<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=dstockhoff@verizon.net
href="mailto:dstockhoff@verizon.net">David Stockhoff</A> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><STRONG><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f5f5f5" size=2 face=Tahoma>> </FONT></STRONG>On
12/16/2011 4:05 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:<BR><BR>> > > Ha! You demonstrate
my thesis with your very first lunge. "Fairies have <BR>> > > wings,
therefore the defense must prove that his client has wings, else <BR>> >
> he be no fairy and must hang." But some of us have actually read books,
<BR>> > > Gerry, /without the Disney logo on them./ And we know that
true fairies <BR>> > > lack wings. Except, of course, when they
don't.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">>
> Or how about his underground life? Because *today*, of course, it <BR>>
> seems that fairies live underground, in accordance with your <BR>> >
ill-thought out argument du jour. Do the Neighbours live underground? <BR>>
> If not, where does that leave your argument on that occasion? Wingless
<BR>> > and buried, it would seem.<BR><BR>> The Sidhe were always
associated with barrows. Other, more literary and <BR>> Victorian fairies
tend to disdain burial mounds and live in glens. Yet <BR>> others are
matronly women who live in cottages, while others dwell in <BR>> shining
towers. Perhaps this confuses you. It confused me until I <BR>> realized that
the literature of fairies, like that of the gods, is <BR>> complex and
contradictory and is derived from many different sources and <BR>> has been
put to many different uses.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">In
which case demanding that I express my thoughts on what an amnesiac Neighbour
consciousness inserted into a human body might sense as odd in terms of fairies,
rather than what we know of the Neighbours, is a bit stupid, isn’t
it? Given that the sort of fairies they were supposed to like was
not ever defined. Yet you even demanded references to literature about
fairies.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV><BR>> > Your accusation of illiteracy is a transparent device to
divert the <BR>> > discussion from the works of Gene Wolfe, into some
nebulous body of <BR>> > extra-textual material which need never be
defined.<BR><BR>> It's not just the fact that you have never read any
literature, even the <BR>> literature Wolfe has demonstrably read and
deliberately echoes. It's <BR>> that you insist on the very actual and
concrete relationships that <BR>> intertextual literature cannot offer. You
cannot seem to imagine more <BR>> than one sense of the word "is."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have no problem with various senses of various words, so long as it is
made clear what sense is being used. As for the issue that was under
discussion then, which was to do with James’s theory about what happened Horn in
the pit and what Horn might have been expected to experience thereafter, I don’t
recall you contributing anything regarding it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for literature, I may not have read as much as you, but perhaps I read
it better. Now I recall it, there was another time you accused me of
illiteracy: when I disputed your characterisation of the ‘Hunter of the east’ as
Orion. My offence was to read the poem itself, rather than churn out a
risibly mechanical correspondence between ‘hunter’ and ‘Orion’, ignoring the
clear Sun metaphor in the poem itself. If the latter is what constitutes
‘knowledge of literature’ in your mind, I’ll pass. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>