(urth) Dan'l! (was: Re: It's getting hard...)

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Jane Delawney" <jane_delawney at sky.com>
> Have had to shut up for a week or so for reasons unconnected to the list, 
> but have to say Dan'l, I have some sympathy with your frustration. This 
> isn't a competition ... is it? if it *is*, I think  potential listmembers 
> need some kind of heads up before they join :) All I ever wanted to do 
> here was to bounce ideas off other Sun-cycle mavens. Some of the 'tudes 
> I've seen, whether in discussion I've participated in, or in catching-up 
> time (of which I have a great deal to do most times given personal cirx) 
> suggest some on here do actually regard this listserv as a competition. 
> One or two even seem to think that there is some ultimate religious truth 
> in question here.

When you say 'bounce ideas' do you just mean post ideas, no matter how 
wacky, and that evidence against those ideas is unwelcome?


> How anyone can think they are 'right' when discussing the literary work of 
> a writer who does not choose to participate himself in these discussions 
> is completely beyond me. GW is over eighty and so successful as a writer 
> that he doesn't need any of this stuff; he's definitely not going to tell 
> us word for word what is what. Given that - and I don't think that's a 
> stretch - what any of us think is as likely to be plausible / interesting 
> as what any other thinks. And regarding the 'religion' aspect, it's plain 
> to me that some have forgotten that what we are discussing here is a work, 
> or works, of fiction; not a set of texts competing, as at the Council of 
> Nicea, for canonical status.

Wolfe's books are not, of course, detective stories, or not only detective 
stories.  And even detective stories may have lacunae unnoticed by the 
author, or in some cases may have been written in a spirit of perversity 
such that the number of valid solutions is either less than or greater than 
one.

Neverthess, surely you agree that some readings must be better than others? 
For example readings of 5HoC or BotNS involving the Daleks as a major plot 
device are probably of less worth than readings for which it is easier to 
find support in the text.

It's not a question of religion.  It's a question of trying to find the best 
reading, or perhaps readingss. This won't be done without flagging problems 
with readings, and, as we all know, it's easier to spot problems with other 
people's readings than with our own.  And it's easier for the oroiginator of 
an idea to find ways around those problems.  Even if this is moticated in 
part by competitive instincts, the same might be said of most human 
achievement.  [If we are competitive, we should obey the rules of the game; 
which include not attempting to silence others by intimidation or other 
means, and not attempting to trap them, or hide arguments that would help 
their case.]

Sure, Wolfe doesn't usually explain (and even when he does I would say the 
words in the text are more authoritative than the words of the author). 
That doesn't mean that there are not good ideas, questionable ideas, and 
ideas that are totally out to lunch.  Don't we care which are which?

- Gerry Quinn