Increate on trial

maru · 01 Apr 2005, 19:02 · from 2005-April.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: marudubshinki at gmail.com (maru)
Date: Fri Apr  1 19:02:10 2005
Subject: (urth) Re: Increate on trial
In-Reply-To: <424C82F2.9040609 at pressroom.com>
References: <000c01c535c9$19793680$a13ec6d8 at rclackey.stic.net>	<004201c53621$7abca050$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>
	<424C82F2.9040609 at pressroom.com>
Message-ID: <424E0B2E.8040506 at gmail.com>

"Sister-list"?
Before my time- a little history please?

~Maru

David Kirby wrote:

> James Wynn wrote:
>
>> Personally, I've come to like the idea of a "futuristic novel" set in 
>> a vast distant future that occurs in the staggeringly distant "past" 
>> (if that's the proper word for something that occurs beyond multiple 
>> iterations of the collapse and rebirth of Time). 
>
>
> Actually, I like the idea, too. There are, uh, cycles within the Cycle,
> and this idea undergirds the vastness of that proposition.
>
>> Its just the sort of twisting Wolfe does all the time with his 
>> stories and characters. Maybe he didn't think of it until later but I 
>> don't find it especially undermined in the text (even the quote David 
>> Kirby mentioned since the Bang-Gnab theory Wolfe is playing with was 
>> similar to the parallel universe concept of String theory). I don't 
>> see it as a plot hole at all.
>
>
> From what I've read on this list and its now-deceased "sister" list, 
> it's also like Wolfe to say things that undermine conclusions that are 
> reasonably reached from basic readings of his texts. I suspect he does 
> this on purpose, to keep us digging, but that may be giving him too 
> much credit; he certainly enjoys readers' reactions to puzzles and 
> "Easter eggs" he places in the texts. Even if he does think everything 
> is crystal clear.
>
> And despite what I recall being the ascendency of the Bang-Gnab theory 
> in the early '80s, when NEW SUN was first published, doesn't current 
> thinking have it that the universe won't "Gnab" on us, won't 
> continually expand, but will reach a state of (very desolate) 
> steadiness? That's the assumption of Brian Greene's 2004 book, THE 
> FABRIC OF THE COSMOS; it is likely based on 2003 ideas and data, but I 
> don't recall seeing anything more recent.
>
> So maybe Wolfe *thought* he was correct when he talked about (or 
> "translated") the Bang-Gnab theory, but our (*cough,* *cough*) 
> *vastly* superior knowledge of the cosmos renders that assumption 
> incorrect.
>
> (I'm sure you're aware, by the way, that the parallel universe concept 
> of "hard" physics dates to the 1950s, quite a while before string 
> theory  came along in any form.)
>
>       -- David
>

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