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

[António Pedro Marques]

James Wynn wrote (08-07-2010 05:46):
> 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.

Great, then he is a Disney character, friends with Roger Rabbit. Let's work 
out the implications of that (oh, wait, what for? we only need to come up 
with the guess, not actually show any substance to it).

> But what I don't like is cheap shots. And that is what this post is about
> for me.

But that just means you didn't understand it, assuming you're being honest.

>> 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.

Well, in the brand of english I studied, 'I'm not getting an answer' in my
sentence means 'no one has provided that information'. If you said the
information doesn't exist, you still haven't provided it.

> 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.

?? You've asked it ONCE, I've reported you to the endless discussions on
that at the time it was put forward, and I've explained how it isn't a good
analogy.

>> "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.

Of course it's ignored. 'Ignored' here means 'brushed aside', not 'victim of
oversight'.

> 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.

'I don't see it' is the only sincere reply you can give to weaseling.

How may more times must I repeat that I'm not worried about the 
*plausibility*? I'm granting you the premise! I'm taking your guess for 
good! (Here I just mention that there is little point in not taking it for 
good because the text is so rich that it allows pretty much anything - you 
then feel insulted because that amounts to telling you that what you've 
found there isn't extraordinary) NOW that I've taken your guess for good, 
what? DO something with it! That's what I'm asking. By its fruit you shall 
know it.

The essence of 'what-if?' is in the 'then'. There's a reason that call 
'what-if?' 'alternate history'. Because if 'if', 'then' something novel.

>> 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.

That's precisely why patterns are had not to find.

The issue may be with 'solid'. You think you got solid material. Well, you
don't.

> 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.

You don't tell me.

> 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.

I've yet to decide whether yall simply have not read what I've written or
are just being dishonest.

>> 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.

Now if you can just provide a single argument of mine that can be
interpreted in the way you put above, we'll all be happy.

This isn't even a case of strawmanship. When you build a strawman, you at
least start from the other person's ideas. Here you have the nerve to talk
about 'this standard [I]'ve laid down' with no relationship at all to
anything I have said, but rather your idea of what you don't think is a
sensible position.

> 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.

Again your obsession is with theory for the sake of theory. Ur doin it wrong.

> 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.

You can't rebutt nothingness.

In all your drivel, about the only thing you've said that relates to what
I've said is that patterns are hard to find in Wolfe's books. And it's wrong.

Now if you should go to the trouble of actually addressing what I wrote
instead of some preconceived idea of what you would think if you objected to
idle speculation, I may take the trouble to read what you have to say.