(urth) Pike's ghost

[James Wynn]

On 11/29/2011 12:49 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
> I think that there are still some "minimum requirements" to the people 
> who advance
> an extravagant new theory -
>
> - if they claim that the theory is supported by the text, it would be 
> fair to do the
> work finding necessary quotations, and honestly present the context 
> (not to make
> the opponent to browse the whole book to find out that the next 
> sentence to the
> sentence just quoted is disproving the theory)
>
> - to be polite, and not to present disagreement as stupidity
>
> - not to try to intimidate the opponents presenting their hypotheses
> as common knowledge and consensus

It doesn't need to be a so-called extravagant theory for all these rules 
to apply.
There are people with extravagant theories who have presented them in 
detail many times in the past. It's probably not reasonable for anyone 
to be required to back every statement with proof each time they make an 
assertion.
If someone makes an assertion and you aren't clear on where it says 
that, why should anyone but the person making the assertion be required 
to search the books for the text. Have them quote the text verbatim and 
include the chapter (page numbers are typically useless). That's hardly 
an onerous burden.

_Arguing_ from the position that any interpretation in this text is mere 
"common knowledge" or consensus is bad form. There is actually very 
little in these books that everyone agrees on 100%. However, I don't 
feel the need for everyone to constantly qualify everything with "I know 
not everyone sees it that way". That is probably the one common thread 
in all interpretations of Wolfe's novels.

As for being polite, I'd say it another way. Remember that we're talking 
about literature here. Horn's fate does not rest on our conclusion. You 
don't need to be overtly rude to be annoying. You don't need to call 
people names to make people want to call you names.