(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Pedro Marques]

James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 17:57):
> On 11/29/2011 11:33 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> James Wynn wrote:
>>> Antonio, what do you suppose the point was in having Horn and Nettle
>>> write the story as opposed to an omniscient third-person narrator?
>>
>> António Pedro Marques wrote: What do you base your theory that it was
>> Horn and Nettle on? There's no real reason to believe it. It may have
>> been Marrow's slave.
>
> That's an artless dodge, Antonio. I'll expect an answer to my question
> first.

Why, seeing as though yours was in response to an unanswered one of mine and 
it is based on what you consider a theory whose assumptions haven't been 
clarified yet?

>> So you admit that when you ask where others get their assumptions from,
>>  it's a rhetoric/flippant question?
>
> I have admitted nothing of the sort. If I am going to discuss a theory, I
>  approach it from the position, "What if it were true? What would I
> expect?". I have never said to anyone, for an example, "This is /your/
> theory. YOU come up with something that I will accept." I've been told
> that here in various ways by some people. I've seen people say it to
> others. That's expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug.
> That's a jerk.

If a theory hasn't addressed a point, it's stupid to ask how it may do so? I 
know you've been caught trying to complete other people's theories, but 
that's not necessarily the only (respectful or otherwise) way to go on about it.

>>>> If everything everyone does has unspeakable motivations, why point
>>>> out that this or that action have unspeakable motivations?
>>>
>>> That's like saying that because we are all sinners, discussion of
>>> good behavior is pointless. It's like saying that anyone who condemns
>>> behavior is "self-righteous", anyone who earns a decent salary is
>>> "greedy".
>>
>> Indeed, that's exactly where your procedure takes us: 'anyone who takes
>> a part of a literary work a priori at face value is "theorising"'.
>
> No. That' is not where I am taking you. However, the second part is
> true.

(Say what?)

> I am asserting that people who are reading literature are theorizing.
> They are interpreting from the text the intentions of an author whom they
> have never met or barely know. I am demolishing the belief (which would
> be a desirable belief for anyone) that one's own interpretations need no
> justification...it just "is".

But what makes you think you're more enlightened in this respect that anyone
else?

>>> But being smug doesn't require that you are wrong. It only means that
>>> you are not applying to your own theories the rigor to which you are
>>> with great adamance disputing others. It is a hypocrisy in which the
>>> hypocrite has satisfied himself that his hypocrisy is "authentic".
>>> It's like a tyrant who believes everything he does is just because
>>> God put him there. The "smug" has constructed a palace of mirrors
>>> that all show /only/ himself and always in the perfect light.
>>
>> Whereas others are convinced that their opinions are wrong, correct?
>
> No. Wow, Antonio, everything with you is either on Everest or at the
> bottom of the Pacific. Do you really read Wolfe's stories with such an
> uncomfortable grasp on the idea of ambiguity? I'll say it again. If you
> engage with someone about ambiguous literary novels like Wolfe's, and you
>  approach every question with the attitude, "Let's see if your weird new
>  theory can prove me wrong." then you are smug. And you are wasting the
> other person's time. Done.

What do you call people who think others approach every question with that
attitude?

>> Or - how do you say it? - 'if it's not my theory, they're not applying
>> to it the rigor which they are with great adamance disputing me'.
>
> If that's what you've got out of our conversation then it is beyond my
> abilities to clarify it better.

I don't think the problem lies with clarification. For instance, you may 
think I'm being irritanting for replying with only one or two lines to 
entire parapgraphs of yours. That makes it look like you went to the trouble 
of explaining yourself at length, whereas I ignored all your effort and just 
grabbed a couple of anchors I though I could deftly hang on to. I know I 
hate it when people do that and I wished to asseverate that is not the case. 
In this discussion or elsewhere, you're one of the persons I always read 
carefully, because your arguments are well developed (though I also read 
carefully some others who mostly just introduce interesting thoughts to the 
discussion). But that is not to say I don't find problems also, and one 
problem I do find is that you seem to want to determine how others should 
respond to you. And if you're justified in your anger at destructive 
behaviour, you're also very picky in your judgement. There's more than one 
way to be constructive, and sometimes it's legitimate to ask why is theory X 
better than no theory at all (spare us for now the Everything Is A Theory 
bit). If it's right to ask of a professional naysayer what are they doing in 
a forum, it's also right to ask what are we sharing our ideas for if 
discussion of their plausibility is off-limits.

You may not notice it, but by taking offense even at the Professional 
Naysayers you're stifling discussion and discouraging new ideas from 
appearing. The people who are accused of Naysaying may in fact express 
dismay at the theories they discuss, but discuss them they do, and in terms 
of the theories themselves. At least up to the point where is becomes a 
discussion over their legitimacy as questioners, and that's where people 
other than the handful involved tune off. It may be unfair, but that's how 
it works. If you don't find anything substantive in their objections, why 
address them? You can keep developping your arguments elsethread. But if you 
do find something substantive, that's what should be addressed, not the 
unpleasantness of havign rain on one's parade.

These books are awfully complex and one debating style won't get us all the way.

And sometimes, one reads a whole paragraph, and the sum of the ideas in it 
takes the argument some place, and one asks a simple question about that 
place so that all can establish new ground and move on.