Subject: (whorl) Re: Digest whorl.v007.n018

From: Alice Turner <al at interport.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 22:29:58 +0000

[Posted from WHORL, the mailing list for Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun]

Wombat,

> First, re: Seven American Nights and the egg: I believe that I have read
a
> description of Wolfe answering the question about which egg contained the
> hallucinogen, though I do not remember the specific answer. The
description
> of Wolfe's answer indicate that he seemed somewhat saddened by the fact
> that people felt they had to ask him; I sometimes suspect that Wolfe is
> upset by the degree to which we the readers attribute to him both
> infalibility and infinite cleverness. Generally, there are answers to any
> question we might have, and we just have to ask the text correctly.

I'm a little confused by this. Why should he be saddened? He writes puzzle
stories; we, the readers who like them (not a majority of the reading
public) puzzle them out and he should love the effort we put in. As an
author and a professional editor (I am also a professional editor and I
have some idea of what this entails), he was and is certainly knowledgeable
about the author's responsibility in how stories succeed in getting through
to readers. If he seemed saddened at how we +failed+ (especially of a group
like this), it seems a bit arrogant to me; it means that he was unclear or
too cryptic or that his editor was too distracted to straighten things out.

If, on the other hand, he was saddened by the general intellectual caliber
of the crowd at a convention, perhaps we should have sympathy.

-alga-

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 09:54:50 +0000

-- Begin original message --

> too cryptic or that his editor was too distracted to straighten things out.

First of all, I'm not sure I'd agree with the description of Wolfe's works as
"puzzle stories."  My impression is that Wolfe is just trying to tell stories
in which many of the things that happen are told in a subtle way, and that his 
aim is that a careful reader could catch most of what's going on.

His "sadness" is probably like when you make a comment or a subtle joke and no 
one gets it.  It's a fine line, you want people to get your jokes, but the more
subtle you can be and still have people get it, the more fun it is.  

And then some of the people you know start saying "Oh! She's being SUBTLE!" 
and proceed to find all these "hidden meanings" in everything you say.  

I'm the first to admit that I've missed major points of some of Wolfe's works
that were obvious once they were pointed out, but on the other hand, I feel
like some of the discussion on this list is streching things way beyond what
Wolfe was trying to do.  That's not to say it isn't fun or that there might 
be interesting connections that he wasn't even aware of, but I can see how it
would be frustrating for Wolfe both to find that something he thought was clear
turns out to have been too obscure for many readers and also to find people 
fixating on details that he didn't mean to attach much significance to.

Frankly, considering how many people would love to be able to write half as 
well as Wolfe, I have little sympathy for him.  :-)

-Rostrum

---

From: Kevin J. Maroney <kmaroney at crossover.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 13:12:47 +0000

>and proceed to find all these "hidden meanings" in everything you say.  

This is more or less what I think was meant. Wolfe seemed a bit distressed
at the people who think there are infinite layers of subtle meaning piled
into his stories. 

Incidentally, I think that Kathryn Locey's piece on "Seven American Nights"
is brilliant and everyone should read it, but I am biased, since I
published it. 

Hi, Alice, er, alga. 

--
Wombat

Kevin Maroney		kmaroney at crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor	New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 20:20:07 +0000

>>and proceed to find all these "hidden meanings" in everything you say.  

	Yes, it is a gestalt thing. Once you get the gestalt of a Wolfe story, you
can see how the details fit in. But if you don't "catch" the gestalt, the
details will often lead you into byways.

>at the people who think there are infinite layers of subtle meaning piled

	I tend to agree with all sides of this. Alga is right that Wolfe seems
disappointed when people don't pick up stuff that he has in the text, which
he thinks is "clearly" there (like that Weer is a ghost, for instance).
Yet, often it is clear only to him, because he put it there. I have not
found, for instance, the "obvious" fact that the family of clones in "Fifth
Head" is named Wolfe. (Maybe it's that Cerberus, though a dog, is like a
wolf?) I think Wolfe has a problem at this point, and this is virtually my
only negative criticism of his work: He packs so much into his writing that
the reader has a hard time telling what is significant and what is not.
Wolfe sometime scatters too many clues, I feel.
	Thus, people come up with the idea that Severian, for instance, is a
deceptive narrator, which, if true, renders the whole attempt to interpret
the books pretty meaningless. In other words, if the clues simply aren't
there at all, then we are left only with an interesting narrative and no
more. Which is why I don't buy this approach.
	I also think Wolfe is dismayed when people overinterpret his stuff -- but
he has asked for it! (Some of what I've seen here I'd put in that category.)
	Finally, I think Wolfe, like Tolkein before him, is a bit amazed at how
little Christianity is known and understood by SF and fantasy readers, so
that obvious references to God (such as the Outsider) are frequently
misread. So, he has to come on-line and tell us point-blank: the Outsider
is God! Fact is, though, you're not going to get Wolfe or Cordwainer Smith
right if you don't know the Bible and Dante and a few other things.
	At the same time, some people just aren't reading very carefully. The
analytical afterword in my Ace paperback edition of "Fifth Head" praises
Wolfe for not telling us whether V.R.T. is an alien shapeshifter or a human
being; in fact, it is clear he is an alien. (Ah, but why is he called V. I
get the R.T., but why the V. )

>is brilliant and everyone should read it, but I am biased, since I

	I wish you distributed it better! I was in NYC last week and shopped
several places, including SF stores, and nobody had the NYRSF, and most had
never heard of it. Is is available anywhere? Are you going to get the
articles on line?
	Hey, does anybody know if a new issue of Crank has come out? I'd like to
finish the Blaylock novel....

Nutria.

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 12:04:49 +0000

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Jim Jordan wrote:

> is God! 

Furthermore, I think it's a shame for Wolfe to say, in a context outside
the text of the novel, that the Outsider "is" God.  I'm a Christian, and
so have absolutely no objections to Wolfe writing about God 'as if he
really exists,' but it seems to be cheating somehow for Wolfe to give this
kind of extra authorial authority to God's existence in the Whorl when we
should be forced to evaluate the narrator's experiences for ourselves. 

-Rostrum