Subject: (urth) PEACE: geography and interviews

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at sirius.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:32:21 +0000

when it was new), and I had recently reviewed it myself, but I couldn't
bring myself to post it--so thank you, Robert!  Now others have access to
it, for further clarity and confusion. <g>

I especially wanted to mention that Logan bit.  Based on a town in Ohio (go
look at an online street map right now); but is the fictional town actually
supposed to be there?  Joan Gordon says it is in Ohio (based upon her own
reading, based upon her interview with Wolfe which I haven't read; I don't
know exactly what it is based upon).  The text seems to resist such
certainty: the nearest the text comes to saying Cassionsville is in Ohio is
regarding Quantrill, who was born "near here"; but then the text seems to
retreat from such a tight focus of "here" to being more regional, i.e.,
"the Midwest."  So on the one hand I think of Cassionsville as being in
Ohio (despite the text evidence that suggests Ohio is out of state--I'm not
giving it here, but I seem to remember Ohio being mentioned in a few
contexts where it wouldn't be mentioned if the speakers were located in
Ohio), but on the other hand I think of a fuzzy line between Lawrence,
Kansas and Dover, East Ohio (birthplace of Quantrill).

That _sidhe_ reading mentioned by the interviewer provoked a mini-debate
between Dan'l and myself: he thought it was wild, off the chart, something
we never talk about (thus far removed from the current local consensus); I
thought I could understand it but admitted that I'd been living with the
notion for so long that I may have been contaminated (familiarity breeds
faux-understanding?).

Adam wrote:
>It's a bit difficult to reconcile what Wolfe says here with his
>statements re the house in the Jordan interview that I cited earlier.

Oh good: now we can see that interviews, while providing some data points,
are not necessarily the be-all and end-all.  I mean, not to complain or
anything, but I was starting to feel that people around here were beginning
to give great weight (perhaps even supreme weight) to data points from one
interview or another.  Which is fine, I mean, whatever: the answer that
fits a given reader is where ever he/she finds it (I really don't mean to
knock that); toss out all the lit crit and find all answers in interviews;
but the impish side of me always wants to point out, "Just read _another_
interview."

Because it seems to me that the text of all Gene Wolfe interviews will form
another complex plate of spaghetti to be interpreted: the drawback is that
it is a step removed from the primary text (not to mention the larger
margin for editorial error, mistakes in transcribing, and all the other
details that make a product of journalism different from a product of
fiction writing).  And thus a step removed from "your" reading of the
primary text, whether this reading is wildly idiosyncratic (like the sidhe
reading?) or tightly consensual (the "dead Weer" camp).

I don't want to discard all interview datapoints (I'm happy to use them
when they serve my purpose--when they buttress a point that is also in the
text): I just want to remind us all that the interviews are not entirely
reliable; that conflict and paradox arise when we compare two or more
interviews; and obviously they are not under the same authorial control
that a novel is.

I couldn't find the energy to mention all of this before because, as I
outline above, the whole thing is tangential to my interests, and I don't
want to be seen as raining on anybody's parade. But now that someone else
has introduced the problem, I find myself spending all this time to
agree--go figure!

=mantis=

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:06:37 +0000

The other difficulty with using Wolfe's interviews is that, while they
are useful in a general way, Wolfe is, I think, intentionally gnomic
and tricky.  Recall the answers to the question list for LONG SUN, and
the fact that THE CASTLE OF THE OTTER did suprisingly little to clear
up some things about NEW SUN (it gave two different explanations of
where the idea came from, for Pete's sake).

--
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
--
Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)
Ph.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department
8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066
http://www.cs.cm
u.edu/~agroce

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:42:30 +0000

From: "Alex David Groce" <Alex_Groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>

> where the idea came from, for Pete's sake).

    I think that's often true, and I wondered what kind of interview I'd get
from him when I did it. But, he had been very forthright in letters to me
previously, had thanked me warmly for my use of his writings in my own
theological work, and had also said kind things about one of my books that I
sent him.
    And, in the interview, he seemed almost always to be very frank and
open. At one point, I noticed he became coy, or seemed to. This was when I
asked about Severian's adultery with the angel in *Urth of the New Sun*
(Apheta? was that her name?). His smile indicated to me that I'd missed
something. Maybe that at this "time," Severian's wife was long dead? At any
rate, I got the distinct impression that he was giving very straight answers
to my questions. He had earlier written to me that he was disappointed at
how many people did not understand Severian (i.e., making him a "Christ
figure" instead of a "Christian figure," a man struggling with his
sanctification to become more Christ-like), and I got the impression he was
trying to "set the record straight."
    At any rate, obviously I can never be sure if he was always being
completely straightforward, but I do have the strong impression that in my
interview, at least, he was.
    Without being critical of any other interviewer, I think Wolfe assessed
me not as an "SF" interview, whether "literary" or "groupie," but as a
"fellow Christian" interviewer, and responded somewhat differently.
    I also wonder if earlier interviews are more coy, and later ones more
straightforward. I tend to think that the Silk narrative is something of an
answer to those who got the Severian narrative wrong. (Not that any of us
have got it RIGHT!)

Nutria
James B. Jordan
(Interview is at Paul Duggan's Wolfe website)

---

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 18:55:05 +0000

> answer to those who got the Severian narrative wrong. (Not that any of us

I think Wolfe is fairly straightforward in that interview, but I also
don't recall a lot of the kinds of questions he tends to be devious
about ("who killed who?," "which egg was drugged," "what does Silk see
when he thinks he sees Pike's ghost").  Wolfe seems to answer these
things sometimes, but really regard them as "cheating" on our part if
we have to go to him.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 18:30:07 +0000

Nutria said:
> > answer to those who got the Severian narrative wrong. (Not that any of
us have got it RIGHT!)
> Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)

Just so. Good point.

Nutricious