Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Aragorn and kingship, and kingship elsewhere

Expand Messages
  • ERATRIANO@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/21/2002 2:11:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... Well, you did but since I hadn t heard of the title, I wasn t sure if it was a collection
    Message 1 of 29 , Nov 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 11/21/2002 2:11:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      dbratman@... writes:

      > You mean, who wrote it? Uh ... C.S. Lewis ... didn't I say that?
      >
      > _An Experiment in Criticism_ is a fairly short book, largely intended to
      > defend the literary quality of popular literature.

      Well, you did but since I hadn't heard of the title, I wasn't sure if it was
      a collection of essays or some other thing involving other authors. Thanks
      for the clarification.

      Can I put in a little whine here about wanting my library out of storage?
      Twelve years ago I wasn't this illiterate. growl

      << But in order to define "genuinely appreciating in a literary way" he also
      has to define non-literary forms of appreciation, such as using the book as
      a basis for daydreams.
      >>
      And I guess I have long been doomed to be among the masses. The dream life
      for me is full of daydreams -- not all of them about sex, either. lol. We
      can't all be cut out for critical thought; it is stimulating to listen to but
      difficult to produce on my own.

      Lizzie


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • SusanPal@aol.com
      In a message dated 11/21/2002 7:47:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... One *can* do both. Imagination and analysis aren t mutually exclusive -- good heavens,
      Message 2 of 29 , Nov 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 11/21/2002 7:47:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
        ERATRIANO@... writes:


        > The dream life
        > for me is full of daydreams -- not all of them about sex, either. lol. We
        >
        > can't all be cut out for critical thought; it is stimulating to listen to
        > but
        > difficult to produce on my own.
        >

        One *can* do both. Imagination and analysis aren't mutually exclusive --
        good heavens, what an impoverished world we'd live in if they were! And
        since when are "day dreams" automatically a bad thing? That's where art
        begins.

        Susan




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • ERATRIANO@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/21/2002 11:24:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... Well.... yeah.... and shedding the mantle of modesty for a moment and calling myself an
        Message 3 of 29 , Nov 21, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/21/2002 11:24:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          SusanPal@... writes:

          > One *can* do both. Imagination and analysis aren't mutually exclusive --
          > good heavens, what an impoverished world we'd live in if they were! And
          > since when are "day dreams" automatically a bad thing? That's where art
          > begins.

          Well.... yeah.... and shedding the mantle of modesty for a moment and calling
          myself an artist, I will also say that I test well analytically. Many
          successful artists use their intuitive talent at the same level as others
          use conscious logic. But it's frustrating not to be able to do the conscious
          logic thing, in certain company. And also, it seems like the arts and other
          non-critical areas are so, well, subjective. Fuzzy. Hard to put a value on.
          Hard to keep one's bearings, and know when one is totally out to sea.

          Hard to write sentences that make sense.

          Lizzie


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • jamcconney@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/21/2002 9:47:50 AM Central Standard Time, ... Well, I suppose to be really scholarly we d have to define daydreams so that we re all on
          Message 4 of 29 , Nov 21, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 11/21/2002 9:47:50 AM Central Standard Time,
            ERATRIANO@... writes:

            > <<But in order to define "genuinely appreciating in a literary way" he also
            > has to define non-literary forms of appreciation, such as using the book as
            >
            > a basis for daydreams

            Well, I suppose to be really scholarly we'd have to define "daydreams" so
            that we're all on the same page. I'd suggest, however, that daydreaming is
            the genesis of most creative work and that any book, good or bad, began as a
            dream.

            Anne


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • dianejoy@earthlink.net
            ... From: ERATRIANO@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:41:41 EST To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Aragorn and kingship, and kingship
            Message 5 of 29 , Nov 22, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Original Message:
              -----------------
              From: ERATRIANO@...
              Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:41:41 EST
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Aragorn and kingship, and kingship elsewhere


              In a message dated 11/21/2002 11:24:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              SusanPal@... writes:

              > One *can* do both. Imagination and analysis aren't mutually exclusive --
              > good heavens, what an impoverished world we'd live in if they were! And
              > since when are "day dreams" automatically a bad thing? That's where art
              > begins.

              Well.... yeah.... and shedding the mantle of modesty for a moment and
              calling
              myself an artist, I will also say that I test well analytically. Many
              successful artists use their intuitive talent at the same level as others
              use conscious logic. But it's frustrating not to be able to do the
              conscious
              logic thing, in certain company. And also, it seems like the arts and
              other
              non-critical areas are so, well, subjective. Fuzzy. Hard to put a value
              on.
              Hard to keep one's bearings, and know when one is totally out to sea.

              Hard to write sentences that make sense.
              _________________________________________

              That's because 20th C. intellectuals told us there are no objective
              standards for art. It's true that we can't quantify beauty. Some women
              like red-heads (like me), others like blond men, etc. Can we say why?

              But I believe there are objective standards for art. They take time to
              measure out and it doesn't work the way mathematics does: the best art
              stands the test of time, and artists learned the rules, then broke them
              when they felt it appropriate. There is a vast difference between the art
              of Van Eyck (sp.?) and Andy Warhol. One is time-bound; the other is not.
              The same can be said for literature. ---djb


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


              The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



              --------------------------------------------------------------------
              mail2web - Check your email from the web at
              http://mail2web.com/ .
            • ERATRIANO@aol.com
              In a message dated 11/22/2002 11:11:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... Is that what happened? Whew, it s just a recent trend then. Thanks. It s true that we
              Message 6 of 29 , Nov 23, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 11/22/2002 11:11:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                dianejoy@... writes:

                > That's because 20th C. intellectuals told us there are no objective
                > standards for art. >>

                Is that what happened? Whew, it's just a recent trend then. Thanks.

                It's true that we can't quantify beauty. Some women > like red-heads (like
                > me), others like blond men, etc. Can we say why? >>

                I bet there are books on the subject, available from places like the
                Discovery Channel Book Club, and much lacking in verbs and pictures.
                Sometimes I'll bet it's a case of wanting what we don't have (like straight
                vs curly hair, or blue eyes when everyone in our family has brown, or some
                such). Other times, it's just a delightful mystery.

                > But I believe there are objective standards for art. They take time to
                > measure out and it doesn't work the way mathematics does: the best art
                > stands the test of time, and artists learned the rules, then broke them
                > when they felt it appropriate. There is a vast difference between the art
                > of Van Eyck (sp.?) and Andy Warhol. One is time-bound; the other is not.
                > The same can be said for literature. ---djb >>

                Oooh, so you are saying that Andy Warhol, and that guy who paints with
                splashes, are not Great Art? ggg What about today's commercial artists?
                When I go to a museum, I am most drawn to the play of light and color on the
                curves of a woman, or a horse. Similarly in commercial art, sleek dragons
                (not lumpy spiky ones) and sensuous women. But is it art? I hope I don't
                sound argumentative here, this is just kind of interesting and I don't mean
                to sound abrupt or anything. How do we judge now, the times are different
                from the last thousand years.... by commercial success? By how many people
                have them in their homes fifty years from now?

                But I don't like the same things as most people... does that make me wrong?
                I don't decorate my house by matching the print mat to the carpet and the
                drapes. What about feng shui?

                What about when I go to the local Art Council gallery and really don't like
                over half what I see? Do I have no appreciation for art? Or do we have too
                few standards? (I'd better go easy... I'm a member of said Council and if
                the standards go up maybe I won't cut it anymore.)

                Am I off topic now?

                But it is so true of literature also... Why did so much of what I read in
                high school have to have lots of swear words and descriptive death scenes?
                Does that make Great Literature?

                I'll shut up now... Please someone else talk...

                Lizzie





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • tghsaw
                ... From: SusanPal@aol.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Aragorn and kingship, and kingship
                Message 7 of 29 , Nov 23, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: SusanPal@...
                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:23 AM
                  Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Aragorn and kingship, and kingship elsewhere


                  >One *can* do both. Imagination and analysis aren't mutually exclusive --
                  good heavens, what an impoverished world we'd live in if they were! And
                  since when are "day dreams" automatically a bad thing? That's where art
                  begins.

                  >Susan


                  And science, and possibly anything that makes us human. Einstein considered imagination to be one of the most--if not the most--important qualities of a good scientist. Without it, you just keep repeating what other people have done. And the man who finally figured out the long-standing puzzle of how carbon atoms bonded with each other (the foundation of any chemistry involving "carbon-based life forms") saw it in a dream in which the atoms of carbon were dancing with each other.

                  --Trudy



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • tghsaw
                  ... From: ERATRIANO@aol.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Aragorn and kingship, and kingship
                  Message 8 of 29 , Nov 23, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: ERATRIANO@...
                    To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 9:23 AM
                    Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Aragorn and kingship, and kingship elsewhere


                    In a message dated 11/22/2002 11:11:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                    dianejoy@... writes:

                    >It's true that we can't quantify beauty. Some women > like red-heads (like
                    > me), others like blond men, etc. Can we say why? >>

                    >I bet there are books on the subject, available from places like the
                    Discovery Channel Book Club, and much lacking in verbs and pictures.
                    Sometimes I'll bet it's a case of wanting what we don't have (like straight
                    vs curly hair, or blue eyes when everyone in our family has brown, or some
                    such). Other times, it's just a delightful mystery.
                    It doesn't explain why some people have different taste in hair color, etc., than others, but there are some pretty solid theories (and some not-so-solid ones) about an evolutionary basis for at least some of the things that humans consider attractive, because they signify youth, good health and fertility (certain body shapes, symmetrical features, all the things that people now pay for to keep themselves looking "young"). (And, yes, I believe the Discovery Channel did have a program on it, so there's probably a book available. 8-) )


                    >> But I believe there are objective standards for art. They take time to
                    > measure out and it doesn't work the way mathematics does: the best art
                    > stands the test of time, and artists learned the rules, then broke them
                    > when they felt it appropriate. There is a vast difference between the art
                    > of Van Eyck (sp.?) and Andy Warhol. One is time-bound; the other is not.
                    > The same can be said for literature. ---djb >>

                    >Oooh, so you are saying that Andy Warhol, and that guy who paints with
                    splashes, are not Great Art?

                    Regarding math and art and the guy who paints with splashes: *Discover* magazine (not related to the Discovery Channel, BTW) had a full-length article on a study of Jackson Pollock's artwork that showed the degree of fractals appearing in it is very close to what's most appealing to us in nature (measured, IIRC, by showing research subjects photos of natural settings--tree branches and the like--displaying fractals in varying degrees). "Splash art" made randomly didn't have this quality. So there may be an actual reason that some people would pay good money for a Pollock, but look at my display of drips and shake their heads. I'm afraid the whole process of determining the degree of fractals in something was a bit beyond me--while I'm fascinated by fractals (I've been known to take a great deal of time turning a head of cauliflower into crudités because I spend so much time just looking at the pieces and patterns), I've never understood them mathematically. -- I'm not meaning to take this into a discussion of Pollock's artwork, just giving it as an example that sometimes the appeal of art rests on something we might not be consciously aware of.
                    And, of course, with art that's being produced now, we can't give it "the test of time." Some non-representational art has been around for quite some time now, but none of it has had a chance to "age" as much as the old masters.


                    >But it is so true of literature also... Why did so much of what I read in
                    high school have to have lots of swear words and descriptive death scenes?
                    Does that make Great Literature?
                    >Lizzie


                    As an outsider looking in (someone who works full-time with science but who also loves fiction so cares what happens to it), I wonder if there aren't two sets of standards--one academic and one non-academic. IMHO, one of the best things about Tolkien's writing is that it's survived this long (LotR getting close to 50 years) without being considered "Great Literature" and being taught in school as such. It's something the ragtag population has decided on its own to consider worth reading and re-reading and studying. There are other examples--I've never heard of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories being seriously studied as Great Literature (with the disclaimer that I'm sure someone, somewhere, has certainly done so), but they seem to have stood the test of time. (Rather interesting how many times I've found myself comparing Middle-earth to Baker Street in various discussions lately--but that's definitely a different topic!) IMHO, it would be a very interesting study to look at the reasons people choose to read these books (and others that have kept their extra-academic popularity over time) on their own, as opposed to the ones they would probably never have opened if they weren't required reading.

                    --Trudy


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • SusanPal@aol.com
                    In a message dated 11/23/2002 10:24:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... And let us not forget that The Hobbit began with a kind of day-dream while JRRT was
                    Message 9 of 29 , Nov 23, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 11/23/2002 10:24:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
                      tgshaw@... writes:


                      > And the man who finally figured out the long-standing puzzle of how carbon
                      > atoms bonded with each other (the foundation of any chemistry involving
                      > "carbon-based life forms") saw it in a dream in which the atoms of carbon
                      > were dancing with each other.
                      >

                      And let us not forget that "The Hobbit" began with a kind of day-dream while
                      JRRT was engaged in the critical task of grading examination papers!

                      Susan


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Stolzi@aol.com
                      susan wrote ... Really, those who are discussing this need to =read= EXPERIMENT IN CRITICISM. It s a good book, it s not long, and it would inform the
                      Message 10 of 29 , Nov 23, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        susan wrote


                        > And
                        > since when are "day dreams" automatically a bad thing?

                        Really, those who are discussing this need to =read= EXPERIMENT IN CRITICISM.
                        It's a good book, it's not long, and it would inform the discussion.

                        Lewis is talking about the kind of stupid, idle daydreams that get people to
                        reading, oh, say, Harlequin romances or James Bond stories - not about
                        creative dreaming.

                        "One kind of story dear to the unliterary is that which enables them to enjoy
                        love or wealth or distinction vicariously through the characters. It is in
                        fact guided or conducted egoistic castle-building." - p. 53

                        For this reason, he adds, readers like this are generally uninterested in
                        fantasy. The stories shd have the kind of realistic contemporary
                        window-dressing which allows them to think "All this could happen to ME
                        someday..."

                        And one thing that makes Lewis refreshing as a literary critic is that he's
                        =not= interested exclusively in books with swear words and death scenes :)
                        or in what I used to call despairingly "modern novels" (I still find it hard
                        to read any of those).

                        "When [good readers] demand a happy ending it will be ... because it seems to
                        them in various ways demanded by the work itself. (Deaths and disasters can
                        be as patently 'contrived' and inharmonious as wedding bells.)"

                        Diamond Proudbrook




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • SusanPal@aol.com
                        In a message dated 11/23/2002 2:38:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... I m not sure I d agree with this statement -- a lot of unliterary readers, and writers,
                        Message 11 of 29 , Nov 23, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 11/23/2002 2:38:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                          Stolzi@... writes:


                          > For this reason, he adds, readers like this are generally uninterested in
                          > fantasy. The stories shd have the kind of realistic contemporary
                          > window-dressing which allows them to think "All this could happen to ME
                          > someday..."
                          >

                          I'm not sure I'd agree with this statement -- a lot of "unliterary" readers,
                          and writers, are interested in fantasy because it allows themselves to
                          imagine themselves as immortal elves or brave warriors or romantic maidens in
                          distress. Believe me, I see a *lot* of wish-fulfillment fantasy among my
                          undergrad writing students!

                          Question: are "unliterary" daydreams with fantastic elements somehow more
                          worthy than "unliterary" daydreams about winning the lottery, because at
                          least they reveal a willingness to venture outside the boundaries of the
                          known world? (Although most of the wish-fulfillment fantasy I've seen is so
                          formulaic that imagination can't be properly said to have entered into it.)

                          A student of mine who's been having an extremely tough semester, with tons of
                          personal problems, wrote a poignant reading response to LotR in which she
                          said that reading about Frodo's impossible journey helped her maintain the
                          strength she needed for her own: it showed her that fortitude under
                          seemingly hopeless conditions was indeed possible. I find this a profoundly
                          human and moving response to the book, but it seems to me that according to
                          the terms here being discussed, some of you might call it "unliterary,"
                          because that student's identifying with Frodo's journey rather than analyzing
                          it. Am I wrong about that? What would Lewis say about her response?

                          And I agree that I need to read EXPERIMENT IN CRITICISM, but I won't have
                          time for at least a month. Sorry! Mea culpa! I'm reading student papers
                          instead . . . so shoot me. :-)

                          (And I guess I shouldn't be reading this list either, but I can't resist.)

                          Susan


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Stolzi@aol.com
                          In a message dated 11/23/2002 5:44:14 PM Central Standard Time, ... I had the same thought when I read the passage. But of course fantasy was not as
                          Message 12 of 29 , Nov 24, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 11/23/2002 5:44:14 PM Central Standard Time,
                            SusanPal@... writes:


                            >
                            > > For this reason, he adds, readers like this are generally uninterested in
                            >
                            > > fantasy. The stories shd have the kind of realistic contemporary
                            > > window-dressing which allows them to think "All this could happen to ME
                            > > someday..."
                            > >
                            >
                            > I'm not sure I'd agree with this statement -- a lot of "unliterary"
                            > readers,
                            > and writers, are interested in fantasy because it allows themselves to
                            > imagine themselves as immortal elves or brave warriors or romantic maidens
                            > in
                            > distress. Believe me, I see a *lot* of wish-fulfillment fantasy among my
                            > undergrad writing students!


                            I had the same thought when I read the passage. But of course fantasy was
                            not as plentifully available outside high-literature circles, when CSL wrote
                            that. Remember, he and Tolkien decided "we have to write the kind of stories
                            we like, because nobody else is writing them." Also, remember his defense
                            of grownups enjoying children's stories, which were then one of the few
                            havens of fantasy.

                            It's interesting to me to see that the cheap paperback romance, which I think
                            of as one of the most notable forms of wish-fulfillment fantasy, now has a
                            sub-set of volumes in which there is still the everlasting girl-boy thing but
                            a fantasy element is introduced as well.

                            >
                            > A student of mine who's been having an extremely tough semester, with tons
                            > of
                            > personal problems, wrote a poignant reading response to LotR in which she
                            > said that reading about Frodo's impossible journey helped her maintain the
                            > strength she needed for her own: it showed her that fortitude under
                            > seemingly hopeless conditions was indeed possible. I find this a
                            > profoundly
                            > human and moving response to the book, but it seems to me that according to
                            >
                            > the terms here being discussed, some of you might call it "unliterary,"
                            > because that student's identifying with Frodo's journey rather than
                            > analyzing
                            > it. Am I wrong about that? What would Lewis say about her response?

                            Tolkien, perhaps, would call if "applicability." ? I think he'd be
                            pleased.

                            I think Lewis too wd defend it, he speaks approvingly somewhere of the
                            courage which led the heroes of Norse saga to go on even when things looked
                            hopeless; or being found on the right side - though the losing side - at
                            Ragnarok.


                            Diamond Proudbrook



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                            In a message dated 11/24/2002 4:00:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Yes, I thought I had noticed that, but I haven t really followed up on it yet. I ve read
                            Message 13 of 29 , Nov 24, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 11/24/2002 4:00:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                              Stolzi@... writes:

                              > It's interesting to me to see that the cheap paperback romance, which I
                              > think
                              > of as one of the most notable forms of wish-fulfillment fantasy, now has a
                              > sub-set of volumes in which there is still the everlasting girl-boy thing
                              > but
                              > a fantasy element is introduced as well.
                              >

                              Yes, I thought I had noticed that, but I haven't really followed up on it
                              yet. I've read one or two Jude Devereux (sp) titles, and I also liked some
                              Andrew M. Greeley, the ones about angels, especially the one about Gabrielle.


                              Course then we are getting into religion as fantasy, and that is a whole
                              'nother hornet's nest.

                              Lizzie


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • SusanPal@aol.com
                              In a message dated 11/24/2002 4:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Yep. I keep trying to work on an essay on the intersections between faith and fantasy, and
                              Message 14 of 29 , Nov 24, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 11/24/2002 4:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                                ERATRIANO@... writes:


                                > Course then we are getting into religion as fantasy, and that is a whole
                                > 'nother hornet's nest.
                                >

                                Yep. I keep trying to work on an essay on the intersections between faith
                                and fantasy, and it keeps getting too complicated on me! My sense is that
                                imagination and intution lie at the core of both, and that both are about
                                certain kinds of investment in things not seen -- and both are about
                                liminality, too, about negotiating boundaries between knowledge and belief.
                                But it really *is* a hornet's next, and I haven't been able to work out
                                anything very coherent yet!

                                And perhaps Tolkien did it as well as anyone could in "On Fairy-stories."
                                "God is the Lord, of angels, and of men -- and of elves." I nearly swooned
                                when I read that.

                                Susan


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                                In a message dated 11/23/2002 1:38:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... BTW I found this especially interesting, although all I know about fractals is that they
                                Message 15 of 29 , Nov 25, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 11/23/2002 1:38:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                  tgshaw@... writes:

                                  > Discover* magazine (not related to the Discovery Channel, BTW) had a
                                  > full-length article on a study of Jackson Pollock's artwork that showed the
                                  > degree of fractals appearing in it is very close to what's most appealing
                                  > to us in nature (measured, IIRC, by showing research subjects photos of
                                  > natural settings--tree branches and the like--displaying fractals in
                                  > varying degrees). "Splash art" made randomly didn't have this quality. So
                                  > there may be an actual reason that some people would pay good money for a
                                  > Pollock, but look at my display of drips and shake their heads. I'm afraid
                                  > the whole process of determining the degree of fractals in something was a
                                  > bit beyond me--while I'm fascinated by fractals (I've been known to take a
                                  > great deal of time turning a head of cauliflower into crudités because I
                                  > spend so much time just looking at the pieces and patterns), I've never
                                  > understood them mathematically.

                                  BTW I found this especially interesting, although all I know about fractals
                                  is that they are some sort of math related to pretty patterns, and that they
                                  can be studied. lol. I bet Asimov has done some nice readable essays on
                                  them though. I don't really have anything to add but I wanted to thank Trudy
                                  for her post, it's given me food for thought. More cauliflower anytime,
                                  Trudy! Hey, I bet fractal study could be applied to beadwork as well.

                                  Lizzie


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • WendellWag@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 11/25/2002 7:47:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... I m pretty sure he hasn t. Asimov was (as he admitted himself) pretty weak in math for
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Nov 25, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 11/25/2002 7:47:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                    ERATRIANO@... writes:


                                    > I bet Asimov has done some nice readable essays on
                                    > them though.

                                    I'm pretty sure he hasn't. Asimov was (as he admitted himself) pretty weak
                                    in math for somebody with a Ph.D. in chemistry. He said in his autobiography
                                    (or maybe it was in one of his essays) that he wouldn't even pretend to
                                    knowledge of any math beyond first-year calculus. Besides, fractals only
                                    became well known fairly late in Asimov's life.

                                    Wendell Wagner


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 11/25/2002 9:27:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Oh, right, he s dead, isn t he? :-( My mistake. So whose should I read then? Barbara
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Nov 25, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 11/25/2002 9:27:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      WendellWag@... writes:

                                      > Besides, fractals only became well known fairly late in Asimov's life.
                                      >
                                      > Wendell Wagner

                                      Oh, right, he's dead, isn't he? :-( My mistake. So whose should I read
                                      then? Barbara Kingsolver? I'm not sure what she wrote about but I did just
                                      pick up a book of her essays (if that isn't an incriminating display of
                                      anti-logic then I'm Yu-Sai Wa Wa).

                                      Thank you, Wendell & sweet dreams to you tonight.

                                      Lizzie


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • WendellWag@aol.com
                                      I don t know really. The only book I can think of offhand is _Chaos_ by James Gleick. Wendell Wagner
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Nov 25, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I don't know really. The only book I can think of offhand is _Chaos_ by
                                        James Gleick.

                                        Wendell Wagner
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.