Hey all,
I'm running about eight thousand messages behind on this list (have been
backpacking my way around the world for the last year, and had a
Master's thesis gobble up all my time in the year before that), but
that's still down from the ten thousand it was a couple of months ago.
At this point I just treat the mass of conversation of all y'all as a
general form of entertainment on lonely nights in various hostels
(laptops are good), as well as a very useful resource to dig into after
finishing another Brust book the day after _finally_ finding it. (Only
Brokedown Palace to go now! Well, and Sethra Lavode, but that's sitting
at home (at the other side of the world) waiting for me.) My thanks to
all of you for being such an awesome bunch of people. :P
Anyhoo, someday I will catch up and become active again (like I was for
all of two weeks back in 2002). For now however: a couple of weeks ago I
found myself a copy of "The Sun, the Moon & the Stars" and swallowed it
whole that very same day, and loved it (of course), and started seeing a
number of arts in a new light because of it - for which you, Steve, have
my eternal thanks. What was said about photography in particular really
touched me ("The lens points both ways"), but I also really liked the
architecture chapter - enough to go and poke a friend who's studying
architecture for her thoughts on some things. Out of that conversation
rose a question as to the nature of how you write, which I can't decide
upon myself. So I'm hoping you can settle that for me.
Okay, so let me see. "An architect can't ignore nature, because ..." But
then half a page later, the guy is lauding Le Corbusier. Who did exactly
that. (Designed apparently famous buildings in India by the
"international style", which completely ignored the local culture and
were thus abandoned/became ghettos/were torn down.) Of course there's
some difference between nature/culture there, but it's still funny.
Now what I'm wondering is: did you set up this 'contradiction'
deliberately? (And if so, as necessary by the main character's
character, or to reinforce the truth of the "don't ignore nature"
statement?) I know you're writing on that level, but I can't decide for
myself if you actually _did_ here, or if these two parts of the chapter
should just be seen separately. Or don't you see a contradiction there
at all?
Hmm... *rereads* Pretend I phrased that in such a way that you'll
actually be willing to answer the question? Pretty please?
Thanks,
Sander