<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">No dia 22/10/2011, às 04:45, Marc Aramini <<a href="mailto:marcaramini@yahoo.com">marcaramini@yahoo.com</a>> escreveu:</span></div><div></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">-- On <b>Fri, 10/21/11, Gerry Quinn <i><<a href="mailto:gerry@bindweed.com">gerry@bindweed.com</a>></i></b> wrote:<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><div id="yiv1336553848"><div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" dir="ltr"><div style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<div>Are you suggesting that I should refrain from pointing out problems I observe in theories that are proposed here?</div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div>I don't think that's what he's suggesting</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); "><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); "><div><br></div></span>I think it is. He's said as much before. </div></div><div><br></div><div><div></div></div><div><div></div></div><div><div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit; "></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></span>Just my 2 cents. I don't want to argue with you excessively because we have radically different approaches to Wolfe, but my approaches are TEXT BASED, I didn't come up with these things from anything but re-reeading the work and thinking about it and how best to explain the weird vegetable motiffs.</span></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></blockquote><div><div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I find your approach radically different from Lee's. You're a bit like Sherlock Holmes, trying to make sense of the evidence, trimming out the impossible and putting your trust in the however improbable. Some people's problem with that is that they don't find the evidence strong enough that it justifies seeking improbable explanations (and your reply is that they, in turn, choose to simply ignore that there is evidence to begin with). But I don't think anyone can accuse you of distorting the evidence. Your approach is legitimate even if others don't have to trust it.</div><div><br></div><div>Lee on the other hand works mostly like a genetic algorithm. He thinks of some external myth or theme or leitmotiv and tries to shoehorn the story into it. Over time, he settles on some themes being of special relevance, and interprets everything through them. This may require considerable bending of the evidence, which annoys everyone but him, who considers the evidence to be mere hooks at the disposal of the interpreter. Another way in which it annoys people is that it makes the story a retelling of a mishmash of known myths rather than a work with its own rules and purpose (I haven't seen a comment on that, but then I haven't read everything everyone's ever written here). Such an approach is bound to be met with fierce opposition. It may sometimes lead to some results - eg I've recently commented Echidna-is-Typhon's-sister seems a promising avenue - but for the most part it's a personal exercise with no way of getting through to others. </div><div><br></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></body></html>