An Evil Guest - An Object Lesson

Robert Pirkola · 20 Mar 2018, 21:26 · from 2018-March.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: rpirkola at hotmail.com (Robert Pirkola)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:26:30 -0000
Subject: (urth)  An Evil Guest - An Object Lesson
In-Reply-To: <mailman.341.1521575675.5570.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
References: <mailman.341.1521575675.5570.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <CY1PR14MB06294217CD8D75B33DFC80C5DFAB0 at CY1PR14MB0629.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

On March 20, 2018, Marc Aramini wrote:

>Cognitive dissonance incoming from the fasciest of textual fascists (me):
>ideally people should be able to engage the text on the level they feel
>comfortable with . . . sometimes it is necessary to let people read as they want to - for
>some, Wolfe really is just a fun read.  . . . I agree that we should be speculating on Cassie's
>condition ... but if that isn't important or central to the goal of other
>readers I think it is okay. We all read for different things(but that
>doesn't mean our plot exegeses are wrong, of course).

I agree with your above-quoted points, Marc, and do not intend to spoil anyone's fun.  I foisted the book on my mother to see what she would think of the thing and she was bemused and amused about equally, but she didn't go on a quest to figure anything out beyond what stuck with her in her first (and likely only) read-through.  The point I hoped to make about Eric's approach was that he was actively putting on blinders to what the text was communicating about CC's body.  And he was apparently doing so because he had decided that it would be unfair to measure Cassie Casey if she were in fact a flesh-and-blood person.  I'm reading Madame Bovary at the moment.  If I were strongly opposed to adultery as a commandment violation worthy of the death penalty, would I:

(A) read the book and filter out those bits that offend me, or
(B) not read a book about adultery?

I certainly don't mean to suggest that you shouldn't be free to read the book, stick it up your nose, or paint with it.  But reading someone advocate for the conscious exclusion of textual evidence here on this forum was a bit like finding a tortoise at the top of a flag pole -- there it is, but *how* in the *world* . . . ?!

It would be unfair to Eric to classify his views and approach by only the last post which I disagreed with, however.  I know from following this list for years that Eric has posted several observations and questions that indicate the opposite of what I accuse him -- that is to say, he has shown a willingness to pry into obscure corners of Wolfe texts and get down with the minutiae.  I hope he will continue to do the same and tell me why I'm all wet with this pregnancy thing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20180320/213bbbfc/attachment-0001.html>

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