(urth) An Evil Guest - An Object Lesson
eb at hwaet.com
Tue Mar 20 16:12:12 PDT 2018
Actually I don't think you're all wet. Maybe she is pregnant. Maybe with
twins. ;-) I need to go back, read the materials that you have
suggested, and read some or all of the book again -- all of which will
be pleasurable. My instinct as a reader is, she's not pregnant, mainly
because she does not have to be, to make the story work. Then again,
maybe I have a limited view of how AEG works as a story. I'm ready to
think more about it.
I think the AEG story is already doing a lot. It's a busy story. Would
Wolfe, as a writer, add yet another component -- Cassie being pregnant,
possibly with a demon child? Maybe so. But she's already got a lot to do.
I'm delighted to be wrong, and learn something interesting. If GW has
left clues that Cassie is, or was, pregnant, then I would like to review
them. I'll go back through your notes when I get some time, this evening.
In any case, it's a beautiful story, which is, I admit, what's most
important to me. ;-)
On 3/20/2018 5:26 PM, Robert Pirkola wrote:
> On March 20, 2018, Marc Aramini wrote:
> >Cognitive dissonance incoming from the fasciest of textual fascists (me):
> >ideally people should be able to engage the text on the level they feel
> >comfortable with . . . sometimes it is necessary to let people read
> as they want to - for
> >some, Wolfe really is just a fun read. . . . I agree that we should
> be speculating on Cassie's
> >condition ... but if that isn't important or central to the goal of other
> >readers I think it is okay. We all read for different things(but that
> >doesn't mean our plot exegeses are wrong, of course).
> I agree with your above-quoted points, Marc, and do not intend to
> spoil anyone's fun. I foisted the book on my mother to see what she
> would think of the thing and she was bemused and amused about equally,
> but she didn't go on a quest to figure anything out beyond what stuck
> with her in her first (and likely only) read-through. The point I
> hoped to make about Eric's approach was that he was actively putting
> on blinders to what the text was communicating about CC's body. And he
> was apparently doing so because he had decided that it would be unfair
> to measure Cassie Casey if she were in fact a flesh-and-blood person.
> I'm reading Madame Bovary at the moment. If I were strongly opposed
> to adultery as a commandment violation worthy of the death penalty,
> would I:
> (A) read the book and filter out those bits that offend me, or
> (B) not read a book about adultery?
> I certainly don't mean to suggest that you shouldn't be free to read
> the book, stick it up your nose, or paint with it. But reading
> someone advocate for the conscious exclusion of textual evidence here
> on this forum was a bit like finding a tortoise at the top of a flag
> pole -- there it is, but *how* in the *world* . . . ?!
> It would be unfair to Eric to classify his views and approach by only
> the last post which I disagreed with, however. I know from following
> this list for years that Eric has posted several observations and
> questions that indicate the opposite of what I accuse him -- that is
> to say, he has shown a willingness to pry into obscure corners of
> Wolfe texts and get down with the minutiae. I hope he will continue
> to do the same and tell me why I'm all wet with this pregnancy thing.
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
eb at hwaet.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Urth