(urth) The mystery of the image of an astronaut cleaned byRudesind

[brunians at brunians.org]

I expect Stockhoff to be an unpleasant fool and Wilson to be as he is.

That they act the way they act does not in any way surprise me.

You, James, surprise me.

.


>   For the record, I don't give a hoot about Rudesind and only a little
> bit about Fechin. Whatever Inire is, is fine with me. But what I don't
> like is cheap shots. And that is what this post is about for me.
>
>  > say, Rudesind is Inire. And I'm asking 'and now what?'. And I'm not
> getting an answer.
>
> Actually, I have answered you. I've explained that the question cannot
> be answered. I've made a request of you: Replaced "Rudesind is Inire"
> with "Doras is Severian's grandmother" and answer the same question. The
> answer is the same in both instances. You've dodged this challenge
> repeatedly.
>
>  >"It couldn't work because..." is all but
>  >impossible - especially when all contrary evidence can be just
> ignored, as
>  >in this Rudesind/Inire case - and "Here's something else that fits that
>  >pattern...." is essentially gratis.
>
> It's not ignored. When someone proffers a theory, he feels obliged to
> ride it until it breaks down. It's just how it works. And just because
> someone posits an explanation that is shown to be problematic does not
> mean there is nothing there. Putting it out there and taking the beating
> over it is part of the game. But sitting on your backside and drawling
> "I don't see it" is about as offensive a response as I've seen. And I
> see it every time someone pieces together an argument.
>
>  >Patterns come by the dozens. In books as rich in detail as Wolfe's you
> can
>  >get patterns out of anything. It's futile. You think you're clever
> because
>  >you've found a pattern, when in fact the hard thing is not to find them.
>
> This POV is lazy. And it's not even true. Not even close to true. Wolfe
> does not say the same thing over and over or reference the same physical
> trait over and over for no point. You more of his stories and you'll see
> that's true.
>
> Nor is it true that solid patterns are hard not find. Wolfe's problem is
> in the other direction. He doesn't leave nearly ENOUGH clues. His work
> often tends to appear to be randomly lackadaisical until you read it a
> second time or talk to someone about it. And then you find out it was a
> different story from the one you thought you were reading.
>
> And *no one* who enjoys reading Wolfe thinks reading him verrry
> carefully and then taking a conclusive leap is futile. Well, it's rare
> anyway. I don't care what anyone says. Pick the most textually rigorous
> person on this list. If he's been here long that person has proffered
> wild, even bizarre, explanations at times based on the thinnest of
> evidence. You'll do it too, Antonio. Textual rigor is important. Priding
> yourself on it is arrogant and lacking in any self-awareness.
>
>  >In short, I don't think everything in a book should serve some
>  >purpose within that book. But reader speculation must, because
>  >with all the stuff that Wolfe left lying there to toy with, if you don't
>  >set some standard, then you can go on indefinitely at random.
>
> There is no objective standard. This standard itself is purely
> subjective. But that's not the problem with it in practice. The problem
> with this standard you've laid down is that it is simultaneously
> "know-nothing" and presumptive. It's presumptive, in practice, because
> it declares that everything in the story of significance is already
> known. Which is ridiculous. It was only a few years ago that someone
> pretty convincingly argued that the tunnels Severian walks through to
> reach Valeria move through Time. It's know-nothing because it declares
> anything one doesn't know already must not be important since, after
> all, we've got along alright without it until now.
>
> When you agree with someone's theory, it seems to have all kinds of
> "speculative significance". When you don't or (more often) when the
> explanation is above your head, it seems pointless.
>
> It's not as though I've never seen this standard before. It's an easy
> trump card someone pulls out whenever laying out a detailed rebuttal
> seems too hard, but not saying anything at all seems harder.
>
> u+16b9
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>