(urth) Silk's origin

[Lee Berman]

>Gerry Quinn: How do you determine the right way to read Wolfe? 
>I would tend to go by results, i.e. consistent interpretations that 
>make sense in terms of ALL the text, and not just mysterious snippets 
>interpreted in exotic ways.
 
I think this is a good post Gerry, which reveals a lot. The funny thing
is that I would say it is your analysis of Wolfe seems to consist of snippets
interpreted in an exotic way. That exotic way being that you are almost
totally devoted to writing posts which lecture us on what the story is NOT, with
only passing lip service to what the story actually IS. And a collection of NOTS
doesn't seem like a way to construct a consistent interpretation to me.
 
I see others, as well as myself, attempting to find a cohesive interpretive
structure to understand Wolfe. It is a shame you do not see that. But at least we
now know that you also are trying, with your negative approach, to construct your own 
comprehensive analysis.
 
Doing this via building a model composed of "not this" and "not that"
ideas is pretty exotic and strange to me and explains some of the 
difficulties in communication. It adds weight to the already weighty
suggestion by Marc Aramini that agreeing to disagree may be the best
solution. As I've suggested before, if you tried a more postive approach which 
eschews mentioning the "nots" and emphasizes what you think the story "is" might 
allow for a more fulfilling discussion of your ideas.