King Jesus defense

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 13 Nov 2002, 16:55 · from urth-v0211.mbox · original

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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) King Jesus defense
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:55:35 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0211-2093 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0211/2093.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dan (Doggett):

You wrote,

> Your primary contention seems the easiest for me to refute ...

I do not feel certain what, precisely, you consider my "primary=3D20
contention," but as you do not (to me) appear to address (what=3D20
I consider) my "primary contention," allow me to make it explicit:

First, I agree that G.W.'s basic working method involves what=3D20
you call "supersaturating ... with ... many ideas and references."=3D20
He seems nearly unique in the degree of this; I know of only two=3D20
(SF) writers who come close: Theodore Sturgeon and A.E. van Vogt,=3D20
who however do this in very different ways -- mostly ideas, far=3D20
less references.

Second, I certainly do think it reasonable to perceive=3D20
similarities between NS and KJ. However, as I said in my previous=3D20
post, "This kind of surface connection can be found between almost=3D20
any two rich and complex works of narrative literature" -- and,=3D20
I would add, _especially_ two works which clearly play off the=3D20
same basic template, in this case, the received story of Jesus the=3D20
Christ. I think it might constitute an interesting exercise to=3D20
compare NS with, for example, Dostoevski's THE IDIOT. On the other=3D20
hand, I don't think it would prove all that interesting to compare=3D20
NS with Heinlein's STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, though it uses the=3D20
Jesus-template rather extensively ... which probably says something=3D20
about how I perceive the richness and complexity of SiaSL.

Third: But and however, given that one can find such similarities=3D20
and connections between two such works, it does not follow that
the later-written in any way reworks or shows influence from the
earlier-written, in some sort of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ way.
Thus my concern for a "smoking gun:" either a direct reference to
the earlier work (either internal to the later work or in some
external comment by the work's author), or else some complex of
details that we can't plausibly call it a "coincidence," a random
isomorphism in how the two writers treat similar material.

My "primary contention," then, is that -- even if I grant every
one of your points -- they constitute neither such a reference=3D20
nor such a complex of details, leaving the question of whether=3D20
KJ might help us to understand what Wolfe is doing in NS open at
best.

That said, I probably erred in the directions of "pointless"
and/or "misleading" in disputing your specific details one by
one.

--Blattid

--=20

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