(urth) Wolfe's brilliance or my denseness?

[DAVID STOCKHOFF]

--- On Tue, 5/24/11, Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie> wrote:

> Thank you.  Obviusly I make the comment from my own
> perspective, thinking - but don't we all even if modesty
> makes it hard to say - that I am a reasonably good reader of
> Wolfe, or at least a good assessor of different ideas about
> his books (I am probably not especially creative when it
> comes to inventing new ideas).  And it would be
> disingenuous of me not to admit that I see most of my
> battles on this newsgroup as being with people who lean too
> much towards embracing impossible theories.
> 
> That is logical, though, as people of the kind who dismiss
> the unlikely probably won't show up too often on a list like
> this.  You will see reviews of Wolfe from time to time
> that exclaim "why do people rave about this guy, stuff
> happens in his books for no reason and nothing is
> explained!"  I think those reviews are from that kind
> of folks, and they will generally then put Wolfe down and
> find some author more to their liking.  So I suppose
> it's inevitable that the average perspective in a list like
> this will lean towards overly fantastical interpretations.

Yes, and if they didn't we would have much less to talk about!