{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2788",
    "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": 2788,
    "subject": "Notes Towards a Lupine Aesthetic",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2001-08-17T22:37:27+00:00",
    "last": "2001-08-17T22:37:27+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0030-0643@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Nigel Price",
        "address": "nigel.a.price at virgin.net"
      },
      "date": "2001-08-17T22:37:27+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Notes Towards a Lupine Aesthetic",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I particularly enjoyed the extract from Alex Groce's unfinished dissertation\non Wolfe and detective fiction. (Alex, I'd love to read some more of this,\nbut for goodness sake don't let it get in the way of the work on your\ndoctoral thesis!)\n\nAlex's discussion of the influence of detective fiction provides a helpful\nrationale for certain characteristic elements of Wolfe's writing that I have\nto confess I have been pondering for some while, albeit from a slightly\ndifferent perspective. Wolfe's stories are puzzling and tricky, and I've\nbeen wondering about the  underlying aesthetic implied his work. On the\nbasis of his writings, what can we say about his view of what makes a\nbeautiful/good/successful novel or story? To put it another way, what is he\ntrying to do?\n\nI'd like to suggest three possible aesthetic criteria.\n\n#1    The balance of information and obscurity\n\nWolfe seems to adopt a literary model in which the perfect story contains\n*just* enough information to let the reader know what is going on, and not a\nsingle iota more. According to this view, too much information, explanation\nand clarity is a fault. So also is too little, though Wolfe would seem if\nanything to prefer to err on that side of the notional point of perfect\nbalance.\n\nThis approach is, of course, far from unique, and is indeed characteristic\nof much twentieth century \"literary\" writing. The idea has so often been to\nexplain as little as possible while implying as much as possible, and I\nsuppose if we traced this back we would probably find its roots in late\nnineteenth century novels and poetry. Sometimes the technique has worked\nwonderfully well - I'm thinking of some of Eliot's poetry and Beckett's\ndrama and prose - though, of course, at other times it can produce work that\nis merely obscure and self-indulgent.\n\nHistorically, science fiction adopted a very different aesthetic for much of\nits early years. Explanation, particularly of technical devices and\nscientific wonders, has long had a central and honoured role in the SF\nstory.\nSometimes the author explains directly to the reader, sometimes a clever\ncharacter, usually a scientist or engineer, explains a point to a less\nintelligent colleague or opponent.\n\nThe so-called \"New Wave\" in the 1960s attempted to challenge this approach\nand belatedly to apply more \"literary\" narrative techniques to the SF story.\nThis has, in my view, immeasurably improved the general standard of SF\nwriting, while still leaving writers to grapple with the technical problem\nof finding suitably subtle and effective ways of introducing those new,\nalien, strange or futuristic elements into their stories which are\ncharacteristic of the genre but which, by their very nature, need some sort\nof explanation or description. Some authors have, indeed, ducked the issue\naltogether, drawing instead on SF's now extensive repertoire of previously\ndefined standard tropes, devices and settings. Done badly, this can be very\ndreary indeed. (Have you ever read a Star Wars spin-off book?) Done well,\nthis can still allow for the development of character and for the\nconstruction of new and unusual combination of otherwise standard elements.\nI think that Iain M Banks and the recently discussed Peter Hamilton are\nessentially SF authors of this type, although the latter still loves to give\nlengthy explanations when suitable opportunities arise.\n\nArguably, Wolfe also draws on an established, pre-existing collection of\nscience fictional ideas in much of his writing. Much of his success derives\nfrom the way such standard elements and devices are perceived by his\ncharacters, and particularly his narrators. Their familiarity with what is\nto us bizarre and their ignorance of the true mechanisms which underlie\ntheir worlds are key elements in the Lupine literary mix. Wolfe's characters\nfeel no need to explain what is familiar to them, and thus often refer in an\nentirely commonplace manner to what in the works of other authors would be\nastonishing science fictional marvels, ripe for detailed description and\nexplanation. Daily life in the Long Sun Whorl would seem to be a case in\npoint. Then again, their ignorance means that they are often unable to\nexplain the things that do puzzle them, and the reader may at times be ahead\nof the characters in interpreting the real nature of what is going on. When\nWolfe's characters do explain things, they do so in terms which make sense\nto them, and which may often only compound the reader's sense of the\nstrangeness of their worlds. (James Russell gave an excellent paper at last\nyear's symposium on the strategies which Gene Wolfe employs in the Urth\ncycle to convey the strangeness of his post-historic world. This included\nthe use of arbitrary and apparently illogical systems of categorisation to\ndescribe society and natural phenomena as a means of depicting alien\npatterns of thought and cultural assumptions.)\n\nIn pursuit of the right balance of information and obscurity, Wolfe exploits\nhis characters and narrators' viewpoints and ignorance to limit the amount\nof information which are willing and able to convey to the reader. Thus,\nevents unfold and stories take place, but while much is said, as many\nquestions are raised\nas answers given. Perhaps more.\n\n#2    The equality of location of information\n\nWolfe's tales, even when not overtly detective stories, contain a strong\nelement of mystery. They are more than \"mere\" puzzles, because other\nelements are present and are usually well done. There are interesting\ncharacters, settings and adventures to be found, and a beautifully\ncontrolled prose style to be enjoyed. But mystery is a key element in the\nmix, and as Wolfe's mysteries often concern fantastic events, they are major\ncontributors to that sense of wonder which is a sine qua non of great\nscience fiction.\n\nIf Wolfe's aesthetic is one in which the text implies puzzles to which only\njust enough information is given to ever derive an answer, it should be\nadded that a further level of difficulty is created by Wolfe's insistence\nthat all locations in the text are equally valid for the disclosure of\ninformation. Significant items of information which, in terms of the\n\"puzzles\" presented by the text, logically belong together, may be disclosed\nto the reader many hundreds of pages apart. They may be given in any order,\nand may occur in any context. They rarely if ever occur all together in one\nplace in the correct order, and are not usually labelled as important hints,\nclues or explanations. On the contrary, they are casually let slip by the\nnarrator or other characters, and may or not be spotted by the reader, or\nindeed the narrator or other characters.\n\nThis insistence on hiding key information \"in plain sight\" assumes a high\nlevel of attentiveness and intelligence on the part of the reader. It also\nusually requires several readings. For a reader to be willing to give this\ndegree of investment, the puzzles must be sufficiently interesting in\nthemselves, and their solutions must sufficiently ingenious to satisfy the\npersistent solver. More than this, however, the other, non-puzzle elements\nin the story must be sufficiently excellent and robust to sustain interest\nand close examination. (I have to confess that I am still pondering the\nShort Sun books in this context, not only in an effort to understand them,\nbut also to determine to my own satisfaction whether they are sufficiently\ngood to warrant the difficulty of their puzzles. My personal jury is still\nout.)\n\n#3    Dynamic levels of certainty\n\nSo: only just enough information and no more, and clues scattered\neverywhere, unmarked and unsorted throughout the narrative.Wolfe certainly\nfollows these two criteria, but there seems to be yet another level of\nrefinement to his aesthetic, namely that the amount of information he\nprovides to answer the puzzles that he sets varies according to the nature\nand importance of the puzzles themselves.\n\nI discussed this with Jonathan Laidlow back in September last year, when he\nfirst mentioned Alex's essay on Wolfe and detective fiction to me. Being\nessentially lazy, I'll cut and paste here what I wrote to him then...\n\n    Any further news of Alex's projected essay?\n\n    I thought that it sounded an interesting project, being an aspect of\n    Wolfe's work which has received relatively little critical attention.\n\n    As well as the question of the use of the detective genre in Wolfe's\n    work, I'm also interested in the related issue of his use of scientific\n    method. Characters (particularly Severian) will often propose\n    several possible explanations for a phenomenon, sometimes even\n    ascribing relative probabilities to each explanation. As well as\n    using this technique to reveal something of his characters'\n    assumptions, personalities and presuppositions,\n    Wolfe himself seems to carry this technique over into the puzzles\n    he sets the reader. I mean by this that there is a spectrum of different\n    levels of certainty with which the various \"riddles\" within the stories\n    can be solved.\n\n    These levels, expressed in terms of the amount and quality of the\n    \"clues\" which Wolfe provides, relate to the importance and centrality\n    of the riddle to the story, the limitations of the characters'\nknowledge,\n    and the \"knowableness\" of the issue at stake. Amongst other things,\n    this technique allows Wolfe to deal in a quasi-scientific manner\n    with metaphysical issues which do not necessarily allow certain\n    answers. Some \"facts\" of the narrative therefore have clear, albeit\n    hidden, answers. The towers of the citadel in Nessus are spaceships.\n    Dorcas is Severian's grandmother. Other \"phenomena\" of the\n    narrative have several possible interpretations, but the weight of\n    evidence may still, cumulatively, suggest that one interpretation\n    is more correct than another. Silk may have a direct encounter\n    with God at the start of the Long Sun, or he may, as Dr Crane suggests,\n    have had a mild stroke or sub-arachnoid brain haemorrhage or\n    whatever. I would suggest that the weight of evidence points to the\n    former interpretation, but the latter remains at least a possibility.\n\n    I want to put something of this in my essay - if I ever get there - but\n    you're welcome to pass it on to Alex (preferably with an ascription!) if\n    you think that he might find it helpful.\n\nI don't know if Jonathan passed this on to you, Alex, or not, but here it\nis anyway, all these months later!\n\nAll the foregoing implies that a good, successful, Wolfe story will contain\nseveral puzzles, and that there may only be just enough to information to\nanswer the most important of those puzzles. This information will be\nscattered, often unflagged, throughout the narrative. Some puzzles may only\nbe partially solvable, and others may not be solvable at all. This lack of a\nsolution will itself be significant to the meaning of the story.\n\nThe possibility that Wolfe may set puzzles to which there are no answers may\nbe either intriguing or irritating to the reader, but is at one level part\nof his \"naturalism\". Life is often puzzling, and there are not always easy -\nor any - answers.\n\nThere. Is that any help, or have I just been mumbling in my beard again?\n\nNigel Price\nMinety, Wiltshire\nUK"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}