afterthought per Ray and Richard

[Ray Easton]

Carvill, John wrote:
> Right, and I wondered, semi-seriously, how an author could fail to be aware of the extent of his fictional creations' confusion. I'm still wondering.
>
>   


If the author is himself as confused as his characters are, for example.


> << The jump to "the author is SATIRIZING [them]" is yours, not ours. >>
>
> Nope. Not my jump at all. Go back and read the archive if you don't believe me.
>   


Because the jumping off point for my posts in this thread(s) was a 
"duality" on one side of which was satire, I may have given you the 
impression that I believe that the occult, conspiracy theories, etc... 
are present in the works only as targets of satire.  That is not what I 
am saying, as I think later posts should make clear.  Satire is not the 
only weapon in the author's critical arsenal.  

What I do maintain is that the occult, etc... are subjected by the 
author to the same critique as is, say, "scientific rationalism", that 
the presence of these views in the texts does not mean that we are 
intended to "take them seriously", and that the texts do not endorse any 
such views.


Ray