{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6081", "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": 6081, "subject": "theories", "messages": 43, "voices": 12, "first": "2011-10-23T15:29:50+00:00", "last": "2011-11-02T19:32:36+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<4EA432EE.9060907@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-10-23T15:29:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would like to say a few words as well -\n\nI mostly agree with Gerry when I look and wonder at the endless \ndiscussions where (almost)\neverybody tries to push forward his own theory and usually pays very little\nattention to the solidity of his own arguments" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you (and some others) greatly misunderstand the nature of \nWolfe’s books. You seem to think >of them as some sort of puzzle in \nwhich a hidden underlying story, cloned from some ancient myth or \nother, is disguised as a science fiction story. The object (you think) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "is to peel away the extraneous >matter and locate the crossword clues to \nthe true story you think is lurking underneath. You clutch at >every \npossible classical reference because with those there’s always some way \nto play six degrees of >Kevin Bacon towards whatever scheme you are \ntrying to impose on the story." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why would Wolfe engage in a complicated, arbitrary, pointless scheme \nsuch as this? He is writing >his own stories." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are especially many theories trying to declare that different \npersonages are\nidentical, many theories trying to see incest everywhere... And theories \nare often so similar -\nit reminds me a short story where a poor guy wanted to kill himself\nand invented more and more methods - then went to a priest (the poor guy\nwas a believer) to ask, whether this new method is a suicide. Of course \nthe answer\nwas \"yes\" - and he tried to invent another.\n\nQuestion: the popularity of such theories, is it in some way a \nconsequence of American cultural environment/tradition? I have seen a \nvery similar situation at Nabokov's Forum, and much less - in the Forums \nthat are mostly European or Russian (they have of course their own \nobsessive trends).\n\nBest regards,\n\nSergei Soloviev" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T16:35:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA432EE.9060907@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nThere are especially many theories trying to declare that different personages are\nidentical." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well if people weren't always appearing masked, in disguise, or spying on Severian, then I'd see where you are coming from.\n\nWolfe's works most definitely ARE puzzles to be solved. He hides things in plain sight and assumes his readers will try to solve the mysteries he lays out. BotNS couldn't be a better example of this type of story.\n\nI'm more concerned by naysayers who dare to presume that either 1) they know the material so well that those who still theorize have nothing valuable to offer; or (worse) 2) they believe they have figured it all out and anyone who offers a new line of thought is somehow beneath their literary prowess.\n\nInire is the most talked about, least seen character in the series. He is elusive yet somehow omnipresent. He is also (for no apparent reason) called Father. Do you really believe if is our of line to explore his character at length?\n\nTsk tsk.\n\nAnd finally, there is nothing more disrespectful in literature discussion than to tell someone how they should or should not read a book, ESPECIALLY a Wolfe book. Give me a break. None of us are so all-knowing as to pass that kind of judgment. If you don't like people using an Urth discussion list to discuss theories related to Urth, maybe you're subscribed to the wrong list. I can think of no more appropriate place to have such spirited discussions. \n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA44518.5020506@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-10-23T16:47:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Ryan,\n\nI only told that I mostly agree with Gerry (and quoted him). I think \nthat more balance between\ngenerating theories and verifying them would be good. I don't think it is\noffensive. Also, I don't think that to ask how our cultural background may\ninfluence our ideas is offensive - and that it is bad to analyse \nourselves a bit.\nThe lists needs theories - and critical attitude as well.\n\nBest regards\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ryan Dunn wrote:\nOn Oct 23, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There are especially many theories trying to declare that different personages are\nidentical.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well if people weren't always appearing masked, in disguise, or spying on Severian, then I'd see where you are coming from.\n\nWolfe's works most definitely ARE puzzles to be solved. He hides things in plain sight and assumes his readers will try to solve the mysteries he lays out. BotNS couldn't be a better example of this type of story.\n\nI'm more concerned by naysayers who dare to presume that either 1) they know the material so well that those who still theorize have nothing valuable to offer; or (worse) 2) they believe they have figured it all out and anyone who offers a new line of thought is somehow beneath their literary prowess.\n\nInire is the most talked about, least seen character in the series. He is elusive yet somehow omnipresent. He is also (for no apparent reason) called Father. Do you really believe if is our of line to explore his character at length?\n\nTsk tsk.\n\nAnd finally, there is nothing more disrespectful in literature discussion than to tell someone how they should or should not read a book, ESPECIALLY a Wolfe book. Give me a break. None of us are so all-knowing as to pass that kind of judgment. If you don't like people using an Urth discussion list to discuss theories related to Urth, maybe you're subscribed to the wrong list. I can think of no more appropriate place to have such spirited discussions. \n\n...ryan\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T16:59:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA44518.5020506@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I just mean that a half baked theory or a start of a theory is just as valid to posit on this list than a fully thought through fact checked cross referenced five year theory is.\n\nI notice a lot of naysaying rather than encouragement or informed disagreement lately, that's all.\n\nI could be misinterpreting though.\n\nAnd it appeared you were agreeing with Gerrys note which, in short, took a certain view of people who apparently were reading Wolfe the wrong way. That seems kind of close minded and elitist to the untrained eye.\n\n...ryan" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nDear Ryan,\n\nI only told that I mostly agree with Gerry (and quoted him). I think that more balance between\ngenerating theories and verifying them would be good. I don't think it is\noffensive. Also, I don't think that to ask how our cultural background may\ninfluence our ideas is offensive - and that it is bad to analyse ourselves a bit.\nThe lists needs theories - and critical attitude as well.\n\nBest regards\n\nSergei\n\nRyan Dunn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "There are especially many theories trying to declare that different personages are\nidentical.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well if people weren't always appearing masked, in disguise, or spying on Severian, then I'd see where you are coming from.\n\nWolfe's works most definitely ARE puzzles to be solved. He hides things in plain sight and assumes his readers will try to solve the mysteries he lays out. BotNS couldn't be a better example of this type of story.\n\nI'm more concerned by naysayers who dare to presume that either 1) they know the material so well that those who still theorize have nothing valuable to offer; or (worse) 2) they believe they have figured it all out and anyone who offers a new line of thought is somehow beneath their literary prowess.\n\nInire is the most talked about, least seen character in the series. He is elusive yet somehow omnipresent. He is also (for no apparent reason) called Father. Do you really believe if is our of line to explore his character at length?\n\nTsk tsk.\n\nAnd finally, there is nothing more disrespectful in literature discussion than to tell someone how they should or should not read a book, ESPECIALLY a Wolfe book. Give me a break. None of us are so all-knowing as to pass that kind of judgment. If you don't like people using an Urth discussion list to discuss theories related to Urth, maybe you're subscribed to the wrong list. I can think of no more appropriate place to have such spirited discussions. \n...ryan\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA44D1E.8000703@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-10-23T17:21:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am not against theories as such - I posted this because a) I had a \nfeeling that much more\npeople are attacking Gerry than agree with him (and I rather agree - I \ndo not\nspeak about \"elitistic\" or \"not elitistic\" thinking but about concrete \narguments),\nb) a bit earlier, somebody told that it is is \"not honest to dismiss \nevidence\" addressing\nit to Gerry - I felt that it is rather strong wording - while quite \noften the authors\nof theories dismiss evidence that is against their theories - I see it \nevery day on the list;\nby the way Gerry answered in very detailed way - producing evidence, c) \nI do like Wolfe\nvery much and read and re-read his books often - and I think that he \nuses puzzles\nonly when he has a message to pass (and it is helped by this puzzle),\nnot just for the sake of that puzzle,\nand d) as to the the theories that I don't like - usually I don't like \nthem because they destroy\nor obscure the \"wolfean\" message - for example, if you first say that \nInire is sort of diabolic\npersonage, and then start to identify him with the poor guy who looked \nfor Dorcas\nin the lake of birds (grandfather of Severian) - it sounds to me like \nPolyanski in\n\"Rosemary's baby\" (and his followers), not like Wolfe.\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ryan Dunn wrote:\nI just mean that a half baked theory or a start of a theory is just as valid to posit on this list than a fully thought through fact checked cross referenced five year theory is.\n\nI notice a lot of naysaying rather than encouragement or informed disagreement lately, that's all.\n\nI could be misinterpreting though.\n\nAnd it appeared you were agreeing with Gerrys note which, in short, took a certain view of people who apparently were reading Wolfe the wrong way. That seems kind of close minded and elitist to the untrained eye.\n\n...ryan\n\nOn Oct 23, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dear Ryan,\n\nI only told that I mostly agree with Gerry (and quoted him). I think that more balance between\ngenerating theories and verifying them would be good. I don't think it is\noffensive. Also, I don't think that to ask how our cultural background may\ninfluence our ideas is offensive - and that it is bad to analyse ourselves a bit.\nThe lists needs theories - and critical attitude as well.\n\nBest regards\n\nSergei\n\nRyan Dunn wrote:\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\n\n \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "There are especially many theories trying to declare that different personages are\nidentical.\n \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Well if people weren't always appearing masked, in disguise, or spying on Severian, then I'd see where you are coming from.\n\nWolfe's works most definitely ARE puzzles to be solved. He hides things in plain sight and assumes his readers will try to solve the mysteries he lays out. BotNS couldn't be a better example of this type of story.\n\nI'm more concerned by naysayers who dare to presume that either 1) they know the material so well that those who still theorize have nothing valuable to offer; or (worse) 2) they believe they have figured it all out and anyone who offers a new line of thought is somehow beneath their literary prowess.\n\nInire is the most talked about, least seen character in the series. He is elusive yet somehow omnipresent. He is also (for no apparent reason) called Father. Do you really believe if is our of line to explore his character at length?\n\nTsk tsk.\n\nAnd finally, there is nothing more disrespectful in literature discussion than to tell someone how they should or should not read a book, ESPECIALLY a Wolfe book. Give me a break. None of us are so all-knowing as to pass that kind of judgment. If you don't like people using an Urth discussion list to discuss theories related to Urth, maybe you're subscribed to the wrong list. I can think of no more appropriate place to have such spirited discussions. \n...ryan\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T17:33:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Ryan Dunn " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And it appeared you were agreeing with Gerrys note which, in short,\ntook a certain view of people who apparently were reading Wolfe\nthe wrong way. That seems kind of close minded and elitist to the\nuntrained eye." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I’m sorry if it bothers you that I think there are right approaches and wrong ones. But it seems to me that all approaches to understanding Wolfe — or any author — cannot be equally useful. I think reading his works as cryptic crossword puzzles and brainstorming for clues is an approach that is unlikely to be effective.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<706D79F9-4901-43B6-A636-7881B99925D7@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T18:04:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I’m sorry if it bothers you that I think there are right approaches and wrong ones." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "- But who gets to decide which are which, Gerry? Sergio, for instance, doesn't like Inire as boatman because it reminds him more of Roman Polanski than Gene Wolfe. Who is to define and uphold what \"Wolfean\" means and to what extent? You? Me? Sergio? Most certainly NOT." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But it seems to me that all approaches to understanding Wolfe — or any author — cannot be equally useful." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "- Again, who's approach do you endorse besides your own? Who gets to decide what is useful and what is fruitless? You? Me? What if you have it wrong? What if Gene called you up and told you you had it wrong and were reading it wrong and that Agia is a robot and Inire is Fechin? Then what?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think reading his works as cryptic crossword puzzles and brainstorming for clues is an approach that is unlikely to be effective." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "- I'd say you couldn't be more off base here, Gerry. Sorry. His BotNS series is most DEFINITELY an enigma wrapped inside a mystery, and meant to be studied and analyzed over time. Gene truly expected the reader to infer everything you learned in UotNS within the first four volumes, which means there likely are/were shape shifters in the original volume, and Severian likely had a child with a hierodule.\n\n- As for brainstorming for clues, who is doing that? Asking whether someone things a part of the text is a clue is different from brainstorming unique ones. Sometimes you need some help in parsing a line of thought, or interpreting the substance (or lack thereof) of this occurrence or the other.\n\n- I'm really not personally offended here, just surprised that someone on an Urth discussion list would be so presumptuous as to decree the right and wrong way to read a book.\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA45A8F.5010104@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-10-23T18:18:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<706D79F9-4901-43B6-A636-7881B99925D7@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Ryan,\n\nI see the flaw in the theory that the boatman is Inire because the\nit was suggested before that Inire has some diabolic aspects\n(the authors of this theory tried to identify him also with the\n\"healer\" in Vodalus army who drained the boy and indulged\nalso in \"sadopedophilic\" practices with him), and it would mean\nthat Severian has, at least partly, diabolic origin. It is this\ntheory that reminds me Polyanski and seems not compatible\nwith the message of Gene Wolfe. It is not\nthe question, whether the boatman reminds me about Polyanski,\nit is the question of the theory that does. And it is not just a \nquestion of arbitrary decision\n(my arbitrariness against yours).\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ryan Dunn wrote:\nI’m sorry if it bothers you that I think there are right approaches \nand wrong ones. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- But who gets to decide which are which, Gerry? Sergio, for instance, \ndoesn't like Inire as boatman because it reminds him more of Roman \nPolanski than Gene Wolfe. Who is to define and uphold what \"Wolfean\" \nmeans and to what extent? You? Me? Sergio? Most certainly NOT." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But it seems to me that all approaches to understanding Wolfe — or \nany author — cannot be equally useful." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- Again, who's approach do you endorse besides your own? Who gets to \ndecide what is useful and what is fruitless? You? Me? What if you have \nit wrong? What if Gene called you up and told you you had it wrong and \nwere reading it wrong and that Agia is a robot and Inire is Fechin? \nThen what?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think reading his works as cryptic crossword puzzles and \nbrainstorming for clues is an approach that is unlikely to be effective." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- I'd say you couldn't be more off base here, Gerry. Sorry. His BotNS \nseries is most DEFINITELY an enigma wrapped inside a mystery, and \nmeant to be studied and analyzed over time. Gene truly expected the \nreader to infer everything you learned in UotNS within the first four \nvolumes, which means there likely are/were shape shifters in the \noriginal volume, and Severian likely had a child with a hierodule.\n\n- As for brainstorming for clues, who is doing that? Asking whether \nsomeone things a part of the text is a clue is different from \nbrainstorming unique ones. Sometimes you need some help in parsing a \nline of thought, or interpreting the substance (or lack thereof) of \nthis occurrence or the other.\n\n- I'm really not personally offended here, just surprised that someone \non an Urth discussion list would be so presumptuous as to decree the \nright and wrong way to read a book.\n\n...ryan\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1319396182.73464.YahooMailClassic@web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T18:56:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA45A8F.5010104@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Sun, 10/23/11, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nFrom: Sergei SOLOVIEV \nSubject: Re: (urth) theories\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Sunday, October 23, 2011, 11:18 AM\nDear Ryan,\n\nI see the flaw in the theory that the boatman is Inire\nbecause the\nit was suggested before that Inire has some diabolic\naspects\n(the authors of this theory tried to identify him also with\nthe\n\"healer\" in Vodalus army who drained the boy and indulged\nalso in \"sadopedophilic\" practices with him), and it would\nmean\nthat Severian has, at least partly, diabolic origin. It is\nthis\ntheory that reminds me Polyanski and seems not compatible\nwith the message of Gene Wolfe. It is not\nthe question, whether the boatman reminds me about\nPolyanski,\nit is the question of the theory that does. And it is not\njust a question of arbitrary decision\n(my arbitrariness against yours).\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My problem with all this is simply dismissing evidence in the text. I don't like James' Tussah as Typhon because Silk and Chenille don't look alike, its an insurmountable block for me (Silk's face on Pas at end of Exodus), but his explanation for the password Thetis is SPOT ON.\n\nI don't like dismissing an italicized part in Suzanne Delage that claims extraordinary events will be forgotten, then moving naturally to assuming that the narrator has remembered one such extraordinary event. I don't like ignoring dream statements like Mother was Hyacinth was Kypris was Chenille was Mamelta when you have other evidence in the text that can make those statements actually true (it doesn't say Mother was Saba, for example, or someone never possessed by Kypris). I don't like assuming that Trees that eat trees that eat trees can't be getting genetic material from the things they eat when inhumi DO get some geneticamaterial from their diet. \n\nDismissing text based evidence as dreamlike, only metaphor, or flat is simply not conducive to any explication at all. If Wolfe tells us everything, we don't need this discussion list. Not that everyone is right, but I do think there is interpretive work to be done in almost every Wolfe story when details start to accumulate." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Mason", "address": "andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T19:01:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "<1319396182.73464.YahooMailClassic@web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ryan Dunn wrote:\nThere are especially many theories trying to declare that different personages are\nidentical." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well if people weren't always appearing masked, in disguise, or spying on Severian, then I'd see where you are coming from.\n\nWolfe's works most definitely ARE puzzles to be solved. He hides things in plain sight and assumes his readers will try to solve the mysteries he lays out. BotNS couldn't be a better example of this type of story." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No one is disputing that Wolfe's works _contain_ puzzles to be solved.\n Sometimes, as various remarks by him make clear, this is because he\noverestimates our intelligence and expects various things to be\nobvious to us when they are not. Other times he does actually seem to\nbe hiding things as a challenge. I think, for instance, that we are\nprobably meant to be able to trace more of Severian's family tree than\nwe have so far successfully done, and to work out the names of some of\nthe conspicuously unnamed characters\n\nOn the other hand, there are things that are initially mysterious but\nare actually solved quite openly by the end. I think much of the\nmystery of Inire is of this sort. He is tracking and guiding Severian,\nsecretly at first. But we know he is cahoots with the Autarch; we know\nwhat end the Autarch is working towards (because he tells us); we know\nwhat prompted the Autarch to start doing so - the visit of 'Paeon' on\nthe night of Severian's visit to the House Azure; and given that\nPaeon's relationship to the Autarch resembles that of Malrubius to\nSeverian, it's reasonable to think that he is an aquastor and has been\nsent by the Hierogrammates. So by the end, we have a fair idea of what\nis happening. To be sure, this does not explain everything about Inire\n- for instance, why he is called 'Father'. (I do find the idea that he\nis an avatar of the author attractive as an answer to this.) But the\nair of total mystery that surrounds him is easy to exaggerate, I\nthink.\n\nWhat I think worries Gerry and Sergei, and me, is the thought (which\npeople may not be intending to imply, but is the sense that I often\nget from some theories) that the _entire_ story is a puzzle; that\neverything is below the surface, and a straightforward reading will\njust give us no idea of what is going on. This is worrying, because it\nseems to imply that 99.9% of readers of Wolfe's works have no idea\nwhat they are about. Moreover, it suggests that those of us who think\nthat quite a large part of the story is visible on the surface are\nreading in an inadequate way; I have more than once seen the\nsuggestion that we are treating it as a 'ripping yarn'; whereas I\nthink that the visible stories often have real depth, which theories\nof hidden meaning sometimes detract from.\n\nFor instance, I think that a major theme of _Long Sun_ is God's\nrevelation of himself to a world from which he has long been hidden.\nThe basic point is made clear on the first page (though not absolutely\nclear at first, of course, since it takes time to work out who the\nOutsider is). Silk was already special, which is why the Outsider\nchose him rather than any of the other augurs in Viron, but his\nsuper-duper-specialness comes from the Outsider; and I think theories\nthat attempt to explain his significance in some other way often play\ndown this dimension of the work." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm more concerned by naysayers who dare to presume that either 1) they know the material so well that those who still theorize have nothing valuable to offer; or (worse) 2) they believe they have figured it all out and anyone who offers a new line of thought is somehow beneath their literary prowess." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But I don't think anyone is objecting to all new theories. The\nobjection is to specific theories, and the way they relate to the\nevidence." } ] }, { "message_id": "<955EB970-3FC2-44BF-9426-6AB4B74437E6@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T19:05:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA45A8F.5010104@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nDear Ryan,\n\nI see the flaw in the theory that the boatman is Inire because the\nit was suggested before that Inire has some diabolic aspects\n(the authors of this theory tried to identify him also with the\n\"healer\" in Vodalus army who drained the boy and indulged\nalso in \"sadopedophilic\" practices with him), and it would mean\nthat Severian has, at least partly, diabolic origin. It is this\ntheory that reminds me Polyanski and seems not compatible\nwith the message of Gene Wolfe. It is not\nthe question, whether the boatman reminds me about Polyanski,\nit is the question of the theory that does. And it is not just a question of arbitrary decision\n(my arbitrariness against yours).\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So why was the friend of Thecla so frightened by Inire when he shows her his mirrors (a creepily staged scene if ever there was one) if he did not have a somewhat diabolical reputation?\n\nIt's not a stretch for me to put Inire in the jungle as the shaman. And I do not feel the recurrence of mysterious old monkey looking men is something we should be so quick to dismiss.\n\nI didn't mean to be derisively truncated with your stance on the boatman, I was just demonstrating that different readers have different reasons for believing different things.\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Mason", "address": "andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T19:35:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<955EB970-3FC2-44BF-9426-6AB4B74437E6@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini wrote:\nMy problem with all this is simply dismissing evidence in the text. ?I don't like James' Tussah as Typhon because Silk and Chenille don't look alike, its an insurmountable block for me (Silk's face on Pas at end of Exodus), but his explanation for the password Thetis is SPOT ON." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I think this depends on the kind of theory. Your tree theory is\npresented in order to explain evidence, and you have listed the\nevidence it is meant to explain. I'm not yet sure how effectively it\nexplains the evidence, and whether the evidence could be explained\nmore economically, and whether perhaps parts of the theory could be\ndetached while others remained. But I couldn't dismiss it simply in\nthe grounds that it reminds me of Polanski. But some other theories\nseem to be more driven by a conviction about the sort of work _New\nSun_ is; and I think it makes perfect sense to reject them on the\nbasis of an opposed conviction about the sort of work _New Sun_ is." } ] }, { "message_id": "<0B4E566A-FFB3-42AF-A0CB-1E8ECB3AFEE3@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T20:22:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:\nWhat I think worries Gerry and Sergei, and me, is the thought (which\npeople may not be intending to imply, but is the sense that I often\nget from some theories) that the _entire_ story is a puzzle; that\neverything is below the surface, and a straightforward reading will\njust give us no idea of what is going on. This is worrying, because it\nseems to imply that 99.9% of readers of Wolfe's works have no idea\nwhat they are about. Moreover, it suggests that those of us who think\nthat quite a large part of the story is visible on the surface are\nreading in an inadequate way; I have more than once seen the\nsuggestion that we are treating it as a 'ripping yarn'; whereas I\nthink that the visible stories often have real depth, which theories\nof hidden meaning sometimes detract from." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Andrew,\n\nI have to disagree again. I think that the story functions on a few levels. There is clearly the hero quest which is most accessible on the surface. The page turning element, if you will. Nobody disputes the fact that there is a torturer's apprentice who becomes the next Autarch and eventually becomes bringer of the New Sun.\n\nHowever, on the second level, there is the context of the story, which Gene has quite a lot of fun subverting through the subjectivity of his narrator. The Citadel being an old ship yard, the soldier with a staff being an astronaut on the moon. The fact that you feel like you're reading a medieval story fraught with baroque imagery and guilds and masters and sneaky wizards wielding shifty magic; when in fact this is a distant future on a future cycle of a similar universe.\n\nThen there is a third level, which re-evaluates just what exactly is going on with Severian. Who is he? What machinations are luring around the corner? Who might be pulling the strings? What's with all of the mysterious actions and appearances of characters? Why are people guiding and spying on him?\n\nI think this third element is extremely valid and highly informative to how to interact with the story. Of course, you can leave it alone after a first reading satisfied, or read it a second time with a wry smile as you see things that he was hiding in plain sight the first time around. Nobody suggests otherwise. But it is hard to dispute the reality that \"nothing is what it seems\" is something Wolfe is interested in here and in other works.\n\nAnyhow, that is my interpretation. And I have a feeling that (like Peter Weir's Truman Show), there is much more string pulling going on than some people might think. The hiero's have a vested interest in Severian's success, and would likely go to any length to ensure resotration of the New Sun. If you believe this, then turn Severian's whole life into one big puppet show, you have a very interesting and very valid way to reinterpret the going's on.\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA483C7.3050702@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T21:14:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ryan Dunn wrote (23-10-2011 17:59):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And it appeared you were agreeing with Gerrys note which, in short, took\na certain view of people who apparently were reading Wolfe the wrong way.\nThat seems kind of close minded and elitist to the untrained eye." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think the quote by Sergei did that. It merely depicts how some - in \nparticular, Lee, that I can see - approach the works. It's descriptive, not \njudgemental (it may turn judgemental later on - I don't know, I'm just \nreporting to the part Sergei quoted). Now, if someone finds the description \noffensive, that's not the describer's fault. One might argue the description \nis inaccurate, but I don't think anybody will. For my part, all the power to \neveryone, regardless of their approaches; but I think it's healthy to know \nhow each one goes on about constructing their theories.\n\nThis list has in recent years surprised me as a place where people are \noverly sensitive about having their theories questioned. Also as a place \nwhere people seem to think that if you haven't a rival theory, you have no \nbusiness discussing the theories of others. I don't think either stance is \nreasonable." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA48479.5080408@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T21:17:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<1319396182.73464.YahooMailClassic@web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc Aramini wrote (23-10-2011 19:56):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dismissing text based evidence as dreamlike, only metaphor, or flat is\nsimply not conducive to any explication at all. If Wolfe tells us\neverything, we don't need this discussion list. Not that everyone is\nright, but I do think there is interpretive work to be done in almost\nevery Wolfe story when details start to accumulate." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "These are very good points. (The point where I depart from Gerry is that I\ndo think there's noatloads of mysteries to solve, and hints not to dismiss, \neven if he's right that sometimes people see hints and mysteries where there \nare none.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA48523.2080209@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T21:20:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Andrew Mason wrote (23-10-2011 20:35):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My problem with all this is simply dismissing evidence in the text. I don't like James' Tussah as Typhon because Silk and Chenille don't look alike, its an insurmountable block for me (Silk's face on Pas at end of Exodus), but his explanation for the password Thetis is SPOT ON." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, I think this depends on the kind of theory. Your tree theory is\npresented in order to explain evidence, and you have listed the\nevidence it is meant to explain. I'm not yet sure how effectively it\nexplains the evidence, and whether the evidence could be explained\nmore economically, and whether perhaps parts of the theory could be\ndetached while others remained. But I couldn't dismiss it simply in\nthe grounds that it reminds me of Polanski." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's partly what I meant when I said Marc's approach was holmesian." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T21:23:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<706D79F9-4901-43B6-A636-7881B99925D7@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Ryan Dunn " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn\nI’m sorry if it bothers you that I think there are right approaches and wrong ones. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- But who gets to decide which are which, Gerry? Sergio, for instance, \ndoesn't like Inire as boatman because it reminds him more of Roman \nPolanski than Gene Wolfe. Who is to define and uphold what \"Wolfean\" \nmeans and to what extent? You? Me? Sergio? Most certainly NOT." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It will ultimately be decided by what works. As for Inire as the old boatman, I really don’t understand why people take such ideas seriously. Can somebody explain how they understand Dorcas? character and story in this picture? Married to a rich and powerful alien, running a small shop selling lace or something I think, going back to find him in the slums of Nessus after being resurrected — and *finding* him. Oh yes, and he’s still running the secret service from the House Absolute all the time, even after dying in Dorcas’s arms in the slums of Nessus. Does Dorcas mention anything about an alien lover? And wouldn’t she have married a young man, even if he is old now? Why couldn’t he save her? Yet the fact of him being old and wizened seems to be one of the supposed signifiers of his identity (like that’s rare or something). I guess he made himself look young that one time?\n\nDo we think about Dorcas’s story, or just ignore it because of all the loose ends that fall into place when her husband is Inire? Loose ends like... just what, exactly?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But it seems to me that all approaches to understanding Wolfe — or any\nauthor — cannot be equally useful." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- Again, who's approach do you endorse besides your own? Who \ngets to decide what is useful and what is fruitless? You? Me? What\nif you have it wrong? What if Gene called you up and told you you \nhad it wrong and were reading it wrong and that Agia is a robot and\nInire is Fechin? Then what?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So tell me. Where’s all this “Inire is the boatman stuff” getting us?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think reading his works as cryptic crossword puzzles and brainstorming\nfor clues is an approach that is unlikely to be effective." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- I'd say you couldn't be more off base here, Gerry. Sorry. His BotNS\nseries is most DEFINITELY an enigma wrapped inside a mystery, and\nmeant to be studied and analyzed over time. Gene truly expected the\nreader to infer everything you learned in UotNS within the first four\nvolumes, which means there likely are/were shape shifters in the \noriginal volume, and Severian likely had a child with a hierodule." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That has to be either a ridiculous expectation or a gross exaggeration. UotNS is full of events and characters that are never foreshadowed in BotNS. You were supposed to know that Severian becomes the Conciliator and brings the New Sun, stuff like that, certainly. That he becomes Apu-Punchau. Some of the metaphysics. But Wolfe simply *cannot* have supposed we would know all the details. He cannot have known them himself.\n\nHas anyone read Jack Vance’s _Lyonesse_ and read the “What Now?” page at the end? It’s very *like* what happens in the sequels. But it differs in almost every detail. Now Wolfe plots more carefully than Vance and has better continuity, and his vision would have been developed in much more detail. But it’s worth looking at Vance to see how a book can be planned, and yet not planned." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- As for brainstorming for clues, who is doing that? Asking whether someone \nthings a part of the text is a clue is different from brainstorming unique ones. \nSometimes you need some help in parsing a line of thought, or interpreting\nthe substance (or lack thereof) of this occurrence or the other." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I’m really just saying, the story is primary. If someone has a brainstorm and decides that Severian is replaced in the Autarch’s vault by a shape-shifting man-ape, I think that before posting it they should think a bit about how it fits in with the rest of the story, and whether there are any problems that may negate the insights it provides." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "- I'm really not personally offended here, just surprised that someone on an\nUrth discussion list would be so presumptuous as to decree the right and \nwrong way to read a book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The idea is not so radical, I think. Indeed, the line “I think you couldn’t be more off base here, Gerry” would seem no less of such a decree than anything I have said.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA485DC.1050902@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T21:23:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Andrew Mason wrote (23-10-2011 20:01):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think that the visible stories often have real depth, which theories\nof hidden meaning sometimes detract from." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is a crucial point, in my view. Let me repeat it: the visible stories\nhave real depth." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T22:03:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA485DC.1050902@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll stop lurking for a moment to say that these two statements get my vote for the most important point of this thread." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nAndrew Mason wrote (23-10-2011 20:01):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think that the visible stories often have real depth, which theories\nof hidden meaning sometimes detract from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is a crucial point, in my view. Let me repeat it: the visible stories\nhave real depth.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7B95B3FF-C0C5-46C2-846F-87EE4B7098D5@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T22:14:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The stories are cool. Superpositional meanings are cool too, but one can enjoy and appreciate Wolfe's art without them. These theories may inform but do not really add or enhance the basic literary themes. \n\nSent from my iPhone" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Craig Brewer wrote:\nI'll stop lurking for a moment to say that these two statements get my vote for the most important point of this thread.\n\nAnt?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Andrew Mason wrote (23-10-2011 20:01):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I think that the visible stories often have real depth, which theories\nof hidden meaning sometimes detract from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is a crucial point, in my view. Let me repeat it: the visible stories\nhave real depth.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<630D4EE0-0A39-4CEC-9E78-192643D7AD6A@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T22:25:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Do we think about Dorcas’s story, or just ignore it because of all the loose ends that fall into place when her husband is Inire? Loose ends like... just what, exactly?\nAs for Inire as the old boatman, I really don’t understand why people take such ideas seriously. Can somebody explain how they understand Dorcas? character and story in this picture? Married to a rich and powerful alien, running a small shop selling lace or something I think, going back to find him in the slums of Nessus after being resurrected — and *finding* him. Oh yes, and he’s still running the secret service from the House Absolute all the time, even after dying in Dorcas’s arms in the slums of Nessus. Does Dorcas mention anything about an alien lover? And wouldn’t she have married a young man, even if he is old now? Why couldn’t he save her? Yet the fact of him being old and wizened seems to be one of the supposed signifiers of his identity (like that’s rare or something). I guess he made himself look young that one time?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry, I have no problem with your beliefs and opinions. In fact, I have a harder time believing Inire is the boatman. That mystery is revealed in the text when Severian realizes Dorcas is his grandmother. You have to wonder, however, why he just so happens to resurrect his grandmother in the Botanical Garden, though, and what that means elsewhere, right? Those are the sorts of things I wouldn't say are counter-productive." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So tell me. Where’s all this “Inire is the boatman stuff” getting us?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am/was using it simply as an example on why your dismissiveness of those who reach (or in your case over-reach) to find answers in the text is not fair to those with a valid interest in pursuing them. You are welcome to not subscribe, but your own words (if they were your words Sergei were quoting were what bothered me...\n\n\"I think you (and some others) greatly misunderstand the nature of Wolfe’s books. You seem to think of them as some sort of puzzle in which a hidden underlying story, cloned from some ancient myth or other, is disguised as a science fiction story.\"\n\nHow do you know the nature of Wolfe's books and others do not? I know you said you \"think\" meaning it is your opinion, but why are you so sure of yourself to presume that Wolfe does not in fact love writing new parables from old material. Do you not think that he borrowed HEAVILY from Norse mythology for his Wizard Knight duology? Does he not readily admit he does this and enjoys it? That doesn't mean you cannot find your own voice or your own story, but if Wolfe wasn't intentionally trying to remix Greek fiction with his Latro series, I'll eat my shoe.\n\nYou went on to say...\n\n\"The object (you think) is to peel away the extraneous matter and locate the crossword clues to the true story you think is lurking underneath. You clutch at every possible classical reference because with those there’s always some way to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon towards whatever scheme you are trying to impose on the story.\"\n\nNot sure why you are adverse to finding the source material of Wolfe's prose in order to help demystify some of the less than clear imagery he evokes and portrays in his books. I think it is completely fine. I don't know nearly as much about referenced text, and I agree that Wolfe would be wiser than to REQUIRE his reader to have read other material to solve his own riddles, but it can't hurt to have this knowledge and attempt to put it to use.\n\nYou finished with...\n\n\"Why would Wolfe engage in a complicated, arbitrary, pointless scheme such as this? He is writing his own stories.\"\n\nWhy would he engage in a complicated scheme? What makes it arbitrary or pointless? If I have a suspicion that Severian's life is one big play, meaning it is a foregone conclusion and other forces are at work to make it happen just so, does that mean Wolfe has taken pointless and arbitrary steps to give me metaphors, imagery, stories within stories, and a very small cast of characters considering the scope and breadth of Severian's journey?\n\nI'm sorry, but I just think that your presumption that somehow someone is reading it wrong is off-putting. I don't think maniacal fanatical irrelevant theories that have nothing to do with anything are productive, but maybe part of our role as a collective here is to hear someone's point of view, encourage their line of thinking, or constructively shoot it down without passing judgement on the reader who is positing their point of view.\n\nMy assertion of UotNS is as you put it, that we are supposed to infer the main themes. I did not mean that we should have known that he would meet Gunnie, or meet someone named Apheta, or that Zak would be Tzak, etc.\n\nBut shapeshifting is a big part of the UotNS arc, which makes me wonder whether that isn't something we should have been more aware/mindful of in the original text. And he mates with an alien, which I think is important enough an act that we might have suspected something in the first four volumes.\n\nJust my opinion, of course.\n\nYour final note:\n\n\"Indeed, the line “I think you couldn’t be more off base here, Gerry” would seem no less of such a decree than anything I have said.\"\n\nFair enough, my words were strong, and I apologize. You aren't off base but I think your opinion of how someone should read or interpret text goes too far.\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-10-23T22:59:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Craig Brewer " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'll stop lurking for a moment to say that these two statements get my vote for the most important point of > this thread." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Andrew Mason wrote (23-10-2011 20:01):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I think that the visible stories often have real depth, which theories\nof hidden meaning sometimes detract from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is a crucial point, in my view. Let me repeat it: the visible stories\nhave real depth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That’s kind of where I’m coming from too, in fact it crystallises what I feel is so wrong about “boatman as Inire” theories: what do they do to Dorcas?\nRyan makes the valid point that “Severian is a puppet” is a possible reading. But is it an interesting reading, especially if it makes everybody a puppet, not just Severian? Would Wolfe want to write about a load of puppets? Maybe (he wrote War Beneath The Tree), but I have a feeling that even if he did, he’d have written at shorter length. And in that story Bear fought his fate even though he could not prevail.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T00:01:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think anybody disputes the substance to the visible story, but on its own, Severian's hero quest is not \"best sci fi series of all time\" material, sorry to say. It is the subverted meanings, the parables within the text, the actual \"style\" of the novel also (unreliable narrator) that make the story truly special.\n\nAs far as Severian as a puppet. No if that were the visible story, it would not be interesting at all. But as a potential hidden story unbeknownst to the narrator telling it to us, it certainly is a crafty, interesting, and potentially genius revelation, no?\n\n...ryan" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n \n \nFrom: Craig Brewer\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'll stop lurking for a moment to say that these two statements get my vote for the most important point of > this thread." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Andrew Mason wrote (23-10-2011 20:01):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I think that the visible stories often have real depth, which theories\nof hidden meaning sometimes detract from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "This is a crucial point, in my view. Let me repeat it: the visible stories\nhave real depth." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nThat’s kind of where I’m coming from too, in fact it crystallises what I feel is so wrong about “boatman as Inire” theories: what do they do to Dorcas?\n \nRyan makes the valid point that “Severian is a puppet” is a possible reading. But is it an interesting reading, especially if it makes everybody a puppet, not just Severian? Would Wolfe want to write about a load of puppets? Maybe (he wrote War Beneath The Tree), but I have a feeling that even if he did, he’d have written at shorter length. And in that story Bear fought his fate even though he could not prevail.\n \n - Gerry Quinn\n \n \n \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T02:24:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: As for Inire as the old boatman, I really don’t understand why " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "people take such ideas seriously." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nWhat's wrong with taking it seriously because an intelligent reader who is\n\nhighly familiar with BotNS sees it? Perhaps you consider me stupid?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So tell me. Where’s all this “Inire is the boatman stuff” getting us?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Can somebody explain how they understand Dorcas? character and story in this " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "picture?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nWho exactly is \"us\"? Why not say \"me\"? Is trying to herd everyone here into\n\none gelatinous, like-thinking, single minded clusterfuck really your idea of \n\n\"getting somewhere\"?\n\n \n\nGerry, if you don't find any merit in my posts, I don't think you should read them \n\nor respond to them. Instead you incessantly, relentlessly respond to them and are \n\nnow seem to be calling for a vote to have them banned from discussion.\n\n \n\nAnyway, if you read the text with care you will find much about the character Dorcas\n\nwhich is mysterious and unexplained. Likewise with Severian. For me, idenfifying\n\nFather Inire as inhabiting key places in the story solves these mysteries and \n\nexplains the unexplained. \n\n \n\nIf this doesn't work for you then don't read my posts. Or come up with your own theories.\n\nOr just be quiet for a while. Why try to nudge this forum away from a particular topic? \n\nIf you don't like it simply don't participate.\n\n\nDo you consider yourself the Captain at \"our\" ship's wheel, trying to keep your often\n\nwayward crew's course straight and true? Aye, aye, Skipper and avast me hearties? WTF? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T02:54:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ryan Dunn: I don't think anybody disputes the substance to the visible story, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but on its own, Severian's hero quest is not \"best sci fi series of all time\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "material, sorry to say. It is the subverted meanings, the parables within the " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "text, the actual \"style\" of the novel also (unreliable narrator) that make the " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "story truly special." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As far as Severian as a puppet. No if that were the visible story, it would not " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "be interesting at all. But as a potential hidden story unbeknownst to the narrator " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "telling it to us, it certainly is a crafty, interesting, and potentially genius " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "revelation, no?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nI was about to disagree with you about how good the visible story of Severian's\n\nquest is. But then you qualified and explained it so nicely. It is the parables\n\nand stories within the story which really make it special. They are fantastic and \n\neven if a first time reader can only grasp them as the tips of the iceberg, I think \n\nmost (most) here get the sense that there is immense depth beneath these tips. \n\n \n\nVery nice post. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T12:05:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: As for Inire as the old boatman, I really don’t understand why \npeople take such ideas seriously." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What's wrong with taking it seriously because an intelligent reader who is\nhighly familiar with BotNS sees it? Perhaps you consider me stupid?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That’s why I’m asking the question. I can’t understand why such a person finds this and similar ideas sufficiently attractive to persist with it, for the reasons I gave. That is to say, it seems to me that “Fr. Inire as boatman” offers little in the way of explaining anything, it poses a lot of very obvious questions that are very hard to answer, and it seems to obliterate the character and storyline of a major character, Dorcas, as we have understood them. Hence my question:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "So tell me. Where’s all this “Inire is the boatman stuff” getting us?\nCan somebody explain how they understand Dorcas? character and story in this \npicture?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Who exactly is \"us\"? Why not say \"me\"? Is trying to herd everyone here into\none gelatinous, like-thinking, single minded clusterfuck really your idea of \n\"getting somewhere\"?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I asked merely asked for *somebody* to explain it. Ryan, I think, came up with the example." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry, if you don't find any merit in my posts, I don't think you should read them \nor respond to them. Instead you incessantly, relentlessly respond to them and are \nnow seem to be calling for a vote to have them banned from discussion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Noting their consequences and asking a question about them is hardly calling for them to be banned from discussion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Anyway, if you read the text with care you will find much about the character Dorcas\nwhich is mysterious and unexplained. Likewise with Severian. For me, idenfifying\nFather Inire as inhabiting key places in the story solves these mysteries and \nexplains the unexplained. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Excellent! So what is the new understanding of Dorcas? character and storyline that the theory of Father Inire as boatman gives us?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If this doesn't work for you then don't read my posts. Or come up with your own theories.\nOr just be quiet for a while. Why try to nudge this forum away from a particular topic? \nIf you don't like it simply don't participate." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I’m merely asking a question about the topic. Is that against your rules?\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA554F3.8020103@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-10-24T12:07:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What I don't like in these theories, it is the complete disregard to \nGene Wolfe\nmany times proclaimed Christian message. Is he lying when he says that he is\na Catholic? Is he in fact trying to pass a \"diabolic\" message (or at \nleast trying to play\nwith this interpretation as equally probable) like Polyanski? Where are \nthe proofs?\nThey are shaky, and when somebody says that you jump readily to \"fuck \noff\" style.\nBy the way, how one can easily ignore the posts of somebody\nwho takes maybe 20% of the whole discussion?\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: As for Inire as the old boatman, I really don’t understand why \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "people take such ideas seriously.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nWhat's wrong with taking it seriously because an intelligent reader who is\n\nhighly familiar with BotNS sees it? Perhaps you consider me stupid?\n\n \n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "So tell me. Where’s all this “Inire is the boatman stuff” getting us?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Can somebody explain how they understand Dorcas? character and story in this \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "picture?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nWho exactly is \"us\"? Why not say \"me\"? Is trying to herd everyone here into\n\none gelatinous, like-thinking, single minded clusterfuck really your idea of \n\n\"getting somewhere\"?\n\n \n\nGerry, if you don't find any merit in my posts, I don't think you should read them \n\nor respond to them. Instead you incessantly, relentlessly respond to them and are \n\nnow seem to be calling for a vote to have them banned from discussion.\n\n \n\nAnyway, if you read the text with care you will find much about the character Dorcas\n\nwhich is mysterious and unexplained. Likewise with Severian. For me, idenfifying\n\nFather Inire as inhabiting key places in the story solves these mysteries and \n\nexplains the unexplained. \n\n \n\nIf this doesn't work for you then don't read my posts. Or come up with your own theories.\n\nOr just be quiet for a while. Why try to nudge this forum away from a particular topic? \n\nIf you don't like it simply don't participate.\n\n\nDo you consider yourself the Captain at \"our\" ship's wheel, trying to keep your often\n\nwayward crew's course straight and true? Aye, aye, Skipper and avast me hearties? WTF? \t\t \t \t\t \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5097C71752D8495FA8B24DF151DDEF06@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T12:28:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Ryan Dunn " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think anybody disputes the substance to the visible story, but on its\n own, Severian's hero quest is not \"best sci fi series of all time\" material, \nsorry to say. It is the subverted meanings, the parables within the text, the\n actual \"style\" of the novel also (unreliable narrator) that make the story \ntruly special. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As far as Severian as a puppet. No if that were the visible story, it would \nnot be interesting at all. But as a potential hidden story unbeknownst to \nthe narrator telling it to us, it certainly is a crafty, interesting, and \npotentially genius revelation, no?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But the thing is, we *do* have a great underlying story, and it’s certainly quite reasonable to argue that in that story Severian is in some senses a puppet. He is surely observed and to some degree manipulated by great forces, after all. On the other hand, it seems he both understands his part to the extent of his ability, and plays it willingly, and that is not the description of a puppet, unless we are all puppets.\n\nBut to extrapolate this to make the entire storyline into a shadow play, in which no character is what they seem, and no element of the overt story or the aforementioned underlying story has any meaning or verity, seems to verge on mistaking BotNS for the sort of story that the Turkey City Lexicon calls “The Jar of Tang”.\n\nIt’s not that story. And if Wolfe had wanted to write that story, he would have written it better, and the substitutions and unveilings would actually work to explain things.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T12:56:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<5097C71752D8495FA8B24DF151DDEF06@Rover>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: I can’t understand why such a person finds this and similar ideas \nsufficiently attractive to persist with it....I’m merely asking a question about \nthe topic. Is that against your rules?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nGerry, the problem is that you have asked this same question numerous times over\nthe past few years. I have given you detailed answers each time. Apparently it\nnever sank in. What would be the purpose in repeating my answers to you?\n \nJudging by your responses and your own stated interpretations of Gene Wolfe's\nwork, the reason for your questions are not those of a scholar seeking to \nexpand his knowledge of Gene Wolfe via the thoughts of others. Instead your\nquestions seem those of a saboteur, asked only to garner ammunition to shoot them\ndown, without any effort being put into actually understanding what your fellow\nWolfe fans are trying to say.\n \nI think perhaps you see yourself as a forest ranger, trying to clear away the \nunderbrush and weeds so as to allow the theories you approve of to grow up tall\nand strong and unencumbered. I can understand why you might want the Quinn quercus\noaks to thrive and not be crowded out by those nasty Aramini ashes, the Berman birches, \nthe Dunn dogwoods, the Stockhoff sycamores and the Wynn willows. Let's be realistic, \nGerry. If all those posters who propose all these \"unlikely\"theories that you don't \nunderstand simply stopped posting, what would you have left to talk about here? \n \nIn truth I really don't think your intelligence is so different from the others here that\nit limits your understanding of these other theories as severly as you claim they do. It \nmay be as simple as saying that if you try to understand the theories of others you will. \nIf you are trying to not understand them, (only to undercut them) you won't. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Mason", "address": "andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T13:58:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": ". I think that the story functions on a few levels. There is clearly\nthe hero quest which is most accessible on the surface. The page\nturning element, if you will. Nobody disputes the fact that there is a\ntorturer's apprentice who becomes the next Autarch and eventually\nbecomes bringer of the New Sun." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "However, on the second level, there is the context of the story, which Gene has quite a lot of fun subverting through the subjectivity of his narrator. The Citadel being an old ship yard, the soldier with a staff being an astronaut on the moon. The fact that you feel like you're reading a medieval story fraught with baroque imagery and guilds and masters and sneaky wizards wielding shifty magic; when in fact this is a distant future on a future cycle of a similar universe.\n\nThen there is a third level, which re-evaluates just what exactly is going on with Severian. Who is he? What machinations are luring around the corner? Who might be pulling the strings? What's with all of the mysterious actions and appearances of characters? Why are people guiding and spying on him?\n\nI think this third element is extremely valid and highly informative to how to interact with the story. Of course, you can leave it alone after a first reading satisfied, or read it a second time with a wry smile as you see things that he was hiding in plain sight the first time around. Nobody suggests otherwise. But it is hard to dispute the reality that \"nothing is what it seems\" is something Wolfe is interested in here and in other works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would see all three of these levels as part of the visible meaning\nof the story. By a surface reading I don't mean a superficial one; I\njust mean one that an attentive reader can get first time round,\nrather than needing twenty years of discussion to find. (And I'm not\nsaying everything is on the surface in this way, just that enough to\ngive us a basic idea of what the story is about is.) Severian\nexplicitly refers to the propulsion chambers in the towers; Rudesind\ntells him that the 'soldier' is on the moon. Likewise, Rudesind later\nsays that Inire has given him lines to speak, and the Autarch says\nthat he has a spy among the torturers. These aspects of meaning are\nnot hidden (though specific facets of them may be, of course).\n\nThat Severian is in some sense a puppet is clear - his life is to a\nlarge extent being organised by forces beyond his control, as is shown\nby the fact that those forces actually reveal themselves and explain\nwhat they are up to from time to time. But if it means that he never\nat any time has a grasp of what is going on - well, I think things\nWolfe has said in interviews show that he sees the New Sun as\nbasically a good thing and Severian as a saviour, so it looks as if\nthe destination he is moving towards is indeed in essence what he\nthinks it is." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T14:50:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sergei Soloviev: What I don't like in these theories, it is the complete disregard to \nGene Wolfe many times proclaimed Christian message. Is he lying when he says that he is\na Catholic? Is he in fact trying to pass a \"diabolic\" message (or at least trying to play\nwith this interpretation as equally probable) like Polyanski? Where are the proofs?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Proofs? In literary interpretation? You can't really mean that.\n \nAnyway, let me ask what I hope is an illustrative question: How can a Christian writer justify\nwriting fiction which contains elements of diabolical horror?\n \n \nThere are some WOlfe quotes about stories other than BotNS which I think might reveal \nhis mindset. Yes, he is deeply Christian (but in his own way; he thinks the ancient pagan\ngods were real). He thinks the value of Jesus Christ is undervalued. So he creates stories\n(often in quasi-pagan settings) in which Jesus Christ is absent. It is through this absence \nthat he hopes to illustrate how important Jesus is to us, how much more horrible things would \nbe without him. \n \nI think this principle probably applies to Fifth Head of Cerberus and to the Sun Series, \nthe Soldier Series, There Are Doors and Wizard/Knight at a minimum. Perhaps others can \nsuggest other candidates from Wolfe's work. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gene Wolfe: We vastly underestimate the importance of Jesus. We think we don't. We have \nall these churches and we say how can we be underestimating Jesus? We don't until we start \ntrying to figure out what it would be like if he had never lived. When you really start trying \nto figure out what it would be like if He never lived you realize that He is a much more pivotal \nfigure than we give him credit for. All of these people, everybody at this convention is in that \nsense a Christian although most of them would tell you that they are not and some of them would \ntell them quite truthfully that they were Jews who practice Judaism in one of its various forms \nand so on and so forth. Nevertheless they have been influenced by Christ much more than they \nrealized. We are very lucky to have had Him. We are very fortunate. A friend of mine learned to \nread Turkish. And he got hold of a Turkish joke book and read it. And I said, \"What were the jokes \nlike?\" He said it was horrible. They were all about ugly tricks that were being played on blind \npeople and things like that. This is what we have escaped from.." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI find the bit concerning presumably non-Christian Turkey to be rather revealing. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<77BC128ECD964B829F621853F1938DCB@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T15:42:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I can’t understand why such a person finds this and similar ideas \nsufficiently attractive to persist with it....I’m merely asking a question about \nthe topic. Is that against your rules?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry, the problem is that you have asked this same question numerous times over\nthe past few years. I have given you detailed answers each time. Apparently it\nnever sank in. What would be the purpose in repeating my answers to you?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don’t remember anyone going into detail about the events of Dorcas? life with Inire (assuming that he was the boatman and she was married to him) and how they impact on her character and story. Point me to it and I’ll certainly take a look." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In truth I really don't think your intelligence is so different from the others here that\nit limits your understanding of these other theories as severly as you claim they do. It \nmay be as simple as saying that if you try to understand the theories of others you will. \nIf you are trying to not understand them, (only to undercut them) you won't. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By “undercut”, do you mean “analyse for consistency?” I certainly do not think we should apply Popperian falsifiability principles to literary analysis (I even think they are at times applied too strictly to science). Nevertheless, surely everyone agrees that certain criteria related to consistency and logic must apply? If it occurs to me that Severian must be an alzabo, for example, I feel I must, before bringing the proposition to the attention of others, attempt to solve the obvious problems that this theory brings with it. If I don’t bother doing this, and people ask me questions like “why does nobody notice he is an alzabo”, I don’t feel I have a right to get in a huff and demand that they stop undercutting my theories.\n\nThe proposition that the boatman is Father Inire has problems that, while not perhaps quite so severe as those of Severian being an alzabo, might be considered to be of the same kind. Does Dorcas know she is married to the alien chief vizier? Did he appear old when he married her, or can he also appear as a young man? If the latter, what price the appearance of an old wizened man as a signifier of Father Inire? If Father Inire “pinches off” youthful copies of himself, does this involve him hiding away for a while and growing to twice his normal size before splitting? Why does the boatman apparently search for Dorcas? corpse, when surely as Inire he has access to technologies that would spot it in a trice? If he’s just waiting there for Severian, what is his motive as he seems to do very little — and also, if just being there is his motive, why involve Dorcas at all? Why marry her, and — whether he was married to her or not — why mention her? And, last but not least — what is the story of Dorcas now?\n\nIf I were proposing that the boatman was Inire, I would try to answer these and the many other questions. When somebody else proposes it, I feel I have a right — indeed a duty — to ask them. When I have proposed theories, I have always taken any such questions seriously. Because I think that the ability to answer such questions is an important means — though not the only means — by which good theories may be distinguished from bad ones. \n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T15:42:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nGerry Quinn: I can’t understand why such a person finds this and similar ideas\nsufficiently attractive to persist with it....I’m merely asking a question about\nthe topic. “Is that against your rules”" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry, the problem is that you have asked this same question numerous times over\nthe past few years. I have given you detailed answers each time. Apparently it\nnever sank in. What would be the purpose in repeating my answers to you?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Lee, you have never explained it to my satisfaction either. I\nsimply do not see what the interpretive benefit of this theory\n(finding Inire everywhere) is, or how to reconcile it with the plain\nface value of, e.g., the death of Dorcas's husband. There is no\ntextual reason to believe that Inire can \"pinch off\" subroutines like\nTzad, and even if I take it as a given, I don't see the value of\nDorcas's husband being Inire.\n\nCan you clarify this so that a dummy like me can understand it?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<731E391E-D926-44B4-88BD-490000AF7EFF@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T17:41:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Oct 24, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:\nHowever, on the second level, there is the context of the story, which Gene has quite a lot of fun subverting through the subjectivity of his narrator. The Citadel being an old ship yard, the soldier with a staff being an astronaut on the moon. The fact that you feel like you're reading a medieval story fraught with baroque imagery and guilds and masters and sneaky wizards wielding shifty magic; when in fact this is a distant future on a future cycle of a similar universe.\n\nThen there is a third level, which re-evaluates just what exactly is going on with Severian. Who is he? What machinations are luring around the corner? Who might be pulling the strings? What's with all of the mysterious actions and appearances of characters? Why are people guiding and spying on him?\n\nI think this third element is extremely valid and highly informative to how to interact with the story. Of course, you can leave it alone after a first reading satisfied, or read it a second time with a wry smile as you see things that he was hiding in plain sight the first time around. Nobody suggests otherwise. But it is hard to dispute the reality that \"nothing is what it seems\" is something Wolfe is interested in here and in other works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I would see all three of these levels as part of the visible meaning\nof the story. By a surface reading I don't mean a superficial one; I\njust mean one that an attentive reader can get first time round,\nrather than needing twenty years of discussion to find. (And I'm not\nsaying everything is on the surface in this way, just that enough to\ngive us a basic idea of what the story is about is.) Severian\nexplicitly refers to the propulsion chambers in the towers; Rudesind\ntells him that the 'soldier' is on the moon. Likewise, Rudesind later\nsays that Inire has given him lines to speak, and the Autarch says\nthat he has a spy among the torturers. These aspects of meaning are\nnot hidden (though specific facets of them may be, of course)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well I guess the question is where do you end your digging? For me, the rabbit hole is there to dive into. Where you come out and what you've found down there may vary from person to person. You have some with grand united theories, who try to cobble together a new world view based on deciphering the clues and mysteries of the series. Others take the central story and its supporting mysteries as one piece unto itself.\n\nPersonally, I don't think those clues are there for optional exploration. I think Wolfe intended they be parsed, contemplated, figured out, and then reverse applied to the story he presented to us on the surface. For me, when the clue changes the story, it is no longer topical/superficial. When you figure out that -- as an orphan -- Severian's family do bear some weight on the trajectory of his life, then yes I feel the urge to question things I don't understand and/or don't feel others have explained/rationalized/demystified adequately." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That Severian is in some sense a puppet is clear - his life is to a\nlarge extent being organised by forces beyond his control, as is shown\nby the fact that those forces actually reveal themselves and explain\nwhat they are up to from time to time. But if it means that he never\nat any time has a grasp of what is going on - well, I think things\nWolfe has said in interviews show that he sees the New Sun as\nbasically a good thing and Severian as a saviour, so it looks as if\nthe destination he is moving towards is indeed in essence what he\nthinks it is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well what I was referring to with the \"style\" of the series also being a level of engagement for the reader is that you have an untrustworthy narrator who not only lies (which always is the cheap thing to say to make it fun for new readers), but more importantly you are reading from a subjective, myopic lens. There are questions about what Severian knows, then how he chooses to phrase it; then there is what he does NOT know, but describes, and how we the reader interpret that. And then there is what he figures out later on, that forces us to reevaluate the story at large.\n\nI like to think of this list, however, as a group of adults with great and varied knowledge of a great many things coming together to support one another in their pursuit for understanding the deeper meaning of Gene Wolfe books. It seems, however, from time to time, that there are people on here who are content to keep their theories as they have formed them and not constructively contribute to new ideas. It comes off a little patronizing at times, like how you might humor a young person at a party who is trying to explain to you something complicated. Like, \"oh, that's great, I love it, now tell the group why you believe that.\"\n\nI could be reading into it, and I do not pretend to be the keymaster to any deep mysteries.\n\nBut the puppet subtext for me is more than just a supporting thing. If his life is a foregone conclusion, and he is not the first Severian to attempt to become the New Sun, then there is a bigger experiment going on beneath the surface that becomes its own story unto itself, no? Severian may be a willing participant, though he never rises to noble heroics, nor does he talk himself up with any sense of arrogance, but he is still held up by strings pulled by -- as you put it -- \"forces beyond his control\".\n\nAnd for me, that is a BIG sub-layer to the story. And something people may not see deeply nor subscribe to holistically, but that's OKAY.\n\n...ryan" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA5A50E.6030403@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T17:49:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Theories", "in_reply_to": "<731E391E-D926-44B4-88BD-490000AF7EFF@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ryan Dunn wrote (24-10-2011 18:41):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I like to think of this list, however, as a group of adults with great and\nvaried knowledge of a great many things coming together to support one\nanother in their pursuit for understanding the deeper meaning of Gene Wolfe\nbooks." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nah. All of us together couldn't spot a notule if a swarm were falling upon us.\n\nOtoh maybe the portuguese proverb _Muita gente junta n?o se salva_ 'Many \npeople together not itself saves' - 'Many people together can't save \nthemselves' - 'A large group of people who have to reckon with one another \nwon't be able to achieve anything' applies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(...)\nIt comes off a little patronizing at\ntimes, like how you might humor a young person at a party who is trying to\nexplain to you something complicated. Like, \"oh, that's great, I love it,\nnow tell the group why you believe that.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think that's it." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T17:53:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA5A50E.6030403@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes- Well, Lee, you have never explained it to my satisfaction either. I\nsimply do not see what the interpretive benefit of this theory (finding Inire everywhere) \nis, or how to reconcile it with the plain face value of, e.g., the death of Dorcas's \nhusband. There is no textual reason to believe that Inire can \"pinch off\" subroutines like\nTzad, and even if I take it as a given, I don't see the value of Dorcas's husband being Inire.\nCan you clarify this so that a dummy like me can understand it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHm. I'm not sure I could summarize 7 years of contributions in a meaningful way in one post.\nBut as a request from a long-time (longer than me), insightful, pleasant and respectful member\nof this forum I will try.\n \nFirst, I don't see Inire as \"everywhere\". That is just a derisive attribution given by those\nhater-types who hope to undercut the theory with a quick reductio ad absurdum quip. There must \nbe hundreds of characters in BotNS. Of those I find less than a dozen possible Father Inire\nappearances. Why is that such an outrageous possibility in a work of Fantasy/SF?\n\nsecond, Dorcas' husband as a potential candidate seems to be very problematic for many. \nBecause he is dead? He does look dead. Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. Doesn't matter.\nWhy should it, if the various appearances of Inire are accomplished with multiple bodies?\n \nYou think there is no textual reason to believe Inire might be a pinched off version of a\nlarger being? What is the textual reason for showing us that process clearly with Tzadkiel?\nIn my reading of Wolfe, we are shown certain things clearly so that we may understand that\nthey are happening not-so-clearly in other parts of the story.\n \nRegarding the value of the Father Inire story to solving mysteries, I suppose we would have\nto agree on what is a mystery. I would say the majority of criticism of the theory boils down\nto people saying, \"That's not a mystery. That's nothing\".\n\nWhich is fine, for them. I happen to find a great deal of mystery in this book which is not\nexplainable by a mundane shrug of the shoulder. Of course, Father Inire encompasses a large\nportion of these mysteries. Severian too. Too much to summarize here.\n \nDorcas might be a little more manageable. I find her past to be mysterious in ways not explained\nsimply by her resurrection nor even her status as Severian's grandmother. Why does she consider\nherself to be a hateful spectre? What is the meaning of her dream in which her baby turns into \na lump of filth? Why are the memories of her sitting in a window so important? Why does she have\nvampiric dreams? Why would she feel corrupted and soiled just because she was a shopkeeper wife?\n \nI can't even deal with all that here. Let me just focus on the window memory as an example. If we\naccept that Dorcas' husband is Inire and we accept that Fechin is Inire, that mystery is solved.\nThe old person in Casdoe's cabin tells a story about Fechin's romantic meeting with a beautiful\nyoung woman who sits in a window. I think she is Dorcas. \n \nMultiply that connection by 20 or 30 times and you get the rationale for why I find the Father \nInire theory helpful. It takes weird loose ends like that all through the story and ties them\ntogether. If it doesn't work for others, I understand. But it works for me and I'll answer \nquestions about it to (almost) all those who ask. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T17:57:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmmm. OK, I think I see where you're coming from. It doesn't, as you\nsay, work for me, but I can at least see why it does for you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes- Well, Lee, you have never explained it to my satisfaction either. I\nsimply do not see what the interpretive benefit of this theory (finding Inire everywhere)\nis, or how to reconcile it with the plain face value of, e.g., the death of Dorcas's\nhusband. There is no textual reason to believe that Inire can \"pinch off\" subroutines like\nTzad, and even if I take it as a given, I don't see the value of Dorcas's husband being Inire.\nCan you clarify this so that a dummy like me can understand it?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hm. I'm not sure I could summarize 7 years of contributions in a meaningful way in one post.\nBut as a request from a long-time (longer than me), insightful, pleasant and respectful member\nof this forum I will try.\n\nFirst, I don't see Inire as \"everywhere\". That is just a derisive attribution given by those\nhater-types who hope to undercut the theory with a quick reductio ad absurdum quip. There must\nbe hundreds of characters in BotNS. Of those I find less than a dozen possible Father Inire\nappearances. Why is that such an outrageous possibility in a work of Fantasy/SF?\n\nsecond, Dorcas' husband as a potential candidate seems to be very problematic for many.\nBecause he is dead? He does look dead. Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. Doesn't matter.\nWhy should it, if the various appearances of Inire are accomplished with multiple bodies?\n\nYou think there is no textual reason to believe Inire might be a pinched off version of a\nlarger being? What is the textual reason for showing us that process clearly with Tzadkiel?\nIn my reading of Wolfe, we are shown certain things clearly so that we may understand that\nthey are happening not-so-clearly in other parts of the story.\n\nRegarding the value of the Father Inire story to solving mysteries, I suppose we would have\nto agree on what is a mystery. I would say the majority of criticism of the theory boils down\nto people saying, \"That's not a mystery. That's nothing\".\n\nWhich is fine, for them. I happen to find a great deal of mystery in this book which is not\nexplainable by a mundane shrug of the shoulder. Of course, Father Inire encompasses a large\nportion of these mysteries. Severian too. Too much to summarize here.\n\nDorcas might be a little more manageable. I find her past to be mysterious in ways not explained\nsimply by her resurrection nor even her status as Severian's grandmother. Why does she consider\nherself to be a hateful spectre? “What is the meaning of her dream in which her baby turns into\na lump of filth” Why are the memories of her sitting in a window so important? Why does she have\nvampiric dreams? Why would she feel corrupted and soiled just because she was a shopkeeper wife?\n\nI can't even deal with all that here. Let me just focus on the window memory as an example. If we\naccept that Dorcas' husband is Inire and we accept that Fechin is Inire, that mystery is solved.\nThe old person in Casdoe's cabin tells a story about Fechin's romantic meeting with a beautiful\nyoung woman who sits in a window. I think she is Dorcas.\n\nMultiply that connection by 20 or 30 times and you get the rationale for why I find the Father\nInire theory helpful. It takes weird loose ends like that all through the story and ties them\ntogether. If it doesn't work for others, I understand. But it works for me and I'll answer\nquestions about it to (almost) all those who ask.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA5A9B3.2090803@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-10-24T18:08:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/24/2011 1:57 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI can't even deal with all that here. Let me just focus on the window memory as an example. If we\n accept that Dorcas' husband is Inire and we accept that Fechin is Inire, that mystery is solved." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " The old person in Casdoe's cabin tells a story about Fechin's romantic meeting with a beautiful\n young woman who sits in a window. I think she is Dorcas." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's true that Dorcas herself remembers sitting in a window. That's a \nnice connection.\n\nI wonder if Wolfe was in a deep Proustian false memory-trance during the \nwhole writing of TBotNS." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA5AFD1.5090203@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-10-24T18:34:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA5A9B3.2090803@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "About Dorcas sitting in a window.\n\nAs far as I remember,\n\na) she was sitting after she was married\nb) it was a shop window, i.e. - ground floor\nc) it was in Nessus, at that time, at a lively city street\nd) in the Fechin story, it was more \"rustic\" paysage\ne) not the ground floor\nf) the Casdoe father could wait calmly outside\nwhile Fechin visited the girl - not very likely\non some street in Nessus\ng) also the school described by Casdoe father looks\nvery poor and \"rustic\".\nh) I don't remember what is said about the complexion\nof the girl visited by Fechin, but something was said,\nand it doesn't sound like Dorcas.\n\nI am not convinced that it is the same situation.\n\nSergei" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nOn 10/24/2011 1:57 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I can't even deal with all that here. Let me just focus on the window \nmemory as an example. If we\n accept that Dorcas' husband is Inire and we accept that Fechin is \nInire, that mystery is solved." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " The old person in Casdoe's cabin tells a story about Fechin's \nromantic meeting with a beautiful\n young woman who sits in a window. I think she is Dorcas." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's true that Dorcas herself remembers sitting in a window. That's a \nnice connection.\n\nI wonder if Wolfe was in a deep Proustian false memory-trance during \nthe whole writing of TBotNS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T20:48:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "<4EA5AFD1.5090203@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, it might be more of a theme/image connection. Women in windows.\n (Trying to think of more of those in other books but drawing a blank for\nthe moment - wait, the Inhumi young woman at one or two points on both Green\nand Blue?) Not sure what the significance would be, but it 'feels' kind of\nprofound - something about longing and neglect and 'framing' and 'seeing'\nthrough the frame, the lense/glass? Of course, in terms of goddesses,\n'women in windows' is a recurring motif of Long Sun. (Does Cassie Casey do\nany window sitting? The love interest lady [forgot the name!] in Pirate\nFreedom is looking at Chris through the window of the house where she serves\nat one point until the master tells her off for it.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nAbout Dorcas sitting in a window.\n\nAs far as I remember,\n\na) she was sitting after she was married\nb) it was a shop window, i.e. - ground floor\nc) it was in Nessus, at that time, at a lively city street\nd) in the Fechin story, it was more \"rustic\" paysage\ne) not the ground floor\nf) the Casdoe father could wait calmly outside\nwhile Fechin visited the girl - not very likely\non some street in Nessus\ng) also the school described by Casdoe father looks\nvery poor and \"rustic\".\nh) I don't remember what is said about the complexion\nof the girl visited by Fechin, but something was said,\nand it doesn't sound like Dorcas.\n\nI am not convinced that it is the same situation.\n\nSergei\n\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/24/2011 1:57 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I can't even deal with all that here. Let me just focus on the window\nmemory as an example. If we\n accept that Dorcas' husband is Inire and we accept that Fechin is\nInire, that mystery is solved." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": " The old person in Casdoe's cabin tells a story about Fechin's romantic\nmeeting with a beautiful\n young woman who sits in a window. I think she is Dorcas." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It's true that Dorcas herself remembers sitting in a window. That's a nice\nconnection.\n\nI wonder if Wolfe was in a deep Proustian false memory-trance during the\nwhole writing of TBotNS." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "______________________________**_________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Mason", "address": "andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com" }, "date": "2011-10-24T21:53:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sergei Soloviev wrote:\nAbout Dorcas sitting in a window.\n\nAs far as I remember,\n\na) she was sitting after she was married\nb) it was a shop window, i.e. - ground floor\nc) it was in Nessus, at that time, at a lively city street\nd) in the Fechin story, it was more \"rustic\" paysage\ne) not the ground floor\nf) the Casdoe father could wait calmly outside\nwhile Fechin visited the girl - not very likely\non some street in Nessus\ng) also the school described by Casdoe father looks\nvery poor and \"rustic\".\nh) I don't remember what is said about the complexion\nof the girl visited by Fechin, but something was said,\nand it doesn't sound like Dorcas.\n\nI am not convinced that it is the same situation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm sure I've seen somewhere a suggestion that Fechin was Dorcas's\nfather, and his girlfriend, accordingly, her mother. This would\nestablish a thematic link between the passages without requiring us to\nsay it was the same event.\n\nIt has some plausibility: Dorcas's family had artistic interests (they\nmade enamel work), and there are hints they originally came from the\nNorth (someone told her as a child about the blood bats in the North,\nand of course there's a possibility that Casdoe and her son Severian\nare related to her)." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EA5E526.1020602@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-10-24T22:22:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) theories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/24/2011 5:53 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:\nI'm sure I've seen somewhere a suggestion that Fechin was Dorcas's\nfather, and his girlfriend, accordingly, her mother. This would\nestablish a thematic link between the passages without requiring us to\nsay it was the same event.\n\nIt has some plausibility: Dorcas's family had artistic interests (they\nmade enamel work), and there are hints they originally came from the\nNorth (someone told her as a child about the blood bats in the North,\nand of course there's a possibility that Casdoe and her son Severian\nare related to her)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One can imagine Dorcas and Casdoe being sisters even though their names \ndon't quite match.\n\nAlso, IIRC Fechin was known as a precocious talent. This doesn't mean he \nstayed one through his life---he could well have switched to enamel for \na stable income, especially with the Pelerines as steady clients for his \nenameled roods." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EB19AD4.70806@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-11-02T19:32:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The secret of the trees", "in_reply_to": "<1319396182.73464.YahooMailClassic@web161801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "http://www.marriedtothesea.com/index.php?date=110211" } ] } ] }