{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4711", "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": 4711, "subject": "Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "messages": 20, "voices": 7, "first": "2006-09-06T12:50:21+00:00", "last": "2006-09-22T22:13:15+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-09-06T12:50:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry, this is a terrible post- off topic and redundant on a tired subject. \n But in a perusal of Wolfe interviews I just found this excerpt from one \nwith Larry McCaffrey in which Gene Wolfe is almost unbelieveably clear and \nopen about a point of previous contention in here. I couldn't resist \nposting it now rather than risk me forgetting about it:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "LM: All this \"showing\" in \"V.R.T.\" is made intriguingly ambiguous by the \nconfusion about >who \"Marsch\" really is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wolfe: In the end, of course, it's important that the reader not be \nconfused about this, although >part of the fun is supposed to be figuring \nout what's happened. I leave a number of clues as to >who the narrator \nactually is. For example, both V.R.T. and the narrator are shown to be very \npoor >shots, whereas Marsch is a very good shot, and there's other hints \nlike that. If you hire a shape >changer as a guide, there's a definite \npossibility that he's going to change into your shape at some >point. Which \nis what happens." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To me this says Wolfe generally means for his puzzles to be solvable.\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000001c6d1fd$169bfb10$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2006-09-06T21:40:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "bsharp wrote, quoting Wolfe:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If you hire a shape \nchanger as a guide, there's a definite \npossibility that he's going to change into your shape at some \npoint. Which \nis what happens." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To me this says Wolfe generally means for his puzzles to be solvable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh, and to me this says that some of the people I've argued with about\n5HC just haven't read the same book as me.\n\nTo be fair, it sometimes feels like cheating to bring an external Wolfe\nquote into an argument - which is why I always try to argue directly\nfrom the books - and on occasion it can open a whole can of worms. But\nthis one really does seem unequivocal, so thanks for digging it up.\n\nOn another occasion, Wolfe has said that Marsch was replaced by one of\nthe Shadow People. I *think* he meant \"one of the Annese\", and was\naccidentally transposing a memorable name for a less memorable one,\nbecause VRT exhibits all the characteristics of the abos and none of\nthose of the Shadow People - but there you go: already I'm imposing my\nown preconceptions on an external Wolfe statement." } ] }, { "message_id": "<200609062008.49529.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-09-07T00:08:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<000001c6d1fd$169bfb10$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wednesday 06 September 2006 17:40, Tony Ellis wrote:\nbsharp wrote, quoting Wolfe:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "If you hire a shape\nchanger as a guide, there's a definite" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "possibility that he's going to change into your shape at some" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "point. Which\nis what happens." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To me this says Wolfe generally means for his puzzles to be solvable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heh, and to me this says that some of the people I've argued with about\n5HC just haven't read the same book as me.\n\nTo be fair, it sometimes feels like cheating to bring an external Wolfe\nquote into an argument - which is why I always try to argue directly\nfrom the books - and on occasion it can open a whole can of worms. But\nthis one really does seem unequivocal, so thanks for digging it up.\n\nOn another occasion, Wolfe has said that Marsch was replaced by one of\nthe Shadow People. I *think* he meant \"one of the Annese\", and was\naccidentally transposing a memorable name for a less memorable one,\nbecause VRT exhibits all the characteristics of the abos and none of\nthose of the Shadow People - but there you go: already I'm imposing my\nown preconceptions on an external Wolfe statement." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Who do you think the Shadow People are? I took it that they were the abos in \ntheir natural state." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-09-07T11:18:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<200609062008.49529.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Tony Ellis writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To be fair, it sometimes feels like cheating to bring an external Wolfe \nquote into an argument" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree because I consider everything in here, even the arguments, a \ncollaboration working toward a common goal, not competition. If you \"win\" \nwith key information omitted, it isn't much of a victory, and in fact a \nfailure, IMHO. ;-).\n\nMaking sure the quote isn't taken out of context, that I can agree with. \nPerhaps a rule should be that if you quote from an interview, the whole \nthing should be made available. I'll do that below, for this one." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From the same Larry McCaffrey interview I found this answer to a previous \nquestion about the possibility of having Wolfe's notes published someday:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "LM: Once the scope of The Book of the New Sun became obvious, you must have \nsat down at >some point and developed some kind of detailed outline." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wolfe: Actually I never use an outline when I work. Even with something \nlike The Book of the >New Sun, where there's an elaborate structure, the \noutline exists only in my head and not on >paper. The only exception to \nthat was with a book I did a while back called Free Live Free, in >which a \nlot of the action took place in an old brick house on a city street. For \nthat book I had to >draw a floor plan of the two storys of the house \nbecause otherwise I found myself getting tangled >up in such details as: \nCould you see the street from this window?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The interview is from 1988, has some interesting background on Wolfe's life \nand family as well as other topics. For those interested, here is a link \nto the whole thing:\nhttp://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/wolfe46interview.htm\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7.0.1.0.0.20060907205430.019f9b60@gmx.net>", "from": { "name": "Hmpf MacSlow", "address": "hmpf1998 at gmx.net" }, "date": "2006-09-07T18:59:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am very amused by Wolfe explaining how Severian \nwas mainly born from his desire to finally have a \ncharacter of his that people could do at masquerades:\n\n\"As I sat there being instructed I was sulking \nbecause no one had ever done one of my characters \nat a masquerade. It seemed as though I had done a \nlot of things that people could do at a \nmasquerade; but when I started to think this over \nmore carefully, I realized there were few, if \nany, characters who would fit in with what Sandra \nand the others were saying. That led me to start \nthinking about a character who would fit someone \nwho would wear simple but dramatic clothes. And \nthe very first thing that came to mind was a \ntorturer: bare chest (everybody has a chest, all \nyou have to do is take your shirt off), black \ntrousers, black boots (you can get those \nanywhere), black cloak, a mask, and a sword! Here \nwas an ideal, easy SF masquerade citizen.\"\n\n(Totally unimportant in the grand scheme of \nthings, I know, but... funny. To think that \nSeverian sprung from such, errm, mundane \nconcerns. Mundane? Well, okay, rather the \nopposite... but, you know what I mean. *g*)\n\nGreat interview. Thanks for the link.\n\nHmpf" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The interview is from 1988, has some interesting background on Wolfe's life\nand family as well as other topics. For those interested, here is a link\nto the whole thing:\nhttp://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/wolfe46interview.htm" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c6d2c6$74b4c780$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2006-09-07T21:42:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<7.0.1.0.0.20060907205430.019f9b60@gmx.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel D Jones wrote:\nWho do you think the Shadow People are? I took it that they were the\nabos\nin their natural state." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I *think* the Shadow Children - who I might not have called Shadow\nPeople if I'd drunk slightly less wine last night - are the native\ncreatures of St Anne, while the 'abos' are humans.\n\nThe reasons for this are hard to summarise, but: towards the end of 'A\nStory' The Old Wise One seems much clearer about who is who, and he says\nof his race \"Now I am half a man, and know that we were always here...\nListening without thought of our own to be men.\" \n\nSandwalker's people, he says, *came* to this world - an idea which is\nalso alluded to in the other two novellas. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<000d01c6d2ce$31597500$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2006-09-07T22:37:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c6d2c6$74b4c780$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "bsharp wrote, quoting me:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To be fair, it sometimes feels like cheating to bring an external\nWolfe \nquote into an argument" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I disagree because I consider everything in here, even the arguments, a" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "collaboration working toward a common goal, not competition. If you\n\"win\" \nwith key information omitted, it isn't much of a victory, and in fact a" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "failure, IMHO. ;-)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Possibly I didn't explain myself very well. All I meant was that we\nshould be able to solve the conventional mysteries of a Wolfe story from\nthe story alone. What Wolfe says in an interview may be very\nilluminating, but if you have to *rely* on it to prove your theory about\na story, then you've failed to understand that story. And if you don't\nhave to rely on it, then it's not key information." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-09-08T02:30:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<000d01c6d2ce$31597500$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Tony writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "we should be able to solve the conventional mysteries of a Wolfe story from \nthe story alone. What >Wolfe says in an interview may be very illuminating, \nbut if you have to *rely* on it to prove your >theory about a story, then \nyou've failed to understand that story. And if you don't\nhave to rely on it, then it's not key information." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I spy a difference in perspective and I think I've bumped into this \ndifference before (correct me if I'm wrong Tony). Perhaps it boils down to \nsome combination of subjective and objective.\n\nSome appreciators of art find the interaction between artist and audience to \nbe a sacred thing. I can appreciate this perspective since I am more like \nthat with music. I'm not highly interested in all the outside influences \nthat might have inspired a musician (especially in jazz) to play a certain \nnote at at certain time. The song is exactly as it is played, and will thus \nbe enjoyed or not by me. External context is not so important.\n\nWith literature, for me, it is different. Words, unlike notes, are \njudgeable. I feel comfortable being critical, saying \"Wolfe made this story \ntoo ambiguous with the text alone.\" I need to know Wolfe's background, \ninfluences, thinking patterns to feel I might grasp his intended meaning. In \nfact, with Wolfe I also need the help of other readers to grasp it. For me, \nwith Wolfe, all the extra stuff is \"key information\". Essential. I could \neven say that someone who ignores outside evidence or pver-elevates the \nbasic text fails to understand the story.\n\nBut I can respect anyone who prefers the sanctity of the words and the \nsacred bond that forms between reader and author when someone reads a story. \n Who undertands a cat better, a scientist who has dissected every square \nmillimeter and done exhaustive biochemical and neurological \ntesting....or...the long time owner of a cat?\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000001c6d46f$3da7bfe0$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2006-09-10T00:22:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "bsharp wrote:\nBut I can respect anyone who prefers the sanctity of the words\nand the sacred bond that forms between reader and author when\nsomeone reads a story. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're reading too much into what I've said. I don't believe in\n'the sanctity of the words', or any sacred bond between reader and\nauthor.\n\nYou seem to be talking primarily about understanding Wolfe's fiction in\nthe artistic sense - what the stories *mean*, and in that respect I have\nno problem with looking outside the stories themselves. My favourite\nlong poem in the world is Basil Bunting's autobiographical Briggflatts,\nand I know that reading about the poet's life gave me an invaluable\ninsight into it.\n\nBut, Wolfe isn't just writing works of art. He's also writing stories\nwith lots of mysteries and puzzles in them, which we are intended to\nsolve, and a lot of our time on the list is spent trying to do so. And\nin this case I do believe that our solutions to these puzzles should\ncome from the story itself. Not because the words are in some way\nsanctified, but simply because that's where Wolfe has put the clues. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370609091832x210a855btc345aabd6e926028@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-09-10T01:32:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<000001c6d46f$3da7bfe0$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adding onto what Tony says:\n\nI don't believe that the words are \"sacred\" or anything. A text is\na made thing. But I also quite firmly believe that a text is what it\nis, rather than what its writer may have wanted it to be, or indeed\nmay believe it to be. Indeed, my own experience with texts I have\nwritten have shown me that the writer may be quite unaware of\nwhat a text actually is. The best story I've published to date\nconcealed a religious message, almost an allegory, of which I\nhad no inkling when I wrote it but which was so painfully\nobvious when a reader pointed it out to me ... well, if someone\nelse had written it, I wouldn't believe their claims that it was\nnot intentional. But there you are: the text is what it is.\n\nTo that extent, then, while I don't suggest that the writer's\nexternal comments be utterly disregarded in interpreting a\ntext, those comments are of tertiary value at best. The primary\nfact, we interpret, is the text, an independent object sent into\nthe world by its writer, and the secondary means by which\nwe interpret it is by observing our encounters with the text\nas _readers_. The writer's intentions must yield pride of place\nto both the text as a fact and the encounter with the text as\nexperiential data." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nI've got a piece of braaaaain lodge in me heeead!!!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-09-10T04:44:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370609091832x210a855btc345aabd6e926028@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I can't say I strongly disagree with what Dan'l and Tony recently posted but \nfor the sake of argument I'll address a couple things (at the risk of \nstraying too far from Wolfe, sorry Ranjit!;-) )\n\nDan'l writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't believe that the words are \"sacred\" or anything. A text is a made \nthing. But I also quite >firmly believe that a text is what it is, rather \nthan what its writer may have wanted it to be, or >indeed may believe it to \nbe. Indeed, my own experience with texts I have written have shown >me that \nthe writer may be quite unaware of what a text actually is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This recognizes that an author may include unintended meanings in writing \ntext but ignores that the meaning must be found by a reader. Each \nindividual reader will find unique meaning in the text. Several individuals \nor even most of them might agree on that meaning but to say \"text is what it \nis\" seems to suggest there is some universal truth to be found in ink dots. \nI hold that text and in fact all art means nothing outside the synergy of \nunderstanding between artist and each individual audience member. Take that \naway and you have only processed wood pulp, colored liquids, sound waves, \ncarved minerals, etc. Text is what the author and the readers make it, \nright?\n\nTony writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But, Wolfe isn't just writing works of art. He's also writing stories with \nlots of mysteries and puzzles >in them, which we are intended to solve, and \na lot of our time on the list is spent trying to do so. >And in this case I \ndo believe that our solutions to these puzzles should come from the story \nitself. >Not because the words are in some way sanctified, but simply \nbecause that's where Wolfe has put >the clues." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree about the puzzles, but are you suggesting the puzzles are completely \ninternal? That an extremely intelligent reader could read BotNS as a first \nbook and solve all the mysteries with no other sources? That there is no \nneed of familiarity with the Bible, with Greek mythology, with Campbell's \nHero With A Thousand Faces, etc. etc. I'm guessing not....\n\nLacking \"at a glance\" brilliance, I admit to having a bulldog mentality when \nit comes to puzzles. I'm generally unhappy with loose ends and ambiguity \n(no I do NOT like Waiting for Godot, :-)) ). So I draw no lines on what is \nfair game in solving these puzzles, including other people's ideas and Gene \nWolfe interviews. If a clever interviewer gets him to spill too many beans, \nwell...only fair since for over 30 years Gene Wolfe has clearly had the \nupper hand.\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370609092325r32681967vb2b908e59842af15@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-09-10T06:25:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 9/9/06, b sharp wrote:\nI can't say I strongly disagree with what Dan'l and Tony recently\nposted but for the sake of argument I'll address a couple things\n(at the risk of straying too far from Wolfe, sorry Ranjit!;-) )" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I hope Ranjit (and others) will bear with this discussion -- the\nsubject of \"how to interpret\" is certainly germaine to the task\nof interpreting." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This recognizes that an author may include unintended meanings\nin writing text but ignores that the meaning must be found by a\nreader." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm, not so much. I did in fact speak of the importance of\nthe encounter of the reader with the text. I'm writing quickly and\ninformally; in point of fact, if I wanted to talk about \"meaning\"\nformally, I could _only_ talk about it in terms of what the reader\ndiscovers (or creates by interacting with the text), _not_ what\nthe writer \"intended.\" Formally, I find the writer's intentions to\nbe of almost no relevance to the generation of meaning when a\nreader decodes a text; the emphasis on the writers' intentions\nis a holdover from a Biblical hermeneutics based on the bad\ntheological idea of \"divine dictation,\" the idea that the Bible was\nactually dictated word-for-word by the Holy Spirit.\n\nBut meaning is not so much \"found\" by the reader as _made_\nby the reader interacting with the text. Meaning (a meaning, not\n\"the\" meaning) is created anew in the mind of each reader, by\nthe reader's process of interpreting. The text guides the process,\nbut the energy is provided by the reader: much as the tracks\nguides the train but the engine provides the motive energy.\n\nTo clarify: by \"text\" I mean not only the written word but any\nobject subjected to interpretation. As an interesting gedanken-\nexperiment, suppose you read a story and are moved by it,\nfind it filled with fascinating ideas, interesting characters, and\nexciting action. No author's name is attached to the text. You\ndo a bit of research, because you'd like to know more, possibly\nread more by the same writer.\n\nWhat does it mean to you if you find out that the text was...\n\n...written by an established writer?\n...written by a condemned war criminal?\n...written by a schizophrenic whose contact with consensus\n reality approaches nil?\n...written by a chimpanzee banging keys at random?\n...written by a computer program, which analyzed other texts\n syntactically and structurally, but not semantically, and\n produced a new text based on that analysis?\n...written by a computer program that claims to have achieved\n independent sentience?\n...found carved in a rock that had been buried a million years\n or more?\n\nTo me, as far as interpreting the text, the answer to any or all\nof these questions is (or should be): _next to nothing_.\n\nIn reality, it isn't. In reality, I know that some interpretations of\na Lupine text are more valid than others because I know\n(or think I do) something of Wolfe's actual beliefs and aesthetics.\nBut his intentions about a particular text? No, not really; they\nare, at best, a chimera.\n\nIncidentally, I love \"Waiting for Godot,\" but I think it's rarely\nperformed well or with understanding. Done right, it's an\nuproariously _funny_ play." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nI've got a piece of braaaaain lodge in me heeead!!!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<200609100912.50079.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-09-10T13:12:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370609091832x210a855btc345aabd6e926028@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Saturday 09 September 2006 21:32, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nAdding onto what Tony says:\n\nI don't believe that the words are \"sacred\" or anything. A text is\na made thing. But I also quite firmly believe that a text is what it\nis, rather than what its writer may have wanted it to be, or indeed\nmay believe it to be. Indeed, my own experience with texts I have\nwritten have shown me that the writer may be quite unaware of\nwhat a text actually is. The best story I've published to date\nconcealed a religious message, almost an allegory, of which I\nhad no inkling when I wrote it but which was so painfully\nobvious when a reader pointed it out to me ... well, if someone\nelse had written it, I wouldn't believe their claims that it was\nnot intentional. But there you are: the text is what it is.\n\nTo that extent, then, while I don't suggest that the writer's\nexternal comments be utterly disregarded in interpreting a\ntext, those comments are of tertiary value at best. The primary\nfact, we interpret, is the text, an independent object sent into\nthe world by its writer, and the secondary means by which\nwe interpret it is by observing our encounters with the text\nas _readers_. The writer's intentions must yield pride of place\nto both the text as a fact and the encounter with the text as\nexperiential data." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I largely agree with you on this, but I would add that one needs to \ndistinguish between the symbolism/message of a text, and the actual events \nthe text describes. What started this exchange of observations, as the \nsubject still shows, was Wolfe's comments on the issue of whether or not \nthere is an exchange of narrators in V.R.T. In this case, I'd say that \nWolfe's comments are of primary rather than tertiary value. The situation \nwould be quite different if he commented on, for example, what the book says \nabout a societies responsibilities in how they treat less advanced cultures \nor species with which they interact. I'd then agree with your position that \nhis comments are not definitive but merely suggestive at best.\n\nThere are many of Wolfe's works where a primary challenge is to determine \nexactly what occurred. If Wolfe can not answer with authority as to the \nactual events of the story he wrote, then certainly no one else can either \nand discussing or trying to solve the puzzles degenerates into instances of \nnavel gazing.\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<000001c6d4ed$e2bea380$6401a8c0@cthulhu>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2006-09-10T15:29:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<200609100912.50079.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "bsharp wrote:\nI agree about the puzzles, but are you suggesting the puzzles are\ncompletely \ninternal? That an extremely intelligent reader could read BotNS as a\nfirst \nbook and solve all the mysteries with no other sources? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Completely internal? Oh no, I think that Wolfe expects his reader to be\nfar too well-read for that to ever be the case. \n\nWhat I *don't* think, on the other hand, is that Wolfe wrote The Fifth\nHead of Cerberus thinking \"I don't need to make it clear that Victor is\na shapeshifter, because I'm going to tell everyone that in an interview\nin 15 years time.\" \n\nI don't think we're supposed to solve the mysteries Wolfe sets up by\ngoing through his interviews any more than we're supposed to solve them\nby going through his dustbins. And so to do so, for me, 'sometimes feels\nlike cheating'. It's a personal foible, not a proscription. :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l wrote:\nIncidentally, I love \"Waiting for Godot,\" but I think it's rarely\nperformed well or with understanding. Done right, it's an\nuproariously _funny_ play." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You should come here for a visit. :-) Sir Peter Hall's 50th anniversary\nproduction of Waiting for Godot was so popular last year that it has\nbeen revived for another tour, and I can vouch for the comedy, the\npathos, and the human warmth. (Sir Peter Hall directed the first ever\nEnglish language production - and the world has never been quite the\nsame since.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370609101219r2168e8afl36f672f4f3f4cd54@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-09-10T19:19:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<200609100912.50079.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 9/10/06, Daniel D Jones wrote:\nI largely agree with you on this, but I would add that one needs to\ndistinguish between the symbolism/message of a text, and the actual\nevents the text describes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An interesting but ambiguous point.\n\nDelany writes, somewhere, of a passage in one of his books\nthat begins: \"The city, now deserted...\" Due to a typo (not caught\nby the dyslexic Mr Delany), in the first several editions of the\nbook the phrase read: \"The city, not deserted...\" It was called to\nhis attention by a student writing a thesis on the paper, whose\nargument depended heavily upon the as-printed reading. That the\ncity (which certainly _appears_ to be deserted) is \"not\" deserted\nformed the root of a strong argument for a particular interpretation\nof the text.\n\nDelany's reaction was to congratulate this person on the acuity\nof his reading, agree with his interpretation ... and correct the\ntypo in future editions.\n\nWhere does the author's intention lie? Delany is, to be sure, an\noddly modest man, but that he accepts the interpretation as\ncompletely valid for the book as printed illustrates something that\nseems obvious to me: once the book is out of the writer's hands,\ninterpretation is solely the responsibility of the reader.\n\nTo put it in a slightly different light, have you read Norman\nSpinrad's THE IRON DREAM? If not, you probably should; if\nso, you'll understand what I mean when I say that, after reading\nit, you can never read a generic swords'n'sorcery novel in quite\nthe same way as before: you'll perceive in it entire classes of\nmeanings that the author almost certainly did not intend, and\nthat, just as almost-certainly, are really and truly and clearly\npresent in the texts. (THE IRON DREAM is one of the most\nbrilliantly subversive books I've _ever_ read...) One odd\nconsequence is that the (almost any) generic S&S novel is a\nsignificantly different object of interpretation in the hands of a\nreader who has read the Spinrad, from what it is in the hands\nof one who has not: yet the words on the paper have not changed,\nand certainly the author's intentions (assuming the author had\nany intentions beyond three-cents-a-word) have not..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What started this exchange of observations, as the subject still shows,\nwas Wolfe's comments on the issue of whether or not there is an\nexchange of narrators in V.R.T. In this case, I'd say that\nWolfe's comments are of primary rather than tertiary value." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll grant you secondary. If Wolfe says that there is a change of\nnarrators, and there's no evidence otherwise in the text, I'll grant\nthat Wolfe has privileged knowledge that can be usefully applied\nhere. If there's significant evidence in the text that militates against\nWolfe's interpretation, I'll argue happily that he is _not_ privileged\nas over against the text.\n\nIf a writer claims that \"What I _meant_ to say is...?\" then my\nquestion is, inevitably, \"Then why didn't you _say_ that?\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There are many of Wolfe's works where a primary challenge is to\ndetermine exactly what occurred. If Wolfe can not answer with\nauthority as to the actual events of the story he wrote, then certainly\nno one else can either" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm comfortable with that. Ambiguity is part of life. Hell, we can't\nsay for certain whether one man or several committed a murder\nin public, in front of thousands of witnesses, in Dallas in 1963.\n\"What happened?\" is never simple, and there may be no way to\nachieve a clear answer. I believe Wolfe's texts reflect this aspect\nof reality, and even if he has a clear idea of what happened, his\nwriting is so \"realistic\" in this sense that it may well be that there\nis no authoritative solution to be found in the text. If so, then that\nwon't be changed by auctorial fiats after the fact." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and discussing or trying to solve the puzzles degenerates into\ninstances of navel gazing." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Trying to solve, perhaps; but perhaps the point of the puzzle is\nnot the solution but the process of trying to solve it. Like a\nRubik's cube: when you solve it, what have you got? A cube.\nThe solution matters not at all; the process of solving (or trying\nto solve) is all.\n\nIf you have a crossword puzzle in front of you, and the answer\nis in the back of the magazine, do you immediately look at the\nanswer? I think not; the answer is itself meaningless. It is the\nprocess of solving that matters.\n\nI'm not suggesting that -- if Wolfe's cunning ambiguites _do_ have\nsolutions -- the solutions do not matter. I am, however, suggesting\nthat if they do, the value of the solutions is to a significant extent\nto be derived from the process of seeking them, and that a shortcut\nlike consulting the author deprives the solution of some of its value.\nWhen stumped, an external clue from the author may help set us\non the right path, but I won't accept the external statement as\n\"true\" until it's verified from _within_ the text." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nI've got a piece of braaaaain lodge in me heeead!!!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060921215533.25576.qmail@web54409.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-09-21T21:55:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370609091832x210a855btc345aabd6e926028@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this sort of interpretation is diversionary at best. If what an author achieves is greater (or more significant) than what he intended, then his skill as an author has failed him in some way. It may be interesting to look at what has \"slipped out\" but it would certainly not merit devoted re-reading and analysis, in my opinion. If the author's insight into his own work is less valuable than mine, then perhaps I should find someone else to read. \n\nI do agree with your sentiment that the work ought to speak for itself; Wolfe also says as much in several places. His puzzles are clearer to him than to us, though, so I don't mind when he drops a hint.\n\nI did enjoy your comments about the \"sacred\"; they brought to mind Severian's exposition on the nature of sanctity. If Wolfe is sacred because God created him (in His image), and Wolfe's urge to create gave us tBOtNS, doesn't that give it a secondhand sanctity?\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Saturday, September 9, 2006 8:32:41 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC\n\nAdding onto what Tony says:\n\nI don't believe that the words are \"sacred\" or anything. A text is\na made thing. But I also quite firmly believe that a text is what it\nis, rather than what its writer may have wanted it to be, or indeed\nmay believe it to be. Indeed, my own experience with texts I have\nwritten have shown me that the writer may be quite unaware of\nwhat a text actually is. The best story I've published to date\nconcealed a religious message, almost an allegory, of which I\nhad no inkling when I wrote it but which was so painfully\nobvious when a reader pointed it out to me ... well, if someone\nelse had written it, I wouldn't believe their claims that it was\nnot intentional. But there you are: the text is what it is.\n\nTo that extent, then, while I don't suggest that the writer's\nexternal comments be utterly disregarded in interpreting a\ntext, those comments are of tertiary value at best. The primary\nfact, we interpret, is the text, an independent object sent into\nthe world by its writer, and the secondary means by which\nwe interpret it is by observing our encounters with the text\nas _readers_. The writer's intentions must yield pride of place\nto both the text as a fact and the encounter with the text as\nexperiential data." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nI've got a piece of braaaaain lodge in me heeead!!!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adrian Robert", "address": "arobert at cogsci.ucsd.edu" }, "date": "2006-09-21T23:10:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<20060921215533.25576.qmail@web54409.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Nathan Spears wrote:\nI think this sort of interpretation is diversionary at best. If \nwhat an author achieves is greater (or more significant) than what \nhe intended, then his skill as an author has failed him in some \nway. It may be interesting to look at what has \"slipped out\" but \nit would certainly not merit devoted re-reading and analysis, in my \nopinion. If the author's insight into his own work is less \nvaluable than mine, then perhaps I should find someone else to read." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I recommend reading an excellent essay by Carl Jung on just this \nmatter, entitled \"On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to \nPoetry\". It can be found in some volumes excerpting his collected \nworks. He refutes this view on the basis of two ideas -- first, the \nwriter is not operating in a vacuum, but is a conduit through which \nspecies- and culture-universal as well as individual experiences \nflow, and second, that what is accessible to conscious control and \nintrospection can in no sense be said to make up the entire \ncontribution to a creative work as complex as a poem, let alone a \nnovel. There are just too many aspects, too many details, too many \ndimensions to suppose that the author has consciously exerted control \nover every one of them -- yet they are affected and determined \nnonetheless by the author (and that which has influenced him or her).\n\nI find this an insightful way to look at many art forms. When you \nstart thinking about works such as major films, for example, affected \nby many people, it leads to some interesting lines of thinking.." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060921234607.70077.qmail@web54408.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-09-21T23:46:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He refutes this view on the basis of two ideas -- first, the \nwriter is not operating in a vacuum, but is a conduit through which \nspecies- and culture-universal as well as individual experiences \nflow, and second, that what is accessible to conscious control and \nintrospection can in no sense be said to make up the entire \ncontribution to a creative work as complex as a poem, let alone a \nnovel. There are just too many aspects, too many details, too many \ndimensions to suppose that the author has consciously exerted control \nover every one of them -- yet they are affected and determined \nnonetheless by the author (and that which has influenced him or her).\n\nI will look for the essay, but I can agree with this on the basis of what you have said already. What I was trying to say was that this shouldn't be the most interesting, dominating aspect of the work, and be pivotal to the interpretation and understanding of it. I can't shake the feeling that proponents of this type of analysis feel that all an author's skill and craft are the part of the iceberg above the water. Maybe that is true, but if I ever become convinced that it is so, I will give up reading and find something else to occupy my time.\n\nFor instance: humans tend to pair off, male with female. This is fundamental to understanding Wolfe - probably most literature, and most civilization. To an alien species of four sexes that can mate in any three-sex combination, that would be a crucial discovery that they would need to make before they could understand tBotNS. There are less obvious subconscious drives and issues pervading tBotNS, some of which bear discussion by humans. But if I thought that any of them were more relevant to understanding the work, or were more interesting, than the drives and issues that Wolfe intended to write about, I would think that Wolfe was really not that great of an author and I would read something else." } ] }, { "message_id": "<0E4AB579-934E-4165-9E2C-7884C3F5CAF4@cogsci.ucsd.edu>", "from": { "name": "Adrian Robert", "address": "arobert at cogsci.ucsd.edu" }, "date": "2006-09-22T12:41:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<20060921234607.70077.qmail@web54408.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Nathan Spears wrote:\nHe refutes this view on the basis of two ideas -- first, the\nwriter is not operating in a vacuum, but is a conduit through which\nspecies- and culture-universal as well as individual experiences\nflow, and second, that what is accessible to conscious control and\nintrospection can in no sense be said to make up the entire\ncontribution to a creative work as complex as a poem, let alone a\nnovel. There are just too many aspects, too many details, too many\ndimensions to suppose that the author has consciously exerted control\nover every one of them -- yet they are affected and determined\nnonetheless by the author (and that which has influenced him or her).\n\nI will look for the essay, but I can agree with this on the basis \nof what you have said already. What I was trying to say was that \nthis shouldn't be the most interesting, dominating aspect of the \nwork, and be pivotal to the interpretation and understanding of \nit. I can't shake the feeling that proponents of this type of \nanalysis feel that all an author's skill and craft are the part of \nthe iceberg above the water. Maybe that is true, but if I ever \nbecome convinced that it is so, I will give up reading and find \nsomething else to occupy my time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, it's certainly everyone's right to appreciate art however they \nwould like to appreciate it. ;) And I used to hold this kind of \"art \nis communication\" (or at least \"conscious conveyance\") view myself. \nHowever, you give something up by holding to it, which is precisely \nthe ability to pick up on the full, broad and various range of \ncurrents of experience and interpretation that are channeled through \nevery artist. Some of these currents may by nature never find their \nway into conscious awareness during a particular creative process (or \nmaybe ANY creative process), but nonetheless end up being reflected \nvery powerfully in the result.\n\nPutting preferential weight on the products of the author's conscious \nefforts in some sense implies that the reader / appreciater of an art \nwork is less than 50% of the equation. There IS asymmetry in the \nrelation, but accepting a subconscious role in creation means the \ndegree to which various themes or contents resonate with the reader \n-- and the interpretations they build around them -- deserve to be on \nequal footing with the author's intent.\n\nBut I'm not explaining myself very well -- whereas Jung had a \ndifferent order of communicative skill. I'll be curious to hear, if \nyou do read the essay, how it affects your thinking.." } ] }, { "message_id": "<200609221813.15489.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-09-22T22:13:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC", "in_reply_to": "<0E4AB579-934E-4165-9E2C-7884C3F5CAF4@cogsci.ucsd.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Friday 22 September 2006 08:41, Adrian Robert wrote:\nOn Sep 21, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Nathan Spears wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "He refutes this view on the basis of two ideas -- first, the\nwriter is not operating in a vacuum, but is a conduit through which\nspecies- and culture-universal as well as individual experiences\nflow, and second, that what is accessible to conscious control and\nintrospection can in no sense be said to make up the entire\ncontribution to a creative work as complex as a poem, let alone a\nnovel. There are just too many aspects, too many details, too many\ndimensions to suppose that the author has consciously exerted control\nover every one of them -- yet they are affected and determined\nnonetheless by the author (and that which has influenced him or her).\n\nI will look for the essay, but I can agree with this on the basis\nof what you have said already. What I was trying to say was that\nthis shouldn't be the most interesting, dominating aspect of the\nwork, and be pivotal to the interpretation and understanding of\nit. I can't shake the feeling that proponents of this type of\nanalysis feel that all an author's skill and craft are the part of\nthe iceberg above the water. Maybe that is true, but if I ever\nbecome convinced that it is so, I will give up reading and find\nsomething else to occupy my time." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, it's certainly everyone's right to appreciate art however they\nwould like to appreciate it. ;) And I used to hold this kind of \"art\nis communication\" (or at least \"conscious conveyance\") view myself.\nHowever, you give something up by holding to it, which is precisely\nthe ability to pick up on the full, broad and various range of\ncurrents of experience and interpretation that are channeled through\nevery artist. Some of these currents may by nature never find their\nway into conscious awareness during a particular creative process (or\nmaybe ANY creative process), but nonetheless end up being reflected\nvery powerfully in the result.\n\nPutting preferential weight on the products of the author's conscious\nefforts in some sense implies that the reader / appreciater of an art\nwork is less than 50% of the equation. There IS asymmetry in the\nrelation, but accepting a subconscious role in creation means the\ndegree to which various themes or contents resonate with the reader\n-- and the interpretations they build around them -- deserve to be on\nequal footing with the author's intent.\n\nBut I'm not explaining myself very well -- whereas Jung had a\ndifferent order of communicative skill. I'll be curious to hear, if\nyou do read the essay, how it affects your thinking.." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Which brings us back full circle to the point I originally made - that there \nis a significant difference in relying on the author as an authority when one \nis trying to appreciate art and when one is trying to solve a puzzle as to \nthe actual events that occur in the story. Appreciating Wolfe as an artist \nis quite a different endeavor from solving Wolfe's puzzle. If Wolfe makes \nsome sort of definitive statement about the artistic value of one of his \nworks, then I'm not going to ignore him but I'm not going to consider the \nmatter closed either. However, when Wolfe says that the author of V.R.T was \nindeed replaced by a shapeshifter, then I DO consider that matter closed." } ] } ] }