Wolfe being clear on 5HoC

Nathan Spears · 21 Sep 2006, 21:55 · from 2006-September.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: spearofsolomon at yahoo.com (Nathan Spears)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: (urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC
In-Reply-To: <1f7617370609091832x210a855btc345aabd6e926028 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060921215533.25576.qmail at web54409.mail.yahoo.com>

I think this sort of interpretation is diversionary at best.  If what an author achieves is greater (or more significant) than what he intended, then his skill as an author has failed him in some way.  It may be interesting to look at what has "slipped out" but it would certainly not merit devoted re-reading and analysis, in my opinion.  If the author's insight into his own work is less valuable than mine, then perhaps I should find someone else to read.  

I do agree with your sentiment that the work ought to speak for itself; Wolfe also says as much in several places.  His puzzles are clearer to him than to us, though, so I don't mind when he drops a hint.

I did enjoy your comments about the "sacred"; they brought to mind Severian's exposition on the nature of sanctity.  If Wolfe is sacred because God created him (in His image), and Wolfe's urge to create gave us tBOtNS, doesn't that give it a secondhand sanctity?

----- Original Message ----
From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2006 8:32:41 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC

Adding onto what Tony says:

I don't believe that the words are "sacred" or anything. A text is
a made thing. But I also quite firmly believe that a text is what it
is, rather than what its writer may have wanted it to be, or indeed
may believe it to be. Indeed, my own experience with texts I have
written have shown me that the writer may be quite unaware of
what a text actually is. The best story I've published to date
concealed a religious message, almost an allegory, of which I
had no inkling when I wrote it but which was so painfully
obvious when a reader pointed it out to me ... well, if someone
else had written it, I wouldn't believe their claims that it was
not intentional. But there you are: the text is what it is.

To that extent, then, while I don't suggest that the writer's
external comments be utterly disregarded in interpreting a
text, those comments are of tertiary value at best. The primary
fact, we interpret, is the text, an independent object sent into
the world by its writer, and the secondary means by which
we interpret it is by observing our encounters with the text
as _readers_. The writer's intentions must yield pride of place
to both the text as a fact and the encounter with the text as
experiential data.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
http://www.danehyoakes.com
I've got a piece of braaaaain lodge in me heeead!!!
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net