barrington interview

Lee · 07 Oct 2014, 13:28 · 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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:28:33 -0400
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
Message-ID: <BLU175-W367B98311DE3C598B924FFCFA20 at phx.gbl>

>Marc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading.

Marc, I'm sure there are many examples upon which WE can agree are a misreading

of fiction by someone else.  But the assessment of error remains our opinion not scientific 

fact.

What if there is an "error" (Wolfe's or editor's) in the text such as Wolfe's spelling of 

Quadrifrons as Quadrifons? Is the misspelling deliberate on Wolfe's part, serving a

hidden purpose? Or is it just an error?

What if Wolfe makes an error and a reader makes an assumption based on that error.

Who is actually right, the reader who is in concord with Wolfe within the text or the scholar 

who has spotted Wolfe's error?

There are varying levels of agreement when it comes to fiction. Relatively few disagree

on the meaning of a Stephen King novel. But when an author such as Wolfe writes in

deliberately ambiguous fashion (Shadow Children are degenerate humans/No, they are

native shapeshifters) there is going to be disagreement with no firm way to establish

universal correctness, as your discussions with Gerry Quinn demonstrate.

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