(urth) Dionysus, the Mausoleum

[Lee Berman]

>Son o' Witz- Lee, Gerry's point is valid. There IS a better description of the elephant.
>He does NOT put himself in the shoes of this "Sighted Man".
 
>I see it more like:
>Lee: (holding the tail) "This tail is far out, I think this must be a Hermaphrodon, 
>the beast with both genders!" And, Gerry, who has made an exhaustive search up that leg says, 
>"no, no no, I've got a firm GRASP on this beast's sex. It is NOT a Hermaphrodon."
>None of us has the whole map, but if we share and dispute, we might come to an accurate 
>description of the Elephant in the Book.
 
I'd have no problem if the discussion were along those lines. My objection is illustrated
by Antonio's post who, when confronted with a contributor who observes "the tail seems spiky"
would respond, "no it isn't"
 
Gerry, based on recent history, would be more likely to respond, "since we are dealing with an
elephant, I find it highly improbable that the tail is spiky"
 
Neither of these guys seems capable of making the intuitive leap to, "perhaps we are not dealing
with an elephant. Perhaps this is a stegosaurus. Let's look into this." Rejection and denial is
like an automatic reflex. They have the right to express this reflex but I have the right to object
to its expression.
 
I'm suggesting that if you think you have Gene Wolfe's work pretty much figured out as
an elephant, then that's all you'll ever get. And that's fine if that's all you want. But why
try to discourage others from exploring richer, more imaginative interpretations? 
 
As I previously suggested, I think genius is a very delicate thing. I don't like seeing it stepped 
upon for no good reason. I may not be capable of great intuitive leaps myself but I don't like 
being denied the opportunity to review the thoughts of others who are more gifted. And I've seen
more than one person leave this List in sadness and disgust at the way their ideas are treated.