(urth) barrington interview
marcaramini at gmail.com
Mon Oct 6 07:08:24 PDT 2014
Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns without resorting
to misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than
others. Thus, the Wolfe wiki analysis of Cherry Jubilee was right even
though it doesn't mention the speech patterns of cherry and merry, the most
obvious "proof". Tallman's explanation of where the seventh night is
excised in the journal of Seven American Nights is right because he can
narratively show that on the same evening the sun has already set and is
later setting , logically impossible. Wolfe is not postmodern. There is
plenty of evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently
wrong. We don't need Wolfe's consent, though at times it would be nice.
On Monday, October 6, 2014, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.
> >There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same
> difficulty or the
> >answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may
> >have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on
> For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:
> Who is right?
> In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists
> of his
> work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his
> There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought
> trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct
> Who are the ones who are way off base?
> Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and
> wrong, we are
> each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does
> get Wolfe
> correctly is, of course, ourselves.
> If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide
> multiple reasons for
> why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of
> assessment of correct
> interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm
> majority consensus to
> base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see
> Urth Mailing List
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Urth