But I do think it's important to remember that writers do not have a monopoly of wisdom on their books. They can be wrong about their own books, they can often learn about their own books.

One of the things that I love so much about fantasy and science fiction is that the weirdness that it creates is always at its best completely its own end and also metaphorically and symbolically laden.

My Google-fu is strong.

Any moment called NOW is always full of possibles.

I have danced with the spider. I have cut a caper with the dancing mad god.

Is it more childish and foolish to insist that there is a conspiracy or that there is not?

I do, however, feel reasonably strongly the sense that the job of a piece of argumentative scholarly non-fiction is not the same as the job of a piece of fiction.