(urth) This week in Google alerts

[Lee Berman]

>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Let's be more parsimonious about this. He only has to show that his
>methodology is superior to yours. Still, a challenge worthy of a word-warrior.
 
Heh, fair enough! But I think it will be further demonstrated in this post that his 
methodology is the same as my methodology, despite the differing results.

 
>Gerry Quinn: In contrast to Tartaros, Silk leaves the windows the colour they are.  Which 
>is described the first time we see one as “luminous grey”.  ‘Luminous Grey Silk’ lacks both 
>poetry and alliteration; thus ‘Silver Silk’.

Nice analysis, Gerry! I concur, and of course I didn't previously fail to consider the 
connection between silver and screen. Still, this fails your test of "from the text only!"
methodology. Wolfe does not explain the "silver" reference in the text. You do that yourself
through the process of your own inferences. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
 
The fact remains that James and I see a Wolfe wink here. Invoking the names Silent and Silver
Silk seems to call for much more than the simple fact of Silk quietly looking out of a screen.
Why would that, by itself, be so important? If him peeking out of a screen seems important
enough to you for Wolfe to give us these epithets along with a detailed explanation of what an
epithet means for a god, that's fine. But why should it bother you that James and I follow our
intuition? 
 
(and as James just noted, I agree there is some poetry to "Greysilk". I think Wolfe might have 
used that epithet if his intention was solely to invoke Silk in a grey screen. My intuition tells 
me that using silver is meant to suggest something more, especially paired with silent and Dionysus)
 
 
>Antonio Pedro Marques: I'll agree that Gerry has been unjustifiedly negative in his responses to 
>some of the latest hypotheses. But what if you dropped your oh-I'm-so-much-cleverer-than-you,-I-see-
>stuff-you-don't,-but-you're-still-a-special-person-in-God's-plan-so-don't-feel-threatened-in-your-
>little-sandbox-,-who-cares,-it's-all-relative-anyway attitude and started to acknowledge issues when 
>they are pointed to you, Lee, wouldn't that be an improvement?
 
Actually no it wouldn't! As you state, Gerry has been especially hostile of late. If I suggest he 
be called Gerry-Pas or some other little tweak it is no more than he deserves, eh? But the reason
it would not be an improvement is the entertainment factor.  People are interested in conflict and
even in their admonitions against it, they demonstrate that interest. If conflict was truly boring
it would be ignored.
 
On the other hand, I deny having or expressing an attitude of "oh-I'm-so-much-cleverer-than-you".
It is an annoying trait and I am likely to express my annoyance with people who display it  with a 
tweak or two.  I think of my ideas as MY ideas. Of interest to me and to anyone else who might be
interested. I have no interest in dictating the content of the posts of others here or touting my
"methodology" as more valid than that of others.
 
I think the furthest I've gone in that direction is to invoke the young woman/old lady optical 
illusion http://www.qualitytrading.com/illusions/images/oldgirl.gif. If some people can only see
one or the other, I think that is fine. Does it make those who see both more clever? (I don't 
think so, and I can explain why I don't, if needed)
 
I don't know the artist. I don't know his/her intention. Perhaps he/she truly only intended to draw 
a young woman or an old lady and perception of the other is purely accidental. That doesn't give me
or anyone else the license to tell someone else there is no old woman or there is no young woman.
If a person sees an image, it exists. 
 
If the argument is artistic intention then we must rely soley on the on the artist's own words as
authority. Any interpretation of intention by others is simply that- interpretation. And confusion
of one's own interpretation with omniscience and authority is the real crux of the debate here.