{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2483", "note": "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.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 2483, "subject": "PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "messages": 9, "voices": 5, "first": "2000-12-03T09:28:39+00:00", "last": "2000-12-07T11:43:51+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2000-12-03T12:35:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is something I've been meaning to post for a couple of weeks; i.e.,\nit was conceived before the recent valuable posts by mantis and Roy\ntaking a broader view, so it doesn't respond directly to them. Also,\nplease\nforgive any rough edges; due to my own procrastination, this has taken a\nlot longer to finish than I'd expected, so I want to get it out before\neveryone forgets the discussion.\n\nI'll be taking a skeptical view of PEACE interpretation (I originally\nplanned to\ncall this \"more nihilism to bring everybody down\" ), so I want to\nstart by again thanking everyone who has participated in the PEACE\nthread so far. I've learned an enormous amount about the book, both\nfrom others' posts and from the close reading of the book that the\ndiscussion inspired me to undertake. And I hope that others have\nlearned something from my posts as well.\n\nThat said, PEACE has not become more comprehensible to me as a result of\nthis discussion. On the contrary, it has made me realize that\nunderstanding the book is far more difficult than I had thought. In\nparticular, I've become quite pessimistic about the possiblity of\nproducing a \"biography\" of Weer grounded in the text. There\nare are two basic roadblocks in the way of all such\nefforts. First, the explicit information we are given about Weer's\nlife, or the information that can be deduced with certainty, leaves\nunanswered\nmany crucial questions about Weer's life. Again and again Wolfe teases\nus by making clear that some aspect of Weer's past, such as his\nrelationship\nwith his father or his breakup with Margaret, is important to him, but\ngiving no\nfurther information about this aspect. Compounding this problem,\ndespite Weer's articulateness, it is very difficult to get from his\nnarration a sense of his personality, as someone pointed out here once\n(apologies to whoever it is).\n\nThe second obstacle is that, unlike in 5HC, we have no independent\nsource of information aside from Weer's narrative, so once we accept\nthe probability that Weer is\nunreliable about past events as well as his present situation we have no\nway of comparing Weer's account with any more reliable data.\nConventionally,\nwhen reading fiction we assume that the narrator is truthful and\naccurate,\nfar more so than any real-life narrator could be about long-ago events.\nWolfe\nplays with this convention in several works.\nIn PEACE, he throws it out entirely; but he doesn't replace it with\nany other source of guidance. To make matters worse, it is not even\nclear\nwhat status Weer is claiming for the \"past\" sections of the text. To\nwhat extent is\nhe recollecting the past and to what extent is he reliving it? In one\npost, mantis remarked that a proposed interpretation violated \"the rules\nof the game,\" or words to that effect. But there are no rules governing\nthe relationship of Weer's account to the truth, at least none that we\ncan know of.\n\nDue to these obstacles, all interpretations of the book (including mine)\nwhich see Weer as unreliable reject certain of his statements while\nplacing great emphasis on others, based on completely subjective\ncriteria. To take an example, which will hopefully not offend anyone\nsince it's a thesis that I've endorsed, consider the proposition that\nWeer was responsible for the death of the worker in the coldhouse\nprank. There are three possible arguments for this view that I'm aware\nof:\n1. Why does Weer include the story if it only happened to a coworker of\nWeer's?\n2. The vividness of Weer's account of the culprit's emotions suggests\nfirsthand experience.\n3. Having Weer be the culprit fits in with various broader hypotheses\nabout Weer's life.\n\nThese arguments are not conclusive, either singly or together. As to\nthe first argument, there are other stories whose inclusion is, on the\nsurface, equally inexplicable, and we don't explain these by saying that\nthey really happened to Weer. It would be easy to give a thematic or\nmetaphoric interpretation of the coldhouse prank story, similar to the\ninterpretations we give for these other stories. As to the second\nargument, we know Weer is both imaginative and a gifted storyteller; and\nhis description of the terror of being alone in the factory at night\ncould be based on his own experience without his being the culprit of\nthe story. And as to the third point, the broader hypotheses into which\nWeer's being the culprit fit are, with no disrespect meant, even more\nspeculative.\n\nFurthermore, there are cogent arguments against Weer's being the culprit\n(which I won't go into now, because that's not my point). If, despite\nall this, I favor the hypothesis that Weer is the culprit, it's because\nI feel that PEACE is a more coherent book when read that way. But this\nis a matter of taste; if someone were to say that to them PEACE was more\ncoherent if Weer's narrative were taken as truthful in this case, I\nwould not be able to argue them out of it.\n\nNot only are all attempts to go beyond the snippets of biography that\nWeer himself gives us subjective; there are certain assumptions which\nalmost everyone takes for granted in these attempts, but which cannot be\nshown to be true from the text. Take Weer's \"astral visit\" to Van\nNess. While one is tempted to take the non-anachronistic parts of this\nvisit to reflect a real visit, mantis has shown that there are\ndifficulties in such a reading, which leads him to posit that Weer is\nconflating two real visits. But even this may be assuming too much. \nWeer's narration of the start of the visit has, to me, a dreamlike\nquality, and it seems to me that the entire visit, not just the\ninterview with Van Ness, may be a fabrication of Weer's: he undoubtedly\ndid see Van Ness when alive, but there may never have been a visit in\nwhich he sat in the waiting room while Margaret read Life and Sherry\nwhispered to Ted, or where Weer seartched in his pants pockets for his\njackknife before remembering he no longer carried it. In any case, we\ncannot prove from the text that these events ever took place; as stated\nabove, the relationship between Weer's narrative and his actual past is\nundetermined by the text.\n\nSimilarly, I once argued that the \"day in the life of the president\" in\nchapter five was not a real day in Weer's past, but a fabrication by\nWeer of the same type as his visit to Van Ness, conflating events that\nhappened on various days or never happened. There were no responses to\nmy post, either positive or negative, but again you can't prove from the\ntext that my hypothesis is false.\n\nFinally, there is the question of Weer's memory, which Roy recently\nraised. Weer tells us more than once that his memory is fallible, as,\nof\ncourse, everyone's is. But we tend to discount these statements and\nassume\nthat when Weer is inaccurate it's because he is consciously or\nunconsciously\nsuppressing something. Again, this assumption cannot be justified by\nthe text (only by the reading convention I mentioned above, which Wolfe\nimplicitly rejects). To take a concrete example, Blaine's account of\nthe \"Chinese\negg\" affair is quite different from Weer's and we assume that this\ndemonstrates the inaccuracy of Blaine's memory. But as Roy has pointed\nout, there are no grounds for this assumption. Blaine may be right and\nWeer wrong, or both may be\nequally wrong.\n\nThese assumptions can be justified on the basis that without them, it is\nimpossible to reconstruct Weer's biography. But did Wolfe intend us to\nbe able to reconstruct Weer's biography? Much of the interpretation of\nPEACE (including mine) seems to proceed on the assumption that Wolfe hid\nclues within the text which, if dug up and interpreted properly, will\nyield Weer's true biography. But a great deal of intepretive effort and\ningenuity has been expended on PEACE and, while several plausible\n\"biographies\" have been produced, I don't find any of them to be\nsufficiently grounded in the text, or to yield a convincing enough\nreading of the book as a whole, for me to accept as Weer's true\nbiography, or as what Wolfe intended. Of course, it's still early days;\nit may be that somebody will find convincing evidence in the text that\nhas been overlooked or misinterpreted up to now. But it seems just as\npossible to me that Wolfe intended the book as a trap for the reader who\nwould be lured into trying to construct Weer's biography, hunting for\nanswers that aren't there and seeking definitiveness where there is only\nambiguity. The quote I cited earlier, about Weer trying to arrange the\n_Life_s in chronological order and failing, seems to suggest this. It\nmay also be the case that Wolfe did have a \"true\" biography in mind, but\nfailed to provide unambiguous indications of this, for whatever reason.\n\nI could say more, but I think I'd better stop and post this already. As\nusual, comments are appreciated.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at sirius.com" }, "date": "2000-12-03T09:28:39+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good post, Adam! I especially like the idea that A.D. Weer was not\ninvolved in the coldhouse prank--in effect, that this is just another\n\"ghost story\" within yet another genre framework (journalistic\nwhat-have-you), and as such, if it =does= relate to Weer it is in the same\nway that any of the fairy tales do. So (for Weer; for the deeper story) it\nis about Bobby Black again, rather than a mysterious other.\n\nOTOH Adam wrote these reasons implicating Weer in the prank:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "1. Why does Weer include the story if it only happened to a coworker of\nWeer's?\n2. The vividness of Weer's account of the culprit's emotions suggests\nfirsthand experience.\n3. Having Weer be the culprit fits in with various broader hypotheses\nabout Weer's life." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To which I'd add one that to me seems like it should be number one in\nranking: Weer seems very agitated by the story, to the point where he might\nbe on the verge of a medical crisis (in fact, on the verge of his final\nmedical crisis). Freed of literally casting him as a multiple murderer, we\ncan easily chalk this up to unresolved guilt over Bobby Black.\n\nIn fact, you could even put a Freudian (\"childhood makes the person\") spin\non the whole deal and say that Weer's real biography ends with his\nchildhood, and all the rest, the dreams of a life lived, books read, and so\non, is all just a belated attempt to resolve these traumas. So instead of\ntrying to hammer out his life from 15 to 60, and then trace things from the\nfictitious to the biographical, instead use only his life from 1 to 15 (or\nwhatever: Freud's deal was 1 to 7, iirc), from which everything else\nphantasmagorically emerges (with no distinction between fiction and\nbiography). Wave upon wave of reiteration. Such an approach seems quite\neasy at first glance, since there doesn't seem to be much argument about\nthat stretch of Den's life." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam wrote:\nSimilarly, I once argued that the \"day in the life of the president\" in\nchapter five was not a real day in Weer's past, but a fabrication by\nWeer of the same type as his visit to Van Ness, conflating events that\nhappened on various days or never happened. There were no responses to\nmy post, either positive or negative, but again you can't prove from the\ntext that my hypothesis is false." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well Roy Lackey and I were using something like this as a working model,\nbut then since there seems to be a considerable gap between the day of\nThree Visitors (\"early presidency\") and the Day of the Reporter (\"late\npresidency\"), it seemed to resolve into two different days: the day of\nomen, and the day of death.\n\nThey could still be fabrications.\n\nAnd nine-year-old Den might still be passed out beside his chemistry set!\n\n=mantis=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "William Ansley", "address": "wansley at warwick.net" }, "date": "2000-12-03T23:03:32+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 12:35 PM -0800 12/3/00, Adam Stephanides wrote:\nBut it seems just as\npossible to me that Wolfe intended the book as a trap for the reader who\nwould be lured into trying to construct Weer's biography, hunting for\nanswers that aren't there and seeking definitiveness where there is only\nambiguity. The quote I cited earlier, about Weer trying to arrange the\n_Life_s in chronological order and failing, seems to suggest this. It\nmay also be the case that Wolfe did have a \"true\" biography in mind, but\nfailed to provide unambiguous indications of this, for whatever reason." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree that Wolfe probably didn't intend the reader to be able to \nreconstruct a biography of Weer from _Peace_. I love the idea that \nWeer's failure to be able to sort out \"Life\"s in chronological order \nis a clue that this is the case. It does seem like something Wolfe \nwould do.\n\nRight now, I feel that the word \"trap\" is a trifle strong, but I have \naccused Wolfe of worse things, after various bout of frustration \nbrought on by trying to figure out various of his works." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "William Ansley" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2000-12-04T09:29:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Michael Andre-Driussi wrote:\nIn fact, you could even put a Freudian (\"childhood makes the person\") spin\non the whole deal and say that Weer's real biography ends with his\nchildhood, and all the rest, the dreams of a life lived, books read, and so\non, is all just a belated attempt to resolve these traumas. So instead of\ntrying to hammer out his life from 15 to 60, and then trace things from the\nfictitious to the biographical, instead use only his life from 1 to 15 (or\nwhatever: Freud's deal was 1 to 7, iirc), from which everything else\nphantasmagorically emerges (with no distinction between fiction and\nbiography). Wave upon wave of reiteration. Such an approach seems quite\neasy at first glance, since there doesn't seem to be much argument about\nthat stretch of Den's life." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[...]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And nine-year-old Den might still be passed out beside his chemistry set!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, he's fallen asleep on a ceramic pillow! And and his Aunt is waking\nhim up to go play at the picnic with Bobby Blake...\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2000-12-04T10:15:52+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A Monday morning meditation inspired by Adam's post and the various\nreplies thereunto. I may ramble.\n\nI'm inclined to agree with & even to insist upon the following basic points:\n\n1. That Gene Wolfe did in fact have a \"real\" and (more or less) coherent \n biography of ADW in mind when he wrote PEACE;\n2. That PEACE does not give us the clues to accurately, reliably, and\n consistently reconstruct that biography.\n\nOn the cover of my (oldish, trade pb) copy of 5HC, there's a quote from \nUrsula K. Le Guin describing the contents as (quoted from memory and\nprobably \nwrong except in gist) an example in writing of the uncertainty principle. I\nwould say that PEACE far more deserves this.\n\nThe question is, assuming that all this uncertainty is not arbitrary (which\nwould by implication predicate of its author a kind of meanness vis-a-vis \nhis readers that I simply do not see as likely in the case of GW), what kind\n\nof readerly (rather than writerly) model can we build that accounts for it?\nIn other words: How does or would Wolfe's ideal reader imagine (image-in) \nPEACE? \n\nAdam wrote, \"PEACE has not become more comprehensible to me as a result \nof this discussion. On the contrary, it has made me realize that \nunderstanding the book is far more difficult than I had thought.\" While I\nagree with him at a certain level, I suggest that the level is one which\nuses an impoverished -- or, rather, insufficiently enriched -- meaning for\nthe word \"comprehensible.\" \n\nFirst, I suggest that the uncertainty must make sense at a higher level, \nthat it must in fact follow deterministic (at least statistically \ndeterministic) rules, which are if not discoverable at least deductible.\n\nSecond, I suggest that the book contains everything necessary for a useful \nreading. This is important; it is, I think, the difference between calling\nWolfe a sadistic and manipulative writer and calling him a tricksy but\nskilled and fair writer. This is, incidentally, a analogous to fundamental \nprinciple for Catholic readings of the Bible -- the Catholic take is that \nthe canonical Scriptures \"contain faithfully everything which God wants us\nto know for our salvation.\" That is, it contains all that is necessary, and\nthese necessary things are discoverable and comprehensible, but does not \nmean that all of Scripture is literally factual. If we find, in our reading \nof Scripture, that it contradicts itself or the physical-factual world, \nthen we may reasonably conclude that our reading is itself flawed -- most \nprobably because it attempts to answer the wrong questions. Thus, for \nexample, most Catholic \"Bible scholars\" will say that the book of Job does \nnot consist of biographical facts about a real man named Job, but that the \nbook is nonetheless true -- in fact it is a theodicy, an extended meditation\n\non the problem of evil, among other things. \n\nWolfe, a very convinced Catholic convert, may reasonably be expected to take\n\na similar view toward his writings. (Remember; \"Scripture\" literally means \n\"that which is written.\" All written works are at root Scriptural; all \nwritings read properly reveal or even betray truth about him or her who \nwrites them.) Again, where we find uncertainty and/or contradiction, we are \nprobably reading in a way that asks the text the wrong questions.\n\nReturning to Adam's original post, I find this nugget: \"it is not even clear\n\nwhat status Weer is claiming for the 'past' sections of the text. To what \nextent is he recollecting the past and to what extent is he reliving it?\"\n\nThree points.\n\nFirst, I think we may immediately conclude that we are not expected to \ndiscover a (single/consistent/reliable) status for \"the 'past' sections.\"\n\"What is the status of the 'past' sections\" is not among the most useful\nquestions to ask.\n\nSecond, I think the word \"past\" clearly does belong in quotes, as Adam puts\nthem, because it assumes a linearity of time. More on this later.\n\nSecond, Adam left out at least two other possibilities.\n 1. Recollecting the past.\n 2. Reliving the past.\n 3. Recreating the past.\n 4. Lying about the past.\nFurther, the boundaries between these are rather hazy, forming a continuum\nrather than four distinct possibilities. I take these as working\ndefinitions:\n\"Recollecting\" the past means attempting in memory to recall the facts,\nactions, and details of a single \"real\" past as accurately as possible.\n\"Reliving\"\nmeans travelling in some sense to the past and passing through those moments\nagain. \"Recreating\" the past means moving into past moments and changing\ntheir\nevents. And lying about the past is the direct contrary of \"recollecting.\"\n\nThe idea that Den actively lies to us is probably the dullest choice. \n\nThe idea of straightforward recollection is only slightly more interesting;\nif \nthis were the general case, we would have very little in the way of mystery.\n\nIndeed, if I could ignore all the ellipses, elisions, and contradictions in \nDen's story, I would have to conclude that PEACE consisted of the somewhat-\nincoherent ramblings of a not particularly interesting person.\n\nThe idea that he is reliving the past gets more interesting. How? And to\nwhat\nend? (Is it his own idea or is it being \"done to\" him -- i.e., is he agent\nor\npatient?)\n\n\"Recreating\" is by far the most interesting; it probably covers more mental \n\"territory\" than any of the other three, from Den mentally asking himself\nwhat \nwould have happened if he had done something differently, to \"Purgatory\" as\na \nsort of mental \"holodeck\" where he can actually experiment with such things,\n\nto actually travelling back in time and doing it over. In addition, it may\nbe \nthat the explicit facts, events, and details do not change, but Den's \nunderstanding of them changes -- he does the same things but for different \nreasons, or simply is allowed to observe himself doing them and understand\nif \nhe can the meaning of what he did and what happened afterward and why. \n\nI particularly like looking at \"recreating\" the past because it fits in \nthematically with that damn Chinese pillow story that seems like a minor\nepisode but keeps confronting you everywhere you turn in PEACE.\n\nIn summary, then: I think we cannot build a usefully coherent and consistent\nchronology of Weer's life. I think the book actively forbids it. On the\nother\nhand, I think we can build a usefully coherent and consistent model of the\nbook which accounts for the incoherency and inconsistency of Weer's account.\n\nAgain and again: PEACE is not the story of Weer's life; it is the story of\nWeer telling his story.\n\n--Dan'l" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2000-12-04T14:09:01+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Adam Stephanides wrote:\nFurthermore, there are cogent arguments against Weer's being the culprit\n(which I won't go into now, because that's not my point). If, despite\nall this, I favor the hypothesis that Weer is the culprit, it's because\nI feel that PEACE is a more coherent book when read that way. But this\nis a matter of taste; if someone were to say that to them PEACE was more\ncoherent if Weer's narrative were taken as truthful in this case, I\nwould not be able to argue them out of it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You see this as if it were a negative thing, but I think this is the most\ninteresting way to talk about a book. If PEACE is a more coherent book\nand more asethetically satisfying if you conclude that Weer is the\nculprit, then evidence to the contrary amounts to an artistic mistake on\nWolfe's part. \n\nYou say that this amounts to a matter of taste and we can't argue about\nthat. But we do. One of the more interesting disussions on this list was\nwhen someone expressed dislike for the Long Sun books and others lept in\nto defend them and to describe what they liked, what they thought the\nbooks did well. Whether or not they were able to argue that person out of\ntheir opinion, they gave me an opportunity to notice and appreciate\naspects of the books I'd missed the first time.\n\nThe first time I read Urth of the New Sun, I hated the idea that Severian\nhimself was the Concilator and disliked the book. But after reading other\npeople's comments on the series, I see things I had missed that makes it\nall fit together much better and my opinion of the book has changed.\n\nI'm somewhat interested in finding out what Wolfe meant, but only as one\nof various means to the end of helping me get the most enjoyment out of\nhis books. (This ain't law or scripture - I'm not reading Wolfe to try to\nfigure out what exactly two contracted parties had agreed to or to figure\nout how God wants me to live - this is just for fun!) So, for me, the\nbest reading of PEACE is the one that I find most aesthetically\nsatisfying. Coherence is an important part of that, but I'm not above\nsetting aside this or that bit of evidence if it means I can better enjoy\nthe whole.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2000-12-05T13:30:19+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks for the thoughtful response; I'll do my best to reply in kind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI'm inclined to agree with & even to insist upon the following basic points:\n\n1. That Gene Wolfe did in fact have a \"real\" and (more or less) coherent\n biography of ADW in mind when he wrote PEACE;" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree that Wolfe had something definite in mind; whether it was a\ncoherent biography of Weer, or a collection of deliberately fragmentary\nor inconsistent biographical \"facts\" I don't know." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "2. That PEACE does not give us the clues to accurately, reliably, and\n consistently reconstruct that biography.\n\nOn the cover of my (oldish, trade pb) copy of 5HC, there's a quote from\nUrsula K. Le Guin describing the contents as (quoted from memory and\nprobably\nwrong except in gist) an example in writing of the uncertainty principle. I\nwould say that PEACE far more deserves this.\n\nThe question is, assuming that all this uncertainty is not arbitrary (which\nwould by implication predicate of its author a kind of meanness vis-a-vis\nhis readers that I simply do not see as likely in the case of GW)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "When I talked about the \"trap\" of biography, I didn't mean to imply that\nWolfe was being pointlessly sadistic (though I'm not as convinced as\nyou of his essential helpfulness; after all, he's written one novel and\na number of shorter works which nobody, AFAIK, has yet made any sense\nof). Wolfe's intent, under this hypothesis, would not be to make the\nreader endlessly and fruitlessly hunt for clues, but to make a point\nabout the mutability of memory, or the indeterminacy of reading or\nknowledge." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam wrote, \"PEACE has not become more comprehensible to me as a result\nof this discussion. On the contrary, it has made me realize that\nunderstanding the book is far more difficult than I had thought.\" While I\nagree with him at a certain level, I suggest that the level is one which\nuses an impoverished -- or, rather, insufficiently enriched -- meaning for\nthe word \"comprehensible.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I partially agree with what I think you're saying. I agree that there\nare aspects of the book which can be \"comprehended\" apart from Weer's\nbiography, and that we should look at the why and how, not just the\nwhat, of Weer's narration much more closely than we've done so far. (I\nwould have said something about this in my earlier post if I hadn't\nwanted to finally get it out, as I had said.)\n\nBut, to jump ahead in your post, I'm skeptical that reading the book as\n\"the story of Weer telling his story\" will make it more determinate or\ncomprehensible. On the contrary, it seems only to lead to \"confusion\nworse confounded,\" at least on the evidence of the discussion here. At\nleast we can put together a basic outline of Weer's life, even if it's\nmissing information on crucial points. But when it comes to Weer's\npresent situation, we can't even agree on the simplest facts: is he\nalive or dead? If alive, is he young or old? If dead, is he on his way\nto heaven, resurrection, or neither? To add to the confusion, Weer's\ndescription of his present contains far more, and more glaring,\nanomalies than his account of his past. It's true that (judging by what\nI've read) less work, in the sense of close reading, has gone into\ninvestigating these questions than into investigating Weer's biography,\nso it's possible that with more work things might clear up." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Second, I suggest that the book contains everything necessary for a useful\nreading. This is important; it is, I think, the difference between calling\nWolfe a sadistic and manipulative writer and calling him a tricksy but\nskilled and fair writer." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a third possibility: that Wolfe misjudged what a reader could\nreasonably be expected to infer. (Some of his statements in interviews\nsuggest that this is sometimes the case. He apparently thought--or at\nleast recalled having thought--that nobody would actually build a house\nas strange as Weer's \"museum house.\" I don't agree (the Winchester\nhouse is a lot stranger), so I didn't make the deductions from Weer's\ndescription of his house that Wolfe expected.)\n\n[Comparison with Catholic Biblical interpretation snipped]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wolfe, a very convinced Catholic convert, may reasonably be expected to take\n\na similar view toward his writings. (Remember; \"Scripture\" literally means\n\"that which is written.\" All written works are at root Scriptural; all\nwritings read properly reveal or even betray truth about him or her who\nwrites them.) Again, where we find uncertainty and/or contradiction, we are\nprobably reading in a way that asks the text the wrong questions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course, Wolfe is aware that he isn't God (he even wrote a story on\nthe topic), so he would presumably concede that he might have\noccasionally contradicted himself, or failed to say what he meant to." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Returning to Adam's original post, I find this nugget: \"it is not even clear\n\nwhat status Weer is claiming for the 'past' sections of the text. To what\nextent is he recollecting the past and to what extent is he reliving it?\"\n\nThree points.\n\nFirst, I think we may immediately conclude that we are not expected to\ndiscover a (single/consistent/reliable) status for \"the 'past' sections.\"\n\"What is the status of the 'past' sections\" is not among the most useful\nquestions to ask." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you're saying that the \"past\" sections don't all have the same\nstatus, I agree. If you're saying that it's not useful to ask what the\nstatus of any particular \"past\" section (or portion thereof) is, I\ndisagree (but I don't think you are)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Second, Adam left out at least two other possibilities.\n 1. Recollecting the past.\n 2. Reliving the past.\n 3. Recreating the past.\n 4. Lying about the past." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I had been illustrating a point, not offering an exhaustive list. \nBut I like your typology." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The idea that Den actively lies to us is probably the dullest choice.\nThe idea of straightforward recollection is only slightly more interesting;\nif\nthis were the general case, we would have very little in the way of mystery." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, (setting aside the other two possibilities on your list for a\nmoment), Weer is almost certainly neither 100% lying nor 100%\n\"straightforwardly recollecting.\" Instead, his narrative is a\ncombination of recollection, suppression, and (perhaps) lying that is\nnearly impossible to disentangle. So I don't agree that we have \"very\nlittle in the way of mystery.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Indeed, if I could ignore all the ellipses, elisions, and contradictions in\nDen's story" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I certainly wouldn't ignore these, but we don't need Weer's \"reliving\"\nor \"recreating\" to account for them, although there are other reasons\nwhy Weer has to be \"recreating at least to some extent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I would have to conclude that PEACE consisted of the somewhat-\nincoherent ramblings of a not particularly interesting person." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh. Except for the \"not particularly interesting\" bit, that's a pretty\ngood description." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Recreating\" is by far the most interesting; it probably covers more mental\n\"territory\" than any of the other three, from Den mentally asking himself\nwhat\nwould have happened if he had done something differently, to \"Purgatory\" as\na\nsort of mental \"holodeck\" where he can actually experiment with such things,\n\nto actually travelling back in time and doing it over. In addition, it may\nbe\nthat the explicit facts, events, and details do not change, but Den's\nunderstanding of them changes -- he does the same things but for different\nreasons, or simply is allowed to observe himself doing them and understand\nif\nhe can the meaning of what he did and what happened afterward and why." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In summary, then: I think we cannot build a usefully coherent and consistent\nchronology of Weer's life. I think the book actively forbids it. On the\nother\nhand, I think we can build a usefully coherent and consistent model of the\nbook which accounts for the incoherency and inconsistency of Weer's account." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll have to think more about this idea of \"recreating,\" and I want to\nget this out while it's fresh. It's clear that it's going on, at least\nto some extent; there are the occasional intrusions of the present into\nthe \"past,\" and the anomalies that have been pointed out in the doctor's\nvisit and in chapter five. But I'm skeptical that \"recreating\" can be\nthe master key to building \"a coherent and consistent model,\" as you\nseem to be suggesting, at least one which is grounded in the text.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2000-12-07T11:17:48+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Michael Straight wrote:\nI'm somewhat interested in finding out what Wolfe meant, but only as one\nof various means to the end of helping me get the most enjoyment out of\nhis books. (This ain't law or scripture - I'm not reading Wolfe to try to\nfigure out what exactly two contracted parties had agreed to or to figure\nout how God wants me to live - this is just for fun!) So, for me, the\nbest reading of PEACE is the one that I find most aesthetically\nsatisfying. Coherence is an important part of that, but I'm not above\nsetting aside this or that bit of evidence if it means I can better enjoy\nthe whole." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Without reopening the question of intent (which I may get around to\nposting on one of these days) I'll say that PEACE, to me, presents\nitself as having been carefully planned out by Wolfe so that its details\nand apparent anomalies are part of a conscious design; that is, Wolfe\ndid nt write it in a slapdash fashion or by letting his inspiration\ncarry him where it listed. If this is correct, then (unless Wolfe was\nguilty of a monumental lapse of judgment) it is very unlikely that any\n\"accidentally present\" reading I could discern would be more satisfying\nthan the reading Wolfe intended. If PEACE were to turn out not to have\nbeen carefully planned in this sense, then I believe I would think less\nof it: many details which appear significant would in fact be random or\ncareless, and the book would be parading under false pretenses. (Not\nthat I think carefully planned out books are always better; my remarks\nare specific to PEACE.)\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2000-12-07T11:43:51+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: is Weer's biography knowable? (long)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Adam Stephanides wrote:\nWithout reopening the question of intent (which I may get around to\nposting on one of these days) I'll say that PEACE, to me, presents\nitself as having been carefully planned out by Wolfe so that its details\nand apparent anomalies are part of a conscious design; that is, Wolfe\ndid nt write it in a slapdash fashion or by letting his inspiration\ncarry him where it listed. If this is correct, then (unless Wolfe was\nguilty of a monumental lapse of judgment) it is very unlikely that any\n\"accidentally present\" reading I could discern would be more satisfying\nthan the reading Wolfe intended. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My point was to disagree with your claim that we couldn't evaluate\npossible readings of PEACE by arguing which reading is aesthetically\nbetter. You say the reading Wolfe intended is much more likely to be\nbetter than one he didn't intend. Seems to me that implies that if we\nfind a reading that we like the best, that's likely to be the one Wolfe\nintended, which should make everybody happy.\n\nSo, for instance, I think the book is more interesting if it turns out\nWeer was the one responsible for the warehouse death, but either lies\nabout it in a pretty daring sort of way (reminds me of Hitchcock's movie\n\"Rope\") or can't admit to himself what really happened. I don't think\nit's enough for you to respond saying that reading isn't sufficiently\nsupported by the text. You need to demonstrate how PEACE is a better book\nif you don't read it that way.\n\nPerhaps you could argue it's more interesting to suspect Weer *might* have\nbeen responsible for the warehouse death than to know for sure either way.\nWhich might have a stronger claim to be what Wolfe has actually given\nus...\n\n-Rostrum" } ] } ] }