Nice post.
I generally agree with what you say about "the author's stated intentions or explanations of a text," for two reasons. The first is what Tolkien and Lewis called the "Personal Heresy," the idea that the most important tool for interpreting a text is the author's biography; the second is that I have experienced people finding meanings in texts of mine which I never (consciously) put there but which, when pointed out to me, made complete sense.
But that latter is why I refuse the idea that facts about the author are completely irrelevant. The meaning which was pointed out to me had to do with some of my most deeply-held beliefs.
My position, then, is this: the writer's worldview cannot help but inform the way he writes about the world, and the type of meaning s/he consciously or unconsciously uses to structure his/her materials.
This does not mean, for example, that "the meaning" of every Lupine text must be Catholic-Orthodox; in fact, given some of his texts, that would be ludicrous. But it does mean that his deeply held Catholic beliefs (as well as his other deeply-held beliefs, including his conservatism and his engineering orientation) will be involved with his creation of worlds. Just as important, however, is his close control over what his narrators believe about their worlds.
Take TWK as an example: On the one hand, the cosmology of TWK is clearly not Christian. On the other, it seems to be a non-Christian cosmology embedded in a larger Christian cosmology. Does that make it a "Christian book?" I think not; that "larger cosmology" is too attenuated to be even visible to most casual readers. Certainly Able never works that one out.
In this context, I think it is interesting that the only parts of the Solar cycle in which explicitly "supernatural" events take place is the Long Sun, and the third-person sections of RttW. The "miraculous" events in both the New and Short Suns have quasi-scientific/engineering explanations either on display or shortly below the surface. (Indeed, even the most important "miracle" in Long Sun, Silk's enlightenment, is offered a rationalistic explanation by Crane: though I believe that we are to understand that the narrator rejects that explanation.) The reason this is important is because these are precisely the parts of the Solar Cycle narrated by someone who was not present at the events in question. Wolfe may be making a point about the mythopoeic process here.
Some specific comments.
2 quoted lines
Personally, I
have to say that any text that can only be understood in relation to something outside of it (an interview, a conversation with the author, etc.) is a flawed text.
It seems to me that no text can be understood purely on its own terms. All(?) texts (and this is certainly true of Wolfe) depend on allusion to other texts to help produce their overall richness.
1 quoted line
Wolfe makes the problem of the intentional fallacy particularly...problematic.
Indeed: but then, I have always regarded it as problematic. Intentionality isn't a binary function, it's a cloudy range, from pure allegory (such as Pilgrim's Progress), where to ignore the author's intentions is to misread; to quasi-allegorical works (like Narnia and "Leaf by Niggle"), where the author's intention controls the reading pretty closely; to stories (like To Kill a Mockingbird) where the author's intention is clear but other meanings are plausible; all the way to the sort of work (mostly "pure entertainment" like pulp fiction) where the author deliberately disclaims any intentions and attempts to act as a transparent reporter.
Where on this scale does Wolfe fall? (Which Lupine text?)
2 quoted lines
With puzzles, the author is always right. With interpretation,
that's less always the case. But with many of Wolfe's stories, it's difficult to tell when we just haven't understood the clues and when we're dealing with an ambiguity that requires an act of interpretation on the reader's part. ... The difficulty with Wolfe is that it's often hard to tell where the one stops and the other begins.
Indeed, in interpreting Wolfe it is often difficult to tell what is a "puzzle" and what is "interpretation." For example: there is intriguing (if not necessarily compelling) textual evidence, e.g., for the "Horn died in the pit/the Neighbors are the trees" set of theories. If Wolfe deliberately planted this evidence and expects the clever reader to find it and understand that Horn did die in the pit and that the Neighbors are the trees, then it's a puzzle. But the answer to that puzzle radically changes the legitimate space for interpreting the text!
2 quoted lines
(To make this relate to Wright, I think he's has every right to read New Sun
against the religious meaning many of us might assume Wolfe intended. If that's the reading the text ultimately supports - and, granted, that's the point of the debate with him - then that's what it supports. It doesn't matter at all what Wolfe thought he was writing or what we'd like it to mean if the text ultimately goes in a Wright's direction. Lot of *IF*s there, of course, but I think it's just really bad logic to say that Wright has to be wrong, a priori, because Wolfe is Catholic or because he's said in interviews that the book has a "true" religious meaning, or what have you. It always has to go back to the best reading of the books as we have them.)
Agreed so far as you go. But I think that a useful/interesting reading needs to take the author's worldview into account, even if it ultimately shows that the author has "betrayed" his/her intentions and written something inconsistent with them. In fact, if I understand correctly, the claim that it is (almost) always possible to show that (almost) any author has done so is the key (one might say the hinge) of the Deconstructionist movement in criticism. Then -- again, not having read Wright, this is pure speculation -- if Wright is saying, "Wolfe may believe X, but his text says ~X," I'm good with that; but if Wright is simply ignoring Wolfe's worldview, I think he's off the rails.
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes