(urth) Like a good Neighbor

[Gerry Quinn]

From: James Wynn 
On 11/21/2011 12:13 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote: 
    Well, then it is up to you to present an explanation of the long-nosed man, because as I said – and you seem to be tacitly conceding – a ‘late’ appearance by him is not easily made compatible with the hypothesis

  I made no such concession. I said I *prefer* an earlier appearance. I still do. I have no problem presenting a theory to tie the events together and allow people to shoot at it. Even for people who are better at shooting than presenting. I don't have *explain* him. He's a Neighbor. I believe him to be OUR Neighbor. Marc, thinks differently for his own reasons.
I’ve presented my theory of events in the pit.  Shoot away, if you can.  If by “OUR Neighbour” you mean that he replaced Horn, it seems you must conclude that he replaced a Horn who was alive and healthy, albeit in a bad situation, because surely Horn was substantially recovered from his fall – however he recovered – by the time Krait came.

This need be nothing to do with me.  If you want to make your theory work, you need to answer this even if you think my idea that the narrator who didn’t die and didn’t say he died didn’t actually die is too crazy to be considered.

    [and I’m sorry, but it *IS* only a hypothesis, one I do not share] that Horn died and was replaced by him. [The long nosed fellow is] a big problem for the ‘Horn died in the pit’ theory.

  Actually, the long-nosed fellow's appearance is only significant in a time-line, 
  mechanism discussion. 
Right... so it’s irrelevant to discussions where we make up theories we like and ignore where they contradict the narrative.  I get you.  Silly me, always reading the text and trying to interpret what happens.  I’ll never understand Wolfe that way.

  If someone is using it to construct a theory that Horn didn't die, that's 
  equivalent to constructing theories to show that Hy was never really a 
  prostitute or that Blood was not Pike's son. You've gone off the rails in that case.

Actually I’m using it to shoot down a theory in which Horn did die.  But it does work fine with my theory of what happened in the pit which I posted earlier.  It’s not very dependent on when the long-nosed man appeared.

    And nothing will shake your belief in your theory, even being shown how events clearly described in the narrative contradict it.  

  The problem with someone not being very good at reading Wolfe is that they are always declaring how "events clearly described in the narrative" prove this or that, when in fact they don't prove anything and don't describe what they think they do. They've misinterpreted everything. No doubt you will shout "tu quoque!" Fine. But with you I inevitably find myself feeling like Psyche trying to prove to Orual that Apollo's palace is all around her. In fact, I half-way suspect that if we were discussing the novel "Til We Have Faces" you would be asserting that Psyche was mad. Not only do I not value your approach to Wolfe, I don't even understand why anyone would enjoy reading him with that approach/
I haven’t read that novel so I can’t comment on your analogy.  But I do dispute your contention that your ability to read Wolfe is superior to mine.

Your ability to make up often rather strange theories which can find little or no justification in the text is unquestionable, though.


- Gerry Quinn



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111121/bf4ce9fd/attachment-0004.htm>