Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59

David Stockhoff · 03 Feb 2009, 23:42 · from 2009-February.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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:42:16 -0500
Subject: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 53, Issue 59
In-Reply-To: <mailman.11011.1232670058.2909.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
References: <mailman.11011.1232670058.2909.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <4988D658.6030704 at verizon.net>

Dan'l

Frankly, the way you appoint yourself Guardian of the Sacred Texts rubs me the wrong way. Besides, it's a cliche that such Guardians often turn out to have been protecting only their own parochial perspectives and interpretations, not the Texts themselves. So why bother?

This is where we disagree: "As a result, it is legitimate to say that Severian is "Christ-like," but
not to say that he is "a Christ." "

Logically, that rule can only legitimately operate within Wolfe's belief system. Since I don't operate or observe from within Wolfe's belief system, I don't have to follow it. I am free to use ordinary terms in their ordinary senses.

The only way there can be a difference between these 2 statements is if you accept Wolfe's beliefs, essentially, as your own, as the basis of your critical process---as unquestioned assumptions made before you even start thinking about his works. To me, there is no difference, and if I can see no difference while I acknowledge---and factor into my analysis---that Wolfe sees a difference, then I do no violence to Wolfe's work. 

Indeed, I can put Wolfe's apparent beliefs on and off like a hat, just as though I were reading any mythological literature from an alien civilization that I don't and can't entirely understand and whose basic beliefs I don't share. This is an especially important point in light of Wolfe's own tearing down and building up of other people's mythologies. All he does is privilege a certain interpretation of a literary or mythological figure. So what?

It's s subtle distinction, I suppose, but it means a lot to me, and therefore I ask you (and brunians) to respect it and not peremptorily demand that I or anyone else bow to any belief system. 

To summarize, I don't have a problem with Wolfe as a privileged interpreter of his own work---but he can be wrong. And so can his interpreters.

David

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:55:57 -0800
From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Silk corrupted?
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID:
	<1f7617370901221555l6ffc9d9ft1213041e835c0b1 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:

> > These are 2 separate ideas: (1)
> >
> > What is key here is that we are interpreting a work by a writer who
> > takes the position that Jesus was a unique historical figure, the sole
> > Theoanthropos and Redeemer, an event which will not and *can* not
> > be repeated. This is *Wolfe's* position,
> > and
> > (2)
> >
> > to interpret his work in a way that violates this position is to do that
> > work a violence which I cannot condone.
> >
> > _I_ do not _accept_ Wolfe's position. I _acknowledge_ Wolfe's position. This
> > is my point.
>   

We are in agreement so far. It is necessary, in interpreting Wolfe's
work, to acknowledge his positions. To do otherwise is to
wilfully misinterpret.

> > And it hardly does violence to anything except certain people's
> > assumptions---which I reject _as assumptions_. Especially assumptions to be
> > forced on the debate as though they were _facts_. Do you see the difference?
>   

I do indeed. It is an *assumption* (or a belief) that Jesus is the unique
etc. It is a *fact* that Wolfe takes this assumption as a starting point
for his work. This fact should always be taken into account when
interpreting relevant aspects of his work.

As a result, it is legitimate to say that Severian is "Christ-like," but
not to say that he is "a Christ." The former fits the writer's
intent and assumptions; the latter does not. Unless you take an
extreme postmodernist "death of the author" point of view -- with
which I have very little sympathy, though I _do_ believe that the
text is the text and the author is not a privileged interpreter --
anyway, unless you take that position, saying that Severian is
"a Christ" is precisely what I say: a violence against Wolfe's work.

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090203-1, 02/03/2009
Tested on: 2/3/2009 6:42:17 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

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