Subject: (urth) interview clipping on Free Live Free

From: maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:08:25 +0000

Before, I wrote
>
>As far as I remember from a Wolfe interview, I thought he identified Madame
>Serpentina as pride (she is a haughty wench) and Stubb as Envy.  I think 
Wolfe
>waffled a little on identifying Stubb (little man complex seems like envy
>mixed with pride to me).

to which rostrum replied:
>
>I think the key has to be each one's temptation scene.  Stubb's seems to
>be appealing to his desire to be thought smart and essential for an
>important case (and appealing to the young woman), thus Pride (Envy
>involves resenting someone else who has what you don't).  We don't see
>Serpentina's but it seems to have been about giving her a shot at real
>supernatural power which seems to fit best under Avarice (maybe "lust for
>power"?  Or do the Seven Deadlies put that under Avarice and reserve Lust
>for sexual sins?  Do all sins fit under one of the Seven?).
>
Here is a quote from an online interview accessible through Paul Duggan's web 
sight.

"GW: I suppose yeah. Yes. Somewhat the same concern. I tried to give the four 
borders, I tried to give each sort of a besetting sin. Madame Serpantina, it's 
pride. Candy, it is gluttony. Stub, I forget now. Osgood Barnes, sexuality of 
course.

JJ: And you drew them somewhat from the _________

GW: Envy, envy I think is Stubbs. And I wasn't trying to write allegory. I 
wasn't saying he was a personification of envy. I wanted to show men and women 
who were actually beset by these sins. "

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but once again we need to consider the 
position of authorial intent: fallacy or definitively influential in 
interpretation?
Marc Aramini

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

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:32:18 +0000

>position of authorial intent: fallacy or definitively influential in

         Gosh, and that was my interview, and I'd forgotten. Well, I'm all 
for authorial intent, though as you can see, Wolfe was a bit unsure in his 
memory. But since all these sins overlap one another, I can go either way. 
Serpentina certainly is proud and haughty, and pride is traditionally the 
sin of Satan, so her involvement with witchcraft makes sense. Stubb as 
envious is a bit harder for me to see, but Wolfe wasn't entirely sure.

JBJordan

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:13:28 +0000

> position of authorial intent: fallacy or definitively influential in 

I think that bit about personification is important.  In real life, Envy
and Pride and Lust and Avarice are often all interrelated, so any attempt
to create a character beset by Envy is likely to involve the others as
well.

So it's possible Wolfe was thinking of Envy for Stubb and Pride for
Serpentina, but that he ended up writing scenes where we see more of
Serpentina's Avarice (or whatever you call her desire for Free's power)  
and Stubb's Pride.

If you look at what the characters learn from their temptation scene,
Serpentina is tempted with the offer of power, but she ends up humbled and
gives that speech about how little humans deserve more power or longer
life, thus it corrects her Pride.  But I have a harder time seeing the
Envy in Stubb's temptation.

-Rostrum