(urth) academic commentary

[Craig Brewer]

A very fair point. I think that's especially true of New Sun...and probably of 
Wolfe in general...especially since so many people see so many different "clues" 
as "evidence" of all kinds of deeper explanations. Robert Borski is a perfect 
example. I find his interpretations fascinating but also baffling at what seems 
to convince him of some of his readings.




----- Original Message ----
From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 11:10:45 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) academic commentary

Another great post, Craig, but,

Craig Brewer wrote (30-11-2010 16:48):
> If the standard you set for yourself when reading is that everything the
> author says is suspect and most likely a potential deception (this is largely
> Wright's methodology), then making a positive case for real divinity in New 
Sun
> becomes incredibly difficult.

...it seems to me that making a positive case for anything at all is very 
difficult (whether by positive you mean definite or positivist).
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net