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

[Son of Witz]

On Jan 7, 2011, at 8:54 AM, "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq at indigo.ie> wrote:

> 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

I certainly agree with that.
People can get so invested with their theories that they hold onto them well past their breaking points out of pride I guess. Thats when things seem to veer off into the meta-critique of each others' take on interpreting literature, which gets pretty boring, IMO.  

We ALL know in our hearts that not every reading is valid.  People glom onto one thing, start guessing, then forget that something might contradict.  I come here because I want to find a certain concensus about the PLOT, and then to explore the crazy IDEAS in the plot.  I LOVE Lee and Marc's gestalt ideas. Such far out stuff.  I love Gerry and Roy's parsing abilities. 

Can't we all just get along, suck it up and accept that THEORIES ARE MEANT TO BE PRODDED?  They only become really valid when you can't prove them wrong.

(I'm pretty sure my friend's theory that the characters of LOST were all actually delivered into Hell at the end, despite the fact that everyone thinks they went to Heaven hasn't been knocked down yet, though people sure try.  This theory is the only way that show is redeemed in my eyes.)