# Westwind (Spoilers)

*The Urth list — 3 messages, 2 voices, 25 Jul 1997*

<https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/122>

> Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright
> in each message remains with the person who wrote it.
> Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original
> archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than
> retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.

---

### Michael Straight
*25 Jul 1997, 14:10*

Since the whorl list has been fairly quiet, I decided I could subscribe to
the urth list without drowning, and thought I'd say "Hi" with some
comments about the short story "Westwind."  Spoilers Ho! Fore! 

I can't remember which anthology I read this in, but I read Wolfe's
introduction first (where he makes a few comments about each of the
stories) trusting him not to spoil any of the stories, but I think he
truly ruined this one for me.   

The story is wonderfully ambiguous about whether the ruler (I forget what
he's called in the story) is a benevolent God-like figure who loves and
secretly carries on a personal relationship with all his subjects (or at
least all of the "good" ones), or a dictator using computer technology and
trickery as a form of social control (convincing subjects who live in
poverty - in contrast to the beauty seen when he addresses them all on the
big screen - that they have an exclusive, secret relationship with the
ruler so that they won't want to oppose him).

I've wondered if the story isn't something of a Rorschach test revealing
the readers own predispositions, whether people who do not believe in a
benevolent God are more likely to interpret the story as sinister (or
maybe most sf readers would interpret it as sinister since the "benevolent
ruler turns out to be nasty dictator" is such a common idea in sf). 

Anyone want to chime in on how you interpreted the story and whether you
think that reveals anything about yourself?  I'll never know what my
initial reaction would have been because in the introduction, Wolfe says
that the story is about God and so I interpreted it in a positive light
and didn't notice the possible sinister aspects until later.

But there's more to discuss here than first reactions.  Can the story be
read in a positive light?  Even if he hasn't outright lied to people, the
leader seems to have mislead many of them (all of them?) into thinking
they are each the only Westwind.  Is everyone Westwind or just those who
voiced support for the leader?  (Do you get to be Westwind because you
support him, or do you support him because you're Westwind?)  Can the
leader be human or must he either be a multi-tasking computer or divine
(I'm thinking of the fact that he seems able to talk to all the Westwinds
at the same time)? 

-Rostrum

---

### Scott Dalrymple
*25 Jul 1997, 15:44 · follows Michael Straight*

> The story is wonderfully ambiguous about whether the ruler (I forget what
> he's called in the story) is a benevolent God-like figure who loves and
> secretly carries on a personal relationship with all his subjects (or at
> least all of the "good" ones), or a dictator using computer technology and
> trickery as a form of social control (convincing subjects who live in
> poverty - in contrast to the beauty seen when he addresses them all on the
> big screen - that they have an exclusive, secret relationship with the
> ruler so that they won't want to oppose him).
> 
> I've wondered if the story isn't something of a Rorschach test revealing
> the readers own predispositions, whether people who do not believe in a
> benevolent God are more likely to interpret the story as sinister (or
> maybe most sf readers would interpret it as sinister since the "benevolent
> ruler turns out to be nasty dictator" is such a common idea in sf). 

I haven't re-read "Westwind" in awhile, but I remember it well.  I don't
recall feeling anything sinister.  I actually see the story as quite
poignant and spiritual.  The main character thinks he is the only eyes of
his god, and it makes him feel special; when he overhears another "special"
messenger at the end of the story, he/we realize that it isn't quite so,
and that perhaps everyone has such a personal relationship with god/God.  I
don't see this as sinister, but poignant.  I think it a lovely story, one
of Wolfe's best.  It didn't surprise me at all when I read somewhere that
Wolfe himself thinks it one of his best, along with "A Solar Labrynth."

Speaking of that story, does anyone else have copies of the audiotapes of
Wolfe reading it and "Dr. Death & Other Stories"?  There's also a tape of
an interview.  They're both quite fun; Wolfe reads his stories as no one
else could.

Scott Dalrymple

---

### Michael Straight
*10 Oct 1997, 14:50 · follows Scott Dalrymple*

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Jim Jordan wrote at the end of a post about Holly
Hunter: 

> 	Lemme reiterate that some allegories are specific and some are very vague.
> In Wolfe, "Westwind" is pretty specific, while "The Man in the Pepper Mill"
> is pretty vague.

I'm inclined to disagree with you about Westwind.  I've seen your list of
a=x, b=y, c=z for that story, but I don't think an allegorical reading,
where each element of the story represents a specific thing or concept in
the real world, is the best one.  

I think the most interesting way of reading the story is to consider the
story and the situation it presents as a whole and how it compares to
real life epistomological uncertainty and Christian faith.

If you are not thinking about God or Christian faith when you read the
story, it may come across as a typical (almost sf-cliche) "Blade
Runner-type" scenario.  The setting is a tavern/hotel in the future, but
it's just as poor, dirty and grungy as some of the worst that can be found
in cities today.  Meanwhile on the big TV screen, the commoners get a
message from the Leader who lives in comparative beauty and luxury.  He
tries to sound benevolent, but the commoners see through the politician's
happy-talk and are more intersted in the game.

Then it gets interesting.  Some of the commoners seem quite devoted to
this Leader, even though they live in a world of poverty and
suffering, the woman recently preyed upon by someone.  We soon find the
reason for the young man's loyalty, he is secretly "Westwind," a friend
and spy for the Leader.  

However, in a surprise ending, we find that the blind girl and the owner
of the tavern *also* think they are "Westwind" and have same kind of
communication link with the Leader.  Obviously, the Leader is using some
kind of computer technology to simultaneously pretend to talk with many
people at once.  Or maybe the Leader is himself just a digitized computer
personality.  Thus, people of goodwill are co-opted away from any thoughts
of overthrowing the government and improving their lot because each thinks
he or she has a special, unique link with the Leader.  A perfect sf-method
of social control.

Or is it?  True in many sf stories the leaders in charge who live in
luxury are the bad guys, but maybe this Leader is different.  Maybe he
really does love each of those people.  Maybe he's more than human, and
genuinely able to converse with many people at once.  But if he's so good
and powerful, why are his people living like this?

Now, I have to admit that this isn't the way I initially read the story,
because in the anthology I read, Wolfe introduced it by saying it was
about God, so I started out assuming the Leader was good and only
afterwards saw the other, more sinister interpretation.  But I think it's
fruitful to compare the story as a whole and the different thoughts and
emotions it raises to the different perspectives people have of trying to
reconcile the ideas of a good, loving God who has a personal relationship
with each of his people, with the suffering people experience. 

If you have faith that the Leader really is good, in spite of appearances,
then the portrayal of the intimate, personal relationship, of speaking
together privately before bedtime, is very moving.  If you don't, then the
whole thing is revolting.  Obviously, Wolfe chooses the first way of
looking at things (and so do I), but nothing about the story forces you to
interpret it that way, which is part of why I think it is so great.

-Rostrum

---