(urth) Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?

[António Pedro Marques]

David Stockhoff wrote (23-05-2011 13:07):
> I think you're right: Wolfe's puzzles are fairly in the open. Hidden puzzles
> that are purported to exist, IMHO, just don't.
>
> As an example, I think the current discussion attempting to relate various
> 17s, while perfectly understandable, logical, and even laudable, is a dead
> end. The theory of the "Identity of 17s" assumes way too much interest on
> Wolfe's part, as well as counting on his own assumption that his reader is
> all that interested in this kind of mystery. It's all future secret history,
> not a plot point, so there is no need for a puzzle to be there at all.

I think the same about this as do about all else: it it makes for a richer 
reading somewhere, go for it - but richer should usually mean something more 
than just 'normal plus it'.