Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2276933" data-attributes="member: 2205">Of course not.  You can't prove a negative.Because, again, its irrelevent.  Even if I were to agree that he were making a religious commentary in the small part of the text you quoted, it does not extend to the whole work of even that book, much less the entire John Carter of Mars mythos.  It's not an overarching theme, it's a snippet of a theme tucked away in the corner.  You're trying to make it much bigger than it is.You honestly think that if I wasn't just being stubborn that I would naturally agree with you?  Look, you want to make symbolic connections in ERB's work, more power to you.  I dislike that entire methodology of trying to craft symbols out of text, and I only tend to look for them when the author's deliberately put them there.  Even then, I dislike the reductionist method of turning everything I read into a "message" fraught with symbols.  So no, I don't really see them.  No, I don't think they're obvious.  No, I don't think that its necessary to draw them out of ERB's work.Why are you so insistent that I accept your position?  You're not going to change my mind.  And, despite what you think, it's not because your arguments are so blindingly brilliant and I'm so dense.  Your arguments are at best rushed, nearly incoherent and lacking in relevent supporting evidence.  At worst, they're completely your own fabrications with no relevency to what ERB actually wrote at all.And contrary to what you keep trying to imply, I am under no burden to prove that you are wrong; if anything, you are under the burden to prove that you are right.  I don't think you've really even tried to construct a compelling case yet, and frankly, I'm not interested in seeing you continue to try.Ah, yes.  The ad hominem cop-out at last.If not, you have only yourself to blame.  I've almost quoted portions of your definition word for word when I've referred to it, so if I don't "have a clue what your definition is" that's indicative of either one of two things: 1) you have spectacularly failed to communicate what you mean by throwing out red herrings and confusing explanations, or 2) you're backpedaling something fierce from what you earlier said when it was pointed out how ludicrous it was.The moral instruction in ERB's work is hardly obvious, and my mind is hardly closed.  But just because I keep an open mind about things doesn't mean I accept whatever clap-trap I hear.  You're not the only one who's read ERB since childhood, you know, nor are you the only one to presumably have read it many times.Rather, foolish you for believing that an interpretation of a literary work is in any way a fact.Heh.  OK.  Still, the whole ERB thing is irrelevent anyway.  The most relevent post I've seen for a while was Dannyalcatraz's list of fantasy works that do not contain your overarching morality message, and sci fi works that do.So, naturally, I fully expect you'll ignore that one and instead continue to argue for your derived interpretation of A Princess of Mars as a symbolic battle of good against evil.</blockquote>

Verification