<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The readers who spotted Richard Nixon are clearly wrong.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">More generally, I think most allusions and symbols in Wolfe are classical rather than modern. His comments on modern politics seem blunt and obvious – the
world is going to Hell in a handbasket. No puzzles there.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths are fun to probe, but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game, where unless
you solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with something extra for those who read the classics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Rick Norwood<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Urth [mailto:urth-bounces@lists.urth.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>António Marques<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 06, 2014 7:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> The Urth Mailing List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: (urth) barrington interview<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the end of the day there must be more to a Correct Reading than that the author saying that's how he thought it out, which is an external factoid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee <<a href="mailto:severiansola@hotmail.com" target="_blank">severiansola@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">>Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.<br>
<br>
>There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the<br>
>answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may<br>
>have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on<br>
>them.<br>
<br>
<br>
For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:<br>
<br>
<br>
Who is right?<br>
<br>
<br>
In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his<br>
<br>
work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work.<br>
<br>
<br>
There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought<br>
<br>
trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding?<br>
<br>
Who are the ones who are way off base?<br>
<br>
<br>
Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are<br>
<br>
each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe<br>
<br>
correctly is, of course, ourselves.<br>
<br>
<br>
If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for<br>
<br>
why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct<br>
<br>
interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to<br>
<br>
base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Urth Mailing List<br>
To post, write <a href="mailto:urth@urth.net">urth@urth.net</a><br>
Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>