(urth) This week in Google alerts

[Lee Berman]

> You're right that no knowledge of obscure fauns is "needed." Full
> understanding of exactly how Wolfe composes and constructs his
> stories is not "needed."







>Antonio Pedro Marques:
>This ties in with a point I never see made but I think is quite
>important. People strive to find 'logical', 'scientific' explanations
>for everything, and when they find them, or think they did, 'that's
>it'. Well, sorry, no. It may usually be it, but, scientifically
>speaking, maximum likelihood and certainty aren't the same thing.



I agree, it is an important point. And especially in regard to the

work of Gene Wolfe. Considering his biography, he is a man who spent

his pre-writing years surrounded by engineers and mechanics who likely

applied their professional leanings toward their understanding of the

world.



I can imagine many coffee break conversations over the years in which

Wolfe was faced with material/scientific explanations of the world which

conclude with, "and that's it. Nothing else is needed".



The core of some of the debates in here mirrors the debate between the

man of faith and the atheist. The argument always boils down to:

"you are missing something" vs. "you are imagining things".