Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:30:18 -0600 From: "Charles Reed"
Subject: Re: (urth) Quetzal On Urth? email@example.com wrote: > On 25/11/2002 18:02:17 cilluff1 wrote: > >> other words, if the inhumi can travel to Urth (as has been >> suggested off Quetzal) then they've *got* to do that >> We would hear stories of them them on Urth, see one >> flying in the distance, observe people who don't eat, >> can't run, and lick their chops when someone mentions >> blood. Something. Some indication. But there's >> nothing. No indication whatsoever that any of the >> inhumi have ever been on Urth. > > I dislike the inhumi on earth theory. Dislike it a great deal. > > However there is no necesity for inhumi to travel to earth by their own > means. Think apports, ships and mirrors. OK. That would mean that there are (or were) such devices on Green (or Blue). And again, we're thrown into the realm of having no evidence of any kind -- that I'm aware of, that is -- to suggest such a thing. And it's this kind of thing that bugs me. I know there are different schools of thought in how to "criticize" literature. One such school of thought, sometimes referred to as "Formalism," holds that a work of literature should be judged solely on what is in the text itself -- not the author's background or religious beliefs, not the historical context in which the author wrote, not the unspoken, underlying psychology motivating the characters, etc. Obviously, few people who post to this list (including me) subscribe to this school of thought since we all tend to make use of the fact that Wolfe is a Roman Catholic, that he has said this or that in certain interviews, etc. In fact, it severely limits a person's ability to evaluate a work because it fails to account for allusions and resonances with other works. Still, I believe that any theory of what a text means has to be supported in some discernible way by the text itself. To do otherwise, I think, is merely to play games -- to build a house of cards that has no firm foundation in the bedrock text. (e.g., the "Frodo and Sam were gay lovers" nonsense). Charles --