Hyacinth Not A Boy

Charles Reed · 14 Mar 2003, 05:18 · from urth-v0303.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: Charles Reed <jazzy_jeeves at att.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) Hyacinth Not A Boy
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:18:46 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0303-3080 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0303/3080.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just a couple of thoughts about "text-evidence" readers:

>Crush responds:
>That's an unambiguous answer? Well, maybe for Wolfe it is. Less so, I'd sa=
y,
>than "Urth is green," and you know how far that has gotten us. I've never
>spoken to Wolfe, but based on his answers to direct questions from this
>list, I recommend all beware of "unambiguous" answers from that Delphic
>oracle.
>
>As I said recently, I no longer hold to this theory for purely thematic
>reasons. However, IF I were **what some consider to be** a purely "text
>evidence" reader...
>
>(that is, to presume:
>o All characters are telling the truth
>
A "text evidence" reader would hold no such view if the text indicated=20
that the character were lying or speaking something false out of ignorance.

>o No characters are wrong in observations
>
Same comment.  If the text shows that a character is wrong in his=20
observations, then that's what it shows.  If there is no textual=20
evidence for a character's observations being wrong, though, then the=20
"text evidence" reader would accept such statements as true.  It's a=20
generally positive view of humanity, I suppose, to believe what a=20
character says until proven (proven by the text) otherwise, but I find=20
that such an outlook serves me well.

>o All things are as they are presented
>
Now you're verging on slandering those of us who prefer to analyze the=20
text on its own merits first and foremost.  We're very much aware that=20
many things are not as they are presented, and that we must dig deep and=20
think hard -- about the text -- to figure out what's really going on=20
behind the "false presentation."   Just because we don't rush out to see=20
how Wolfe's work aligns with Robert Graves or with some=20
Greek/Egyptian/Whatever myth, that doesn't mean that we're lazy readers,=20
or that we don't think deeply about what's going on.  It also doesn't=20
mean that we're accepting of every bit of drivel that happens to come=20
from the narrator's pen as God-ordained absolute truth.  You're painting=20
with a recklessly broad brush, Crush, and I hope that you're at least=20
mostly kidding.

>o Ignore extra-textual plot-lines regardless of how closely they may seem =
to
>follow the story unless the narrator says otherwise)
>
This is the only accurate "text-first" characterization that you've made.

Charles



--=20

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