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

[brunians at brunians.org]

I think Dunn's ideas are good.

A breath of fresh air.

What amazes me, James, is your attitude.

I would have said I knew what you thought about this stuff.

.


>   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
>