correctly is, of course, ourselves.
>
>
> If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide
> multiple reasons for
>
> why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of
> assessment of correct
>
>  interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a  firm
> majority consensus to
>
> base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see
> either.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141006/ed343de0/attachment.htm>

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