<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 11/4/2011 2:28 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4EB43CF2.1080106@verizon.net" type="cite">
To me, the movie The Matrix uses gnostic logic if not actual
references to gnostic mythology. This hardly means that the
writers thought gnosis was way cool. It does suggest they smoked a
little dope in their time.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, I found The Matrix to be profoundly Calvinist--although
largely inadvertent (but not so inadvertent as the creators
claimed). Other than the Nicholas Cage movie "Knowing" I can't think
of another that provoked that response from me.<br>
<br>
On 11/4/2011 2:40 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4EB43F93.4060807@irit.fr" type="cite">To me, <br>
if you try to turn every detail into the key to all secrets, it is
exactly what will happen.
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, but no one does that. This is a strawman argument. In fact I
have seen people refute Lee by saying that he IGNORES important
details. So which is it? Does he turn every detail in a 'key', or
does he carefully select quotes to subvert the text?<br>
<br>
Here's the deal. If I read a story story in which a blonde girl in a
blue and white dress met a couple of fat twins, and if there were a
discussion of "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34,
34, 34); font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: 16px; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: small; display:
inline ! important; float: none;">Lorina Liddell's sister" and
rabbit-hole's I would correctly deduce that the author is making
some intentional riff off of Alice in Wonderland. Now someone who
knew very little of the story and background and made no attempt
to educate themselves about it might say "Hmm, I don't really see
those references." And that would be true. And expected.<br>
<br>
In Return to the Whorl we have discussions of "</span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34);
font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
16px; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); font-size: small; display: inline !important; float: none; ">Thyone's
son" and Silent/Silver Silk. There are others. Even before I read
tBotSS, I was explaining that the character Quetzal and the word
"inhumi" were references to Dionysus.<br>
<br>
I don't know what to say. But it's fine with me if anyone doesn't
see references. If you know nothing about trees, you are not
likely to note the difference between a pecan or a willow. Fine.
But I *do* know what I'm talking about here, and Wolfe is throwing
reference after reference to Dionysus. I can't say I know exactly
why. I'm saying he's doing it. I don't know what it is a "key" to.
I think Wolfe's work has lots of "keys". It's information
available to you whether you use it or not.<br>
<br>
</span><br>
</body>
</html>