(urth) theories

[António Pedro Marques]

Marc Aramini wrote (23-10-2011 19:56):

> Dismissing text based evidence as dreamlike, only metaphor, or flat is
> simply not conducive to any explication at all.  If Wolfe tells us
> everything, we don't need this discussion list.  Not that everyone is
> right, but I do think there is interpretive work to be done in almost
> every Wolfe story when details start to accumulate.

These are very good points. (The point where I depart from Gerry is that I
do think there's noatloads of mysteries to solve, and hints not to dismiss, 
even if he's right that sometimes people see hints and mysteries where there 
are none.)