Father Inire Theory

Gerry Quinn · 05 Dec 2010, 16:16 · from 2010-December.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: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:16:27 -0000
Subject: (urth) Father Inire Theory
References: <SNT123-W23E204BACD0AB302A4A0ABCF2A0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <597EFCBBFA8A4743AD9C8D27D9279CD0@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>

> I'm not sure if this is an expression of personal interest and request for 
> an elaboration of
> my Father Inire theory or an attempt at invalidating it via reductio ad 
> absurdum. If the latter
> I will suggest, as before, that it is a waste of time. Like shooting fish 
> in a barrel. It is my
> opinion that the superficial mysteries of BotNS which can be solved by 
> careful reading, logic and
> a little research are solved. The mysteries which remain, if any do, 
> require a large dose of
> intuition.
>
> And intuition is highly individualized. Someone else's imagination is easy 
> to dismiss as
> ridiculous.  I'm not sure if there is any way to know if the intuitive 
> theories which are now
> being proprosed are entirely the product of the imagination of the 
> theorist or if that imagination
> happens to match the imagination of Gene Wolfe as he was writing BotNs.

There *is* a way to know, or at least to make some determination of 
likelihood.  That is to examine the ways in which these theories are 
supported or contradicted by the text.

Intuition is not an ability unique to certain inspired readers.  Those 
readers who developed the theories you disdain as "superficial" used their 
intuition too, but they also attended to the text as a whole; they shaped 
their theories, you might say, between the hammer of intuition and the anvil 
of rationality.  (And the work is not done, but there are indications that 
some progress has been made.)

The point Jeff is making is that anyone with an imagination can come up with 
a million arbitrary theories, but they are only meaningful once they find 
support in the text.  Granted, it is possible to assert that a text supports 
almost any interpretation, so long as one is sufficiently free in explaining 
away apparent contradictions and logical leaps.  But if one takes this view, 
then all readings are equally valid, and no reading - however absurd - is 
worth any more than another.

- Gerry Quinn

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